Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I and others talk a lot about how walkability is important to us where we live, but "driveability" is also important during a pandemic. In a small city you can probably easily drive in a few minutes to a vast supermarket or store like a Costco or BJs. Before we had the lockdown my wife saw it coming and stocked up our house with close to three months of staples, toilet paper, etc. We then had to only purchase fresh food maybe once every two weeks, and at a giant store where you could easily stay six feet apart from everyone. Can't do that in your apartment in the big city. Where I live I can walk out the front door of my house and go for nice walks of up to several miles, including large natural parks. But, many others in suburban or rural areas could hop in the car, drive 15-30 minutes, and be in a beautiful park or on a natural trail. Driving is a safe way to get around when the pandemic is raging. Just owning a car in many urban places is a huge hassle. Urban areas are dependent on public transport, which many of us will not want to go near if the pandemic is raging. Point being, the car culture so decried by urbanists is hugely beneficial during a pandemic. New Yorkers buying more cars: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/s...gtype=Homepage
I and others talk a lot about how walkability is important to us where we live, but "driveability" is also important during a pandemic. In a small city you can probably easily drive in a few minutes to a vast supermarket or store like a Costco or BJs. Before we had the lockdown my wife saw it coming and stocked up our house with close to three months of staples, toilet paper, etc. We then had to only purchase fresh food maybe once every two weeks, and at a giant store where you could easily stay six feet apart from everyone. Can't do that in your apartment in the big city. Where I live I can walk out the front door of my house and go for nice walks of up to several miles, including large natural parks. But, many others in suburban or rural areas could hop in the car, drive 15-30 minutes, and be in a beautiful park or on a natural trail. Driving is a safe way to get around when the pandemic is raging. Just owning a car in many urban places is a huge hassle. Urban areas are dependent on public transport, which many of us will not want to go near if the pandemic is raging. Point being, the car culture so decried by urbanists is hugely beneficial during a pandemic. New Yorkers buying more cars: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/s...gtype=Homepage
The airflow in a typical subway car is actually much better than it is in a restaurant, office or school. Your trip on public transit is actually the least risky part of your trip somewhere other than the walk to and from the bus stop or train station:
Now, I'll grant that one reason why this is so is because the cars aren't filled to capacity and all the riders are (or are supposed to be) wearing masks. But as long as both of these conditions are also met, there's really little or no reason to be afraid to board that bus or train as long as you are taking the necessary precautions too (and the mask really protects others from your exhaust more than it protects you from others' exhaust, but that makes a big difference nonetheless).
I live a five-minute walk away from a free-to-visit private arboretum founded by a bunch of Quaker families in the mid-19th century. It's about a 15-minute bike ride to the Wissahickon Valley Park, one of the best urban wilds in the country.
My apartment comprises one floor of a converted three-story rowhouse (Philadelphia's dominant house type; in no other city do rowhouses make up as high a percentage of the housing stock as they do in this one. Many of them have front and/or rear yards, small though they may be). I'm only one person, so a Costco membership makes little sense to me, but were I to have one, I can always book a car share and drive to the nearest location in South Philadelphia. Meanwhile, there's a 40k sf supermarket a three-block walk from me, and I find that Aldi, a limited-selection, no-service, deep-discount supermarket with a location about a 10-minute bus ride from me, has many of the things I use most often at prices only Costco beats. If I need something I can't find at either of these, my next option is a Walmart supercenter served by four bus lines in South Philadelphia; if I don't need to buy lots of stuff there, I can always haul my granny cart onto the bus to the subway to the other bus.
I will grant that this is less practical for a family of four. But I recount all this by way of remarking that city living in the time of COVID isn't quite the PITA many, including you, make it out to be here.
I will grant that this is less practical for a family of four. But I recount all this by way of remarking that city living in the time of COVID isn't quite the PITA many, including you, make it out to be here.
It sounds like you have it pretty good compared to the people who I know that live in urban areas. In any case, it is obviously possible to continue to live in the city, but how many will want to jump onto the subway, despite its wonderful airflow?
People were already fleeing urban areas before the virus because of rental prices skyrocketing. Since March there has been a huge influx of people into smaller cities and towns. I think this is going to continue. The only thing that will drive some people back to the larger urban centers will be corporate push back against working from home. As long as people can port their jobs or find comparable work opportunities in smaller cities, I think they're going to continue to leave. I think after all of this settles (5+ years from now?) people are going to want to return to the larger urban areas. It will be interesting to watch.
It sounds like you have it pretty good compared to the people who I know that live in urban areas. In any case, it is obviously possible to continue to live in the city, but how many will want to jump onto the subway, despite its wonderful airflow?
Go back and reread the third paragraph of my response; I acknowledge that one reason why the subways are safer than many other indoor environments right now is precisely because so many fewer people are riding them. Personally speaking, I shouldn't be touting their better airflow so much; keeping the rest of you scared makes my subway trip safer.
Were the Lexington Avenue line (6 local) in New York filled the way it usually is, we would be reading about COVID clusters on that line, better airflow be damned. We might also be reading about outbreaks on the Market-Frankford Line here too, but on the Broad Street Line, probably not except on a peak-hour train.
People were already fleeing urban areas before the virus because of rental prices skyrocketing. Since March there has been a huge influx of people into smaller cities and towns. I think this is going to continue. The only thing that will drive some people back to the larger urban centers will be corporate push back against working from home. As long as people can port their jobs or find comparable work opportunities in smaller cities, I think they're going to continue to leave. I think after all of this settles (5+ years from now?) people are going to want to return to the larger urban areas. It will be interesting to watch.
I agree with your first sentence as it applies to the more expensive cities, and oddly enough, what I'm seeing and hearing from real estate agents where I live is that New Yorkers are calling to scope out locations in Bucks County or even the Main Line.
There is some flight to the 'burbs from the city here too, but most of it is driven not by price differences but by a desire for more space around one's residence. And houses in the city that are priced right continue to sell like hotcakes because inventory is at an all-time low, and interest rates are just about there too. It's mainly at the luxury end of the market that city-dwellers in Philly who might not have moved otherwise are relocating to its suburbs.
And I agree with the rest of your observation as well. But I think some of that "porting their jobs" stuff will be income-bound. Given that most of the WFH positions pay above the median, however, the income constraints might not be all that limiting.
I've lived in Somerville and Cambridge, and unless something has changed recently density/crowding on the street is a completely different magnitude than what I am talking about in suburban/rural areas. OTOH, the main danger appears to be mostly congregating indoors. In any case, I think people will find many other reasons to wish to be further from urban areas as the pandemic progresses. If your enjoyment comes from urban things like theaters, restaurants, sports, shopping, what is the point if all of that is shut down or too uncomfortable to go to? Remember, we're in a lull right now, and things are going to get much worse over the winter with college students returning to the Boston area from all over, and when those outdoor restaurants won't be operating.
There are, of course, more people on the streets and sidewalks in the city than in the 'burbs. But the pedestrian infrastructure is almost always better in the city than in the 'burbs. And apart from the few main roads here, it's not hard to give adequate spacing. Even if it means crossing to the other side, or stepping out into the street. Many streets have also been converted to "shared streets" which are for local traffic only and allow pedestrians and cyclists to use the whole street. In short, spacing isn't an issue on foot. Walking here is pretty pleasant and enjoyable.
Even if this is a lull and it gets worse in the winter (you're certain it's going to, we don't know for sure), that's still a relative short-term problem when looking at the outlook for the next several years and beyond. If we go years without being able to go to restaurants (which are open for indoor dining and likely will be in the winter too), theaters (also open), sports, shopping (again, open and will be in the winter), etc. then sure, I can see an exodus from cities. But if that's the case, we have bigger things to worry about than going to the bar or seeing a game.
People were already fleeing urban areas before the virus because of rental prices skyrocketing. Since March there has been a huge influx of people into smaller cities and towns. I think this is going to continue. The only thing that will drive some people back to the larger urban centers will be corporate push back against working from home. As long as people can port their jobs or find comparable work opportunities in smaller cities, I think they're going to continue to leave. I think after all of this settles (5+ years from now?) people are going to want to return to the larger urban areas. It will be interesting to watch.
I think we had just about near peak in terms of rental prices that people would tolerate in many cities. This is certainly going to expedite the market correction on that front.
The thing that seems lost on some people though is that current practice for many companies (at least in my field and some similar fields) is to pay salaries based on where the person lives, not where the office is. So if a corporate employee based out of San Francisco wants to flee the city and move to rural Oklahoma, they're no longer going to be paid San Francisco wages. That's going to pose challenges for people considering leaving the city as it'll often lead to a dramatic pay cut. I'm not convinced that practice will change. Professional wages are determined by a number of factors, but local cost of living is one of the primary ones. I don't see many major companies budging on that practice.
I think we had just about near peak in terms of rental prices that people would tolerate in many cities. This is certainly going to expedite the market correction on that front.
The thing that seems lost on some people though is that current practice for many companies (at least in my field and some similar fields) is to pay salaries based on where the person lives, not where the office is. So if a corporate employee based out of San Francisco wants to flee the city and move to rural Oklahoma, they're no longer going to be paid San Francisco wages. That's going to pose challenges for people considering leaving the city as it'll often lead to a dramatic pay cut. I'm not convinced that practice will change. Professional wages are determined by a number of factors, but local cost of living is one of the primary ones. I don't see many major companies budging on that practice.
The bolded is true when it comes to onboarding new employees, but when it comes to internal employees transferring from a high COL to a low COL location, it has been best practice in many companies to let you keep your salary. At least that's how it works at my company (F100).
And it makes sense when you think about it. The expense is already grandfathered in and it's a low effort way to boost morale. On top of that, the employee is less likely to job hop for other opportunities if you're paying them well above what the local market rate is.
Of course, with COVID-19 potentially changing the work arrangements that have been standard until now, that could change. But so far, only Facebook has publicly gone on record to say they'll cut people's salaries in response.
Last edited by citidata18; 08-12-2020 at 11:53 AM..
The average young millenials starting out with families would not be able to survive in legit rural areas. Neither would most Americans who are used to city/suburban living for the vast majority of their lives. So far cut off from resources they're so used to in big cities. Stores in nearby towns not being open past 7pm, bad internet, not enough people to chat up with nearby etc. Even with COVID, nobody wants to drive a dozen or more miles just to get to the grocery store. The myth of city people in mass moving out to the secluded countryside with a big lot and farm is just not true, and probably never will be.
People are however moving to smaller cities and the suburbs. I think mid-size, lower profile cities will keep growing. I do think urbanist forced out of big cities however will continue to value historic, pre-war cities/suburbs with urban amenities (like commuter rail access, walkability, downtowns) over sprawling, characterless exurbs.
Completely agree. We're seeing them buy up properties where I am - small, semi-rural town an hour from a major metro. I laugh at most of them...coming in their designer clothes. They are sooooo not prepared for winter here. They're coming from downstate and other states south of here. We are near the snowiest metro in the nation. They have no clue what is coming. They won't stay long....they never do.
Stores open past 7? Try 5 pm Tuesday - Saturday. Handful of places for dinner. McDonald's and Dominos are the chain restaurants here. Literally. Internet doesn't even exist in much of the surrounding area outside of the downtown. Then there's that pesky little thing called a job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
