Cities in the past have had many reasons to exists, almost all are essentially disappeared but some social aspects of them it's valuable for those who rule: -

Cities in the past have had many reasons to exists, almost all are essentially disappeared but some social aspects of them it's valuable for those who rule: - if you live in a dense area, in a high rise building, you do not really own anything, oh sure you might own an apartment or more than one, but they are just parts of a bigger thing, tied to it. You are not a human in nature with other humans, you are a part of an artificial ecosystem crafted and ruled by some at the top of the pyramid and to live better or you fight them and win (highly unlikely, since you own next to nothing) or you slavishly serve them and climb the hierarchy. Even if you feel free in similar ways, even MORE free in a city where without owning you still can have so many things, there you are just a part of a complex gear system you do not own. In a home you are the king/queen of a small kingdom interacting to survive and flourish with other peers; - if you live in a city you need services: traffic is a problem, so mass transport is needed, and that's a service, you can't produce food locally nor buy locally produced food, anything need to come from outside, witch are other services. When things goes well almost nobody care about the big and powerful decision allowing them to act freely, when thing goes bad almost all are in an emergency so have not much slack to discuss and decide. Not only humans are pushed to be sheep in a flock they are also bound by the artificial nature of the city as a single complex system/entity; - peoples in cities are easy surveilled, blocked, handled like a flock. In a low density area surveilling a spread population is VERY expensive and hard, blocking them it's next to impossible, depriving them of anything similarly. As a result it's possible to force people to the 2030 agenda state of things a small step at a time in a city: https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/shopping-i-cant-really-remember-what-that-is-or-how-differently-well-live-in-2030/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/s... not outside. That's the big issue with remote work: - it have allowed many fleeing the cities and live better outside them; - it told the value of owning a nice home more than being in a nice apartment in a high rise building, witch means owning anything on top of the ground vs owning just a portion of a building; - it told that's perfectly possible live and work effectively like that. Essentially remote work thought that cities are not needed anymore to live well. Unfortunately for some at the top of the social pyramid cities are deeply needed to rule, frame and profit from peoples life. Since anything that works it's here to stay in a way or another I expect remote work survive, so cities decline to be kind of interment camps without apparent bars, like certain Siberian gulag of the past where mere nature was the bars but only few will been able to remain outside, perhaps with careful actions to deprive them enough to makes life outside too expensive for most.