Usually the Economist does better at making such articles at least appear to have a veneer of substance, even if lacking, while this piece is just bare as lacki

Usually the Economist does better at making such articles at least appear to have a veneer of substance, even if lacking, while this piece is just bare as lacking it completely. > Urban scholars like Richard Florida and Edward Glaeser (who spoke about the future of cities at Policy Exchange, a British think-tank, this week) are busy trying to work out whether the rise in home-working that has occurred during the covid-19 pandemic will endure when the virus ebbs. If it does, many service jobs in cities, from baristas to taxi drivers, will disappear. Public-transport systems will struggle. The value of city-centre property will tank. The shed boom makes that outcome more likely. What a tenuous attempt at tying sheds to job loss and city center value reduction with no rationale whatsoever given. Where is the study on this topic? None is referenced or linked. The scholars referenced aren't given any context about their background, nor their current positions or research. > This article appeared in the Britain section of the print edition under the headline "Spread of the shed" Perhaps they should have stuck with the print title instead of the vapid clickbait we were given. I'd say the Economist should know better, but they've been a shadow of their former selves for quite a long time now. Found while searching one of the scholars referenced: "It is impossible to predict in advance which changes will stick, and how much and to what extent our cities and suburbs will ultimately change. Such ventures in futurism are always a fool’s game. But it is safe to say that the changes that will persist are those that make our cities safer, healthier, and more efficient." - Richard Florida