4 ms·

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

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

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?