3 ms·

Working remotely is one aspect. A counter aspect might be the lack of infrastructure in non-urban areas. Stare and local finances are getting strained. Without

Working remotely is one aspect. A counter aspect might be the lack of infrastructure in non-urban areas. Stare and local finances are getting strained. Without a large infrastructure bill, established cities are the only place to put people. Another aspect will be the high costs to build the new housing needed to support a trend like this. Those costs might not make non-urban areas much cheaper than using existing housing stock in large cities.

ghaff 6y ago
It's not a choice between Manhattan and the back of beyond though. Even many larger cities have exurb or even rural areas within about an hour drive where property prices, depending on the town, can be fairly affordable even if the downtown is not. It's hard to say how many people who migrated to truly urban living take this as a sign that they should at least move out to the suburbs (where their job is anyway in many cases). I do think that, for jobs that can be done remotely, a lot of companies are going to move away from everyone needing to be in the office all the time--though I suspect very few will go entirely remote.
- take_a_breath 6y ago
  This is kind of my point. Most places within an hour drive of established cities are pretty well settled. To accommodate new people towns either have to start building more housing (costs increase) or those people will have to move 1 hour and 15 minutes outside the city. Rinse and repeat until the formula doesn’t look as beneficial.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    On the other hand, the migration into cities that we hear so much about is mostly among a fairly narrow demographic (young and college educated) and isn't really a huge number in percentage terms. (And it's essentially just a reversal of a net outflow that took place over decades.) So I'm not really convinced that if some of the people who thought urban living was for them now have second thoughts, there will be a lot of problems accommodating them with housing. And again, a lot of the jobs are out in those suburbs anyway. A lot of the people who moved into cities did so because they wanted to, not because they could walk to their jobs from there.
    - take_a_breath 6y ago
      If it isn’t really a trend, then it can’t really reverse. The economics depend entirely on how many people have these “second thoughts”. If it’s “a lot”, relative to those who live in cities, then it will absolutely lead to housing issues outside of cities. Which will lead to infrastructure issues (schools, water, roads, libraries, community centers, etc.). Which will lead to tax increases to pay for infrastructure. Then the cycle will kick off again.
      - ghaff 6y ago
        It's very hard to say about those "second thoughts." If the current situation turns out to be basically a blip, that's one thing. If living in dense cities turns out to carry a significant incremental health risk vs. suburbs/exurbs, that's something else. Furthermore, the (somewhat) shift back into cities is counter the trend in the second half of the 20th century. Is it a real trend or a temporary fashion?

ghaff 6y ago

It's not a choice between Manhattan and the back of beyond though. Even many larger cities have exurb or even rural areas within about an hour drive where property prices, depending on the town, can be fairly affordable even if the downtown is not. It's hard to say how many people who migrated to truly urban living take this as a sign that they should at least move out to the suburbs (where their job is anyway in many cases). I do think that, for jobs that can be done remotely, a lot of companies are going to move away from everyone needing to be in the office all the time--though I suspect very few will go entirely remote.

take_a_breath 6y ago
This is kind of my point. Most places within an hour drive of established cities are pretty well settled. To accommodate new people towns either have to start building more housing (costs increase) or those people will have to move 1 hour and 15 minutes outside the city. Rinse and repeat until the formula doesn’t look as beneficial.
- ghaff 6y ago
  On the other hand, the migration into cities that we hear so much about is mostly among a fairly narrow demographic (young and college educated) and isn't really a huge number in percentage terms. (And it's essentially just a reversal of a net outflow that took place over decades.) So I'm not really convinced that if some of the people who thought urban living was for them now have second thoughts, there will be a lot of problems accommodating them with housing. And again, a lot of the jobs are out in those suburbs anyway. A lot of the people who moved into cities did so because they wanted to, not because they could walk to their jobs from there.
  - take_a_breath 6y ago
    If it isn’t really a trend, then it can’t really reverse. The economics depend entirely on how many people have these “second thoughts”. If it’s “a lot”, relative to those who live in cities, then it will absolutely lead to housing issues outside of cities. Which will lead to infrastructure issues (schools, water, roads, libraries, community centers, etc.). Which will lead to tax increases to pay for infrastructure. Then the cycle will kick off again.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      It's very hard to say about those "second thoughts." If the current situation turns out to be basically a blip, that's one thing. If living in dense cities turns out to carry a significant incremental health risk vs. suburbs/exurbs, that's something else. Furthermore, the (somewhat) shift back into cities is counter the trend in the second half of the 20th century. Is it a real trend or a temporary fashion?