A map of U.S. data centers. Courtesy of Rice Businesses Wisdom

A new study shows why some facilities cluster in cities for speed and access, while others move to rural regions in search of scale and lower costs. Based on research by Tommy Pan Fang (Rice Business) and Shane Greenstein (Harvard).

Key findings:

  • Third-party colocation centers are physical facilities in close proximity to firms that use them, while cloud providers operate large data centers from a distance and sell access to virtualized computing resources as on‑demand services over the internet.
  • Hospitals and financial firms often require urban third-party centers for low latency and regulatory compliance, while batch processing and many AI workloads can operate more efficiently from lower-cost cloud hubs.
  • For policymakers trying to attract data centers, access to reliable power, water and high-capacity internet matter more than tax incentives.

Recent outages and the surge in AI-driven computing have made data center siting decisions more consequential than ever, especially as energy and water constraints tighten. Communities invest public dollars on the promise of jobs and growth, while firms weigh long-term commitments to land, power and connectivity.

Against that backdrop, a critical question comes into focus: Where do data centers get built — and what actually drives those decisions?

A new study by Tommy Pan Fang (Rice Business) and Shane Greenstein (Harvard Business School) provides the first large-scale statistical analysis of data center location strategies across the United States. It offers policymakers and firms a clearer starting point for understanding how different types of data centers respond to economic and strategic incentives.

Forthcoming in the journal Strategy Science, the study examines two major types of infrastructure: third-party colocation centers that lease server space to multiple firms, and hyperscale cloud centers owned by providers like Amazon, Google and Microsoft.

Two Models, Two Location Strategies

The study draws on pre-pandemic data from 2018 and 2019, a period of relative geographic stability in supply and demand. This window gives researchers a clean baseline before remote work, AI demand and new infrastructure pressures began reshaping internet traffic patterns.

The findings show that data centers follow a bifurcated geography. Third-party centers cluster in dense urban markets, where buyers prioritize proximity to customers despite higher land and operating costs. Cloud providers, by contrast, concentrate massive sites in a small number of lower-density regions, where electricity, land and construction are cheaper and economies of scale are easier to achieve.

Third-party data centers, in other words, follow demand. They locate in urban markets where firms in finance, healthcare and IT value low latency, secure storage, and compliance with regulatory standards.

Using county-level data, the researchers modeled how population density, industry mix and operating costs predict where new centers enter. Every U.S. metro with more than 700,000 residents had at least one third-party provider, while many mid-sized cities had none.

ImageThis pattern challenges common assumptions. Third-party facilities are more distributed across urban America than prevailing narratives suggest.

Customer proximity matters because some sectors cannot absorb delay. In critical operations, even slight pauses can have real consequences. For hospital systems, lag can affect performance and risk exposure. And in high-frequency trading, milliseconds can determine whether value is captured or lost in a transaction.

“For industries where speed is everything, being too far from the physical infrastructure can meaningfully affect performance and risk,” Pan Fang says. “Proximity isn’t optional for sectors that can’t absorb delay.”

The Economics of Distance

For cloud providers, the picture looks very different. Their decisions follow a logic shaped primarily by cost and scale. Because cloud services can be delivered from afar, firms tend to build enormous sites in low-density regions where power is cheap and land is abundant.

These facilities can draw hundreds of megawatts of electricity and operate with far fewer employees than urban centers. “The cloud can serve almost anywhere,” Pan Fang says, “so location is a question of cost before geography.”

The study finds that cloud infrastructure clusters around network backbones and energy economics, not talent pools. Well-known hubs like Ashburn, Virginia — often called “Data Center Alley” — reflect this logic, having benefited from early network infrastructure that made them natural convergence points for digital traffic.

Local governments often try to lure data centers with tax incentives, betting they will create high-tech jobs. But the study suggests other factors matter more to cloud providers, including construction costs, network connectivity and access to reliable, affordable electricity.

When cloud centers need a local presence, distance can sometimes become a constraint. Providers often address this by working alongside third-party operators. “Third-party centers can complement cloud firms when they need a foothold closer to customers,” Pan Fang says.

That hybrid pattern — massive regional hubs complementing strategic colocation — may define the next phase of data center growth.

Looking ahead, shifts in remote work, climate resilience, energy prices and AI-driven computing may reshape where new facilities go. Some workloads may move closer to users, while others may consolidate into large rural hubs. Emerging data-sovereignty rules could also redirect investment beyond the United States.

“The cloud feels weightless,” Pan Fang says, “but it rests on real choices about land, power and proximity.”

---

This article originally appeared on Rice Business Wisdom. Written by Scott Pett.

Pan Fang and Greenstein (2025). “Where the Cloud Rests: The Economic Geography of Data Centers,” forthcoming in Strategy Science.

There's no crystal ball, but this researcher from Rice University is trying to see if some metrics work for economic forecasting. Photo via Getty Images

Houston researcher tries to crack the code on the Fed's data to determine economic outlook

houston voices

Research by Rice Business Professor K. Ramesh shows that the Fed appears to harvest qualitative information from the accounting disclosures that all public companies must file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

These SEC filings are typically used by creditors, investors and others to make firm-level investing and financing decisions; and while they include business leaders’ sense of economic trends, they are never intended to guide macro-level policy decisions. But in a recent paper (“Externalities of Accounting Disclosures: Evidence from the Federal Reserve”), Ramesh and his colleagues provide persuasive evidence that the Fed nonetheless uses the qualitative information in SEC filings to help forecast the growth of macroeconomic variables like GDP and unemployment.

According to Ramesh, the study was made possible thanks to a decision the SEC made several years ago. The commission stores the reports submitted by public companies in an online database called EDGAR and records the IP address of any party that accesses them. More than a decade ago, the SEC began making partially anonymized forms of those IP addresses available to the public. But researchers eventually figured out how to deanonymize the addresses, which is precisely what Ramesh and his colleagues did in this study.

"We were able to reverse engineer and identify those IP addresses that belonged to Federal Reserve staff," Ramesh says.

The team ultimately assembled a data set containing more than 169,000 filings accessed by Fed staff between 2005 and 2015. They quickly realized that the Fed was interested only in filings submitted by a select group of industry leaders and financial institutions.

But if Ramesh and his colleagues now had a better idea of precisely which bellwether firms the Fed focused on, they still had no way of knowing exactly what Fed staffers had gleaned from the material they accessed. So the team decided to employ a measure called "tone" that captures the overall sentiment of a piece of text – whether positive, negative, or neutral.

Building on previous research that had identified a set of words with negatively toned financial reports, Ramesh and his colleagues examined the tone of all the SEC filings accessed by Fed staff between one meeting of the Federal Open Markets Committee (FOMC) and the next. The FOMC sets interest rates and guides monetary policy, and its meetings provide an opportunity for Fed officials to discuss growth forecasts and announce policy decisions.

The researchers then examined the Fed's growth forecasts to see if there was a relationship between the tone of the documents that Fed staff examined in the period between FOMC meetings and the forecasts they produced in advance of those meetings.

The team found close correlations between the tone of the reports accessed by the Fed and the agency’s forecasts of GDP, unemployment, housing starts and industrial production. The more negative the filings accessed prior to an FOMC meeting, for example, the gloomier the GDP forecast; the more positive the filings, the brighter the unemployment forecast.

Ramesh and his colleagues also compared the Fed's forecasts with those of the Society of Professional Forecasters (SPF), whose members span academia and industry. Intriguingly, the researchers found that while the errors in the SPF's forecasts could be attributed to the absence of the tonal information culled from the SEC filings, the errors in the Fed’s forecasts could not. This suggests both that the Fed was collecting qualitative information that the SPF was not—and that the agency was making remarkably efficient use of it.

"They weren’t leaving anything on the table," Ramesh says.

Having solved one mystery, Ramesh would like to focus on another; namely, how does the Fed identify bellwether firms in the first place?

Unfortunately, the SEC no longer makes IP address data publicly available, which means that Ramesh and his colleagues can no longer study which companies the Fed is most interested in. Nonetheless, Ramesh hopes to use the data they have already collected to build a model that can accurately predict which firms the Fed is most likely to follow. That would allow the team to continue studying the same companies that the Fed does, and, he says, “maybe come up with a way to track those firms in order to understand how the economy is going to move.”

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from K. Ramesh is Herbert S. Autrey Professor of Accounting at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Johnson Space Center and UT partner to expand research, workforce development

onward and upward

NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston has forged a partnership with the University of Texas System to expand collaboration on research, workforce development and education that supports space exploration and national security.

“It’s an exciting time for the UT System and NASA to come together in new ways because Texas is at the epicenter of America’s space future. It’s an area where America is dominant, and we are committed as a university system to maintaining and growing that dominance,” Dr. John Zerwas, chancellor of the UT System, said in a news release.

Vanessa Wyche, director of Johnson Space Center, added that the partnership with the UT System “will enable us to meet our nation’s exploration goals and advance the future of space exploration.”

The news release noted that UT Health Houston and the UT Medical Branch in Galveston already collaborate with NASA. The UT Medical Branch’s aerospace medicine residency program and UT Health Houston’s space medicine program train NASA astronauts.

“We’re living through a unique moment where aerospace innovation, national security, economic transformation, and scientific discovery are converging like never before in Texas," Zerwas said. “UT institutions are uniquely positioned to partner with NASA in building a stronger and safer Texas.”

Zerwas became chancellor of the UT System in 2025. He joined the system in 2019 as executive vice chancellor for health affairs. Zerwas represented northwestern Ford Bend County in the Texas House from 2007 to 2019.

In 1996, he co-founded a Houston-area medical practice that became part of US Anesthesia Partners in 2012. He remained active in the practice until joining the UT System. Zerwas was chief medical officer of the Memorial Hermann Hospital System from 2003 to 2008 and was its chief physician integration officer until 2009.

Zerwas, a 1973 graduate of the Houston area’s Bellaire High School, is an alumnus of the University of Houston and Baylor College of Medicine.

Texas booms as No. 3 best state to start a business right now

Innovation Starts Here

High employment growth and advantageous entrepreneurship rates have led Texas into a triumphant No. 3 spot in WalletHub's ranking of "Best and Worst States to Start a Business" for 2026.

Texas bounced back into the No. 3 spot nationally for the first time since 2023. After dropping into 8th place in 2024, the state hustled into No. 4 last year.

Ever year, WalletHub compares all 50 states based on their business environment, costs, and access to financial resources to determine the best places for starting a business. The study analyzes 25 relevant metrics to determine the rankings, such as labor costs, office space affordability, financial accessibility, the number of startups per capita, and more.

When about half of all new businesses don't last more than five years, finding the right environment for a startup is vital for long-term success, the report says.

Here's how Texas ranked across the three main categories in the study:

  • No. 1 – Business environment
  • No. 11 – Access to resources
  • No. 34 – Business costs

The state boasts the 10th highest entrepreneurship rates nationwide, and it has the 11th-highest share of fast-growing firms. WalletHub also noted that more than half (53 percent) of all Texas businesses are located in "strong clusters," which suggests they are more likely to be successful long-term.

"Clusters are interconnected businesses that specialize in the same field, and 'strong clusters' are ones that are in the top 25 percent of all regions for their particular specialization," the report said. "If businesses fit into one of these clusters, they will have an easier time getting the materials they need, and can tap into an existing customer base. To some degree, it might mean more competition, though."

Texas business owners should also keep their eye on Houston, which was recently ranked the 7th best U.S. city for starting a new business, and it was dubbed one of the top-10 tech hubs in North America. Workers in Texas are the "third-most engaged" in the country, the study added, a promising attribute for employers searching for the right place to begin their next business venture.

"Business owners in Texas benefit from favorable conditions, as the state has the third-highest growth in working-age population and the third-highest employment growth in the country, too," the report said.

The top 10 best states for starting a business in 2026 are:

  • No. 1 – Florida
  • No. 2 – Utah
  • No. 3 – Texas
  • No. 4 – Oklahoma
  • No. 5 – Idaho
  • No. 6 – Mississippi
  • No. 7 – Georgia
  • No. 8 – Indiana
  • No. 9 – Nevada
  • No. 10 – California
---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.