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.
The reality is, most big city dwellers don't live any better lifestyle than others. They get up, go to work, go home and watch tv and go to bed so they can do it again tomorrow.
People generally aim to live the lifestyle that makes them the happiest, and for most of us that means some compromise. None is necessarily "better" than the other. This applies to rural, suburban/exurban, and city dwellers alike. The people living the "best" lifestyles are the people who have landed in a spot where they've had to make the fewest compromises. A lot of people think they know what they want/like and later find out that they were wrong. I know a lot of city people who ended up not actually liking the city because it's too hectic/stressful. I know a lot of suburban people who are miserable in the 'burbs but ended up there because it was the "next step" (move to the 'burbs, start a family). If you're rich, money helps eliminate some of the compromises (i.e. more space/single family in the city, suburban home closer to the city center, etc.), but that doesn't apply to most of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Blevin
All of the people now working from home will be looking to move to exurban locations as employers allow. Exurbs will be the winners here. Look for urban cores to become more blighted than ever before. One big homeless tent city and outdoor sewage treatment facility.
Of those that can continue to work from home indefinitely, some will look to move. Not all, and probably not even most. And as this whole trend continues, work from home is grating on people more and more: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/remo...etches-on.html. I think the folks out there who are eagerly rooting on the death of in-office work and cities are a little premature with their proclamations that cities are dead. More and more people want to return to an actual workplace, traffic in most major cities is on already the rise, and eventually we won't be in the midst of a pandemic anymore. Things aren't going to continue as-is forever.
Of those that can continue to work from home indefinitely, some will look to move. Not all, and probably not even most. And as this whole trend continues, work from home is grating on people more and more: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/remo...etches-on.html. I think the folks out there who are eagerly rooting on the death of in-office work and cities are a little premature with their proclamations that cities are dead. More and more people want to return to an actual workplace, traffic in most major cities is on already the rise, and eventually we won't be in the midst of a pandemic anymore. Things aren't going to continue as-is forever.
I haven't seen any good studies on this--probably too early. But, personally, I don't know of a single person that doesn't vastly prefer working from home, without the commute, the costs, the hassles of going to the office. I think the ones pushing for a return to the office are the middle managers that basically have nothing to do except for manage their troops, and without hordes of people traipsing off to meetings in a building these managers appear to be less and less needed. My small nonprofit has embraced Zoom meetings and I doubt we will ever go back. Attendance at meetings, particularly board meetings, is way up, the meetings are shorter and more frequent, and they get much more done. Lots of time is saved not printing handouts, organizing chairs, getting refreshments, chatting, etc. I suspect at first most of the WFH people are doing it from wherever they lived before, which was largely determined by how close to work they could get and live in something reasonably affordable. Now instead the workforce can live where they want to and where they can afford to have the best quality of living. For some that might continue to be a city, for others rural, and for many probably something in between.
I haven't seen any good studies on this--probably too early. But, personally, I don't know of a single person that doesn't vastly prefer working from home, without the commute, the costs, the hassles of going to the office. I think the ones pushing for a return to the office are the middle managers that basically have nothing to do except for manage their troops, and without hordes of people traipsing off to meetings in a building these managers appear to be less and less needed. My small nonprofit has embraced Zoom meetings and I doubt we will ever go back. Attendance at meetings, particularly board meetings, is way up, the meetings are shorter and more frequent, and they get much more done. Lots of time is saved not printing handouts, organizing chairs, getting refreshments, chatting, etc. I suspect at first most of the WFH people are doing it from wherever they lived before, which was largely determined by how close to work they could get and live in something reasonably affordable. Now instead the workforce can live where they want to and where they can afford to have the best quality of living. For some that might continue to be a city, for others rural, and for many probably something in between.
I think it'll be a while before we get a clear picture of what's going to happen, but my experience is the opposite of yours. Certainly, nobody misses the commute. But most everyone I work with is looking forward to go back to the office. Particularly those who have children. I don't have children, but I can't wait to be be back close to full time. For me personally, I'd love the added flexibility to work remotely as opposed to simply using time off. I'd even be happy with a mixed week (1-2 days at home, 3-4 in the office). But permanent remote work is not something I'd look forward to.
Regardless, I do think there will be some redistribution of the population (there already is). I'm just not even a little convinced it's going to mean the downfall of cities. Cities are a lot more than just offices.
I don't think the "urban renaissance" is necessarily dead, but I do think a significant number of companies are seriously rethinking their future plans concerning WFH options and how big a headquarters they really need, and where it should be located. One huge factor will also be the progression of the pandemic, and it looks like it will be a terrible winter all over the country, but especially in urban areas. Another negative at the moment is the uptick in violent crime and social unrest in many urban places. This will further exacerbate the flight of professionals who can WFH and can afford to seek other places to live, at least in the short term. One indicator of that is seen in our local school system, in a desirable quiet area with lots of second homes. The school is reporting a huge uptick in enrollment and other indicators are that many people plan on staying in their second home semi-permanently.
I don't think the "urban renaissance" is necessarily dead, but I do think a significant number of companies are seriously rethinking their future plans concerning WFH options and how big a headquarters they really need, and where it should be located. One huge factor will also be the progression of the pandemic, and it looks like it will be a terrible winter all over the country, but especially in urban areas. Another negative at the moment is the uptick in violent crime and social unrest in many urban places. This will further exacerbate the flight of professionals who can WFH and can afford to seek other places to live, at least in the short term. One indicator of that is seen in our local school system, in a desirable quiet area with lots of second homes. The school is reporting a huge uptick in enrollment and other indicators are that many people plan on staying in their second home semi-permanently.
I agree that the next several months to a year will be key in getting an idea of which way the longer trend goes. Without a doubt, the short term trend is fleeing populated areas. My family has a second home in Maine - my father has been working remotely from there since this started. My girlfriend's parents live in a ski town in Vermont. The second homes were occupied all spring (inc. the "Mud Season" that's usually devoid of out of town visitors). In both places, it seems many are considering making the move permanent or have already put the gears in motion.
I think the short term trend could morph (at least partially) into the long term if urban areas are hit disproportionately hard again this winter while suburban and rural areas are largely spared. But that's a pretty big "if." The thought early on was that COVID was really only a big issue in the big cities. That's not how it's currently playing out in the U.S., especially among areas that were hit hard early. Here's a look at daily case rates per 100,000 in Mass. The highest risk spots are urban, low income neighborhoods. These are not home to the white collar workers working remotely. The moderate and low risk spots are divided pretty evenly among rural, suburban, and urban communities. Somerville and Cambridge are the two densest cities in Massachusetts and they're both among the low risk communities. Many suburban and rural communities are higher risk. Nationwide, it's appearing more and more that everyone is going to take their hits.
Outside of a few sections of a few major cities, I don't think either violence or unrest is really a driving factor for people leaving cities. It's a sad statement on our reality, but the neighborhoods experiencing increased violence, like the highest risk COVID locations, are not where more affluent white collar residents live. It's largely where violence has existed for a long time before (including my city). I'd like to see how many people are really leaving because of the protests and unrest in some cities. While most cities still have plenty of BLM protests, the "unrest" is really restricted to a handful of spots at this point. I'm not sure it's that much of a driving force. Cities have experienced far worse with minimal lasting impact.
Many suburban and rural communities are higher risk.
I'm not sure the phrasing "are higher risk" is as appropriate as "are seeing higher infection rates right now." My belief is that the suburban and rural communities didn't see the extreme case increases the urban areas did, so everyone became complacent. Couple that with more people not believing in the virus and not taking logical precautions, like masks and distancing, and there was a recipe for superspreader events and outbreaks, like parties, weddings, gatherings indoors, etc. Those of us who live in such places and took everything seriously have been able to basically live our normal lives while not coming within 6 feet of anyone most of the time. The outbreaks have been limited to the careless, and probably will continue to be. It is really the careless that are at higher risk, but you can easily avoid those people and gatherings when living in suburbia or a rural area. From the end of March to early May I don't think I came within 6 feet of anyone other than in my household, and I left the house every day for walks, etc.
The funny thing is, I think rural America is one of the few areas that would benefit from "deindustrialization."
The "deindustrialization" I'm referring to here is that of American agriculture...
That "suburbanization" dates all the way back to the 1700s, as people, especially migrants from abroad, flocked to areas on the fringes of the cities of the time.
New York's City Hall used cheaper stone for its north-side walls when it was built ca. 1816 because the city fathers thought the city would not expand to its north. Boy, were they wrong.
Southwark and Northern Liberties both were among the nation's 10 most populous "cities" in the Census of (I think) 1800. (Or thereabouts.) At that time, they were separate municipalities — yes, "suburbs" of Philadelphia, which absorbed them in 1854.
So the trend towards metropolis has a very long pedigree in the US too.
But to your other point: I think I still have in my library a book written in the late 1970s by social critic Kirkpatrick Sale titled "Human Scale." The book was devoted entirely to the notion that our society should be reoriented around the old phrase "Man the measure of all things." Or, as he put it, "Every organism has a size beyond which it ought not grow."
Cities were (and are) organisms too, both in his view and mine. When I interviewed him about the book for my college radio station, I asked him what he thought was the optimal city size.
His answer? 50,000.
That, he explained, was large enough to support the cultural and social amenities most people desire, including things like orchestras and museums. But it was still small enough to be comprehensible to the individual citizen and governable as well.
Deindustrialization of agriculture has some merits as is probably still picking up speed from the track it's been on over the last 20 years, so there will be more labor used that way, although agriculture continues to shift it's bulk out westward to the great plains, where huge, self driving tractors and AI weed sprayers will continue to eat away at labor needed per bushel. And from an environmental standpoint, intensive agriculture is almost preferred to low intensity despite the runoff because it allows for less land to be needed for agriculture.
Interesting about suburbs. Though these places seemed to be absorbed into the urban fabric moreso than ones today are, but that might only be a matter of time.
The ideal size will always be a debate and it'll change as technology changes; fixing urban congestion / pollution and enhancing connectedness to outer rural areas. Though to take a look at China, they seem to be pretty intent that mega cities are not the ideal, they have been persueing policies for decades to grow small cities and discourage excess development in big ones. Their new masterplanned city, Xiongan, essentially is a result of Beijing being a snarled mess and a desire to decluster everything from being in one area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMansLands
I think the poll is inherently flawed. The "urban renaissance" is not dead, and staying in cities just as they are is not even a choice on the poll.
Covid will pass, people will be so happy to be right back into the lifestyle they love and are comfortable with.
That's because the data is increasingly pointing to that not being the case. Here's yet another article pointing to the shift. As it states, it wasn't just COVID, people were already trying to ditch expensive cities for years, COVID was just the catalyst. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...after-covid-19
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMansLands
I don't think the discussion about large cities is even about jobs. People would choose to live in the big city because life is great there, and commute to the suburbs if necessary to go to work!
Where else can you walk out your condo door, be within a few blocks of a subway, a single block of the bus system, half a block from a pharmacy, 10-20 restaurants all within a five minute walk, shop a bunch of boutiques, and go to a live theatre show walking there after dinner? Meet up with another crew of friends late at night for some wine, again, those friends came from all over the city and will after drinks and desserts disappear too into the night into their cabs, busses, and subways?
You can't get that type of life in the suburbs and you sure can't get it rural. Frankly, imho, suburbs absolutely suck and they're all about maintaining a perfect lawn, yawn. Either live in the country because you love open land and don't like being in crowds, or live in a vibrant pulsating city. Suburbs are just a sucky way to have an 1/8 acre plot to mow. But those that think the suburbs are the cat's meow need to realize that millions of people think suburbs are the definition of boring.
But more people live in urban areas than actually prefer to according to studies I can't find now, and that's because of jobs. The activities you mentioned, minus the subway and bus and drinking without driving, could be had in most small cities in the US. The problem I had living in a big city was that I could get those same option, repeated over and over again in all the different hip districts of Denver, but if I wanted to take a walk in the woods, I couldn't do that unless I drove 35 minutes. I walk in the woods more than I visit boutiques.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T. Damon
At least out west a lot of those places are considered wildland-urban interface zones where there often is an increased fire risk so you might be in the beautiful mountains but your home-owners insurance costs will likely be exorbitant, if you can find any. Maybe leaving the frying pan (“dangerous” city) into the fire.
I know some folks looking at a house in Montecito (Santa Barbara area), nice 3000 s.f. stucco Spanish with tile roof, seemingly not a super high fire risk, and were quoted $25k/year homeowners insurance! Of course the mudslides a couple of years ago didn’t help but I think you will be seeing more of those perceived risks affecting “rural” areas in western states as more people locate out there and build houses.
Totally agree. I grew up in Black Forest, which burned in 2013, while I was there. The parts that got destroyed were the original development of cheap homes housed by poorer older people. This happened because they never bothered or couldn't clear out the overgrowth of trees that cropped up. Newer houses with younger people had done a better job at thinning. This jives with what others have posted on this thread, that rural lifestyle requires work, which may be fine for 50-60 year olds, but is just difficult for 70-80 year olds in worsening health.
I'm not sure the phrasing "are higher risk" is as appropriate as "are seeing higher infection rates right now." My belief is that the suburban and rural communities didn't see the extreme case increases the urban areas did, so everyone became complacent. Couple that with more people not believing in the virus and not taking logical precautions, like masks and distancing, and there was a recipe for superspreader events and outbreaks, like parties, weddings, gatherings indoors, etc. Those of us who live in such places and took everything seriously have been able to basically live our normal lives while not coming within 6 feet of anyone most of the time. The outbreaks have been limited to the careless, and probably will continue to be. It is really the careless that are at higher risk, but you can easily avoid those people and gatherings when living in suburbia or a rural area. From the end of March to early May I don't think I came within 6 feet of anyone other than in my household, and I left the house every day for walks, etc.
My experience in an urban neighborhood is actually somewhat similar to yours. We have taken it seriously and wear our mask when we can't get the 6ft of separation (which isn't the majority of the time). We take long walks every day (explored areas of town I've never really seen). Now, restaurants are open (with great new outdoor seating areas), and people are out and about. It's nice - almost normal (apart from the mask which really isn't a huge issue). It's been pretty easy to space out, even here. This summer, I've actually experienced more adherence to mask wearing and efforts to distance in the city than I have in suburban stores or some of the beach/lake towns we've visited in the region.
My experience in an urban neighborhood is actually somewhat similar to yours.
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.
all this remote work talk is going to end as soon as we get a virtual virus released or huge security issues or network problem. our technology is not robust enough to sustain 50% of office population to be working from home. but i do hope work place becomes more flexible with schedule & allows a mix setup
But if a person has to come to work 2 days a week, they might be willing to do 1+hr drive to live in exburbs for the bigger house.
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.
