Covid induced flight to the burbs and heartland: Long term??

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by craigs

Covid induced flight to the burbs and heartland: Do we have evidence to prove this is even a real thing?

Nope.

It doesn't even make any sense. Can someone explain why a family who preferred urban living pre-Covid would prefer suburban or rural living post-Covid?

Tons of wealthy urbanites, especially in the NY area, have weekend homes. During the height of Covid, everyone went to their weekend homes, since you obviously wanted to be outdoors instead of stuck in an apartment. But since Labor Day, almost everyone has returned.

The whole "rural boom" has dissipated. In fact prices for weekend properties have dropped since September. People aren't gonna take their kids out of Ivy League factories to some random rural school, and say good bye to all their friends, colleagues and favorite haunts for some backwoods cabin. And, at least in the Northeast, the weekend homes are on well water/septic, usually have rougher climate, with frequently snowed-in roads. These aren't for full-time residency.

Even the Hamptons have very limited winter amenities, and really only one small private school of note. Only a handful of wealthy will live year-round in the Hamptons.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Nope.

It doesn't even make any sense. Can someone explain why a family who preferred urban living pre-Covid would prefer suburban or rural living post-Covid?

Tons of wealthy urbanites, especially in the NY area, have weekend homes. During the height of Covid, everyone went to their weekend homes, since you obviously wanted to be outdoors instead of stuck in an apartment. But since Labor Day, almost everyone has returned.

The whole "rural boom" has dissipated. In fact prices for weekend properties have dropped since September. People aren't gonna take their kids out of Ivy League factories to some random rural school, and say good bye to all their friends and colleagues for some backwoods cabin.

theres a difference between “does it make sense for rich people” and “is it happening?”

its a thing in big california cities for well educated but financially lower middle class people who are almost 40 and have been renting their entire lives to stay in west LA or commutable to central los angeles or the bay area and now are free from the commute but want to stay (and finally buy) in california.

again, you’re speaking for wealthy people or people with access to family resources that insulate them from a lower middle class or even working class material reality.

[chris08876]

Some of these folks are moving to the suburbs because they can't afford the city.

For example, in NYC, those folks fleeing are due to prices. They were leaving prior to that, as they have been for years and years. Folks aren't leaving because of Corona.

Corona just pushed them to make the move given lower interest rates, and a prime time to make a purchase, but it was bound to happen for those that can't afford or are beyond their comfort zone for cost-of-living. Similar in California.

You'll see younger kin buying homes as well. AGAIN, PRIME TIME for home purchasing. Lower interest rates, housing price drops, and occupants dying off, so prime time for buying a home. Assuming one has a job or stable income of course.

In some cities, due to lower rents or price drops on condos and so on, a good opportunity at the moment.

So Corona might result in opportunity for younger kins.

[mousquet]

Obviously, heartland must be a colloquial or slang by geographers to call anything non coastal, like a synonym of inland. You don't have to bring any politics in there. For instance, Paris is kind of heartland by France's standards, while it's quite more liberal or socialistic/ socal democratic than anything in the US. The nearest coastal place is like 150 miles away from here.

By the way, would you call Midwestern cities like Milwaukee, Chicago or even Detroit more or less located right on the shores of the Great Lakes non coastal? These are oddities, but then the Great Lakes geographical configuration itself is odd, probably unique on Earth like some inland fresh water sea.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

again, you’re speaking for wealthy people or people with access to family resources that insulate them from a lower middle class or even working class material reality.

Yes, but I'm responding to most of the media-driven hype of wealthy urbanites moving to the woods. The endless articles about Manhattanites moving to deep woods cabins outside Woodstock and Saugerties.

There was a spring-summer boom in such real estate, but, again, it isn't for year-round living. These are weekend places for the 1%, not permanent homes.

Working class households aren't gonna move on a whim, because they don't have the resources to do so.

And I don't think anyone is moving because of an assumption that their jobs are permanent WFH, given A. There's no evidence that people are forced to live in a geography because of a job (do people in the Bay Area really hate living in the Bay Area? Is this really a thing and they would mostly rather be in Nebraska?) and B. There's no evidence of what happens to WFH post-pandemic (who would move now when you'll likely have greater clarity regarding WFH in 2021?)

[chris08876]

Also costs money to sell a home, real estate commissions and other closing costs. So some folks can't afford to sell. But the ones leaving, they were planning in most cases to leave prior to the pandemic. The circumstances just made it a prime time to leave. Folks like to paint a picture of NYC for example, like there is a mass exodus, but New Yorkers aren't leaving like its the apocalypse. Its all sensational bs.

The city is not dying, not crumbling beneath the seams. Granted there's issues, but its not the warzone and hellish landscape folks like to paint it as. If one is glued to Fox, possibly but real folks in the tri-state know that everything is ok. Some issues but not the apocalypse.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

theres a difference between “does it make sense for rich people” and “is it happening?”

its a thing in big california cities for well educated but financially lower middle class people who are almost 40 and have been renting their entire lives to stay in west LA or commutable to central los angeles or the bay area and now are free from the commute but want to stay (and finally buy) in california.

again, you’re speaking for wealthy people or people with access to family resources that insulate them from a lower middle class or even working class material reality.

Exactly. Like all things from Crawford, chalk it up to his usual snobbery and anecdotal observation based on what he’s “heard” from wealthy people. Meanwhile I provided an article with real numbers while he didn’t.

[iheartthed]

If people who haven't either already left New York, or haven't made serious plans to leave New York by now, I doubt they're leaving. Whatever exodus from New York there might have been feeding other areas of the country earlier in the year is just about over. Earlier this summer a couple that I'm friends with withdrew an offer on a house in suburban NY because they decided they would rather stay in the city and buy a vacation home instead.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mousquet

By the way, would you call Midwestern cities like Milwaukee, Chicago or even Detroit more or less located right on the shores of the Great Lakes non coastal?

you do occasionally hear terms like "fresh coast" and "north coast" within the great lakes region, but in the larger US psychology, no, they do not fall under the "coastal" designation.

Originally Posted by mousquet

These are oddities, but then the Great Lakes geographical configuration itself is odd, probably unique on Earth like some inland fresh water sea.

not fully unique.

There are 3 places on our planet that have liquid surface freshwater lakes on the scale of the north american great lakes.


Planet earth's reserves of liquid surface freshwater (by volume):

African Great Lakes - 25%

Lake Baikal - 22.5%

North American Great Lakes - 21%

All of the other freshwater lakes, rivers, ponds, swamps, etc on the planet COMBINED - 31.5%

source: wikipedia

[sentinel]

I think in the short-term 1-2 year period, Covid may be the driving factor for some population shifts, but in the long-term, the primary reason may be cost of living. The East and West coasts are very cost prohibitive for a lot of people. Not everyone obviously, but for a majority of Americans it may not make sense to live in an expensive urban area, especially when a pandemic has proven it's possible to work from anywhere in our highly connected world, where information is accessible and transferable near instantaneously. Does that mean that there would be a steady migration to the Great Lakes region (to use one example)? Unsure; the infrastructure is here, and quality of life improvements are visibly increasing, especially in cities that have been seen as urban failures in the past. But weather is a big factor, and if someone who is used to LA/Inland Empire weather, they'll probably move to Dallas or Phoenix first, before considering the Great Lakes region, unless a job or family commitment is the reason they're moving here.

On a personal scale, I would love for Chicago to grow again, but increased urban development, gentrification, reduction in targeted crime may not be enough. The weather is definitely not going to be a primary motivator for many to move here, unless winters don't bother them (although as I write this it's approaching 70 degrees, and has been like this for almost an entire week, totally abnormal and worrisome for this time of year, but I digress). I've said it before and I still firmly believe it after so many years: Chicago, and the greater Great Lakes region are horrible at marketing their strengths, and have allowed outside media influences to write their stories. LA and NYC are prime examples of highly localized media presences that extol their home cities, and I think that's great. I just wish their was as massive a presence here that would do the same in Chicago.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Obviously, heartland must be a colloquial or slang by geographers to call anything non coastal, like a synonym of inland. You don't have to bring any politics in there. For instance, Paris is kind of heartland by France's standards, while it's quite more liberal or socialistic/ socal democratic than anything in the US. The nearest coastal place is like 150 miles away from here.

Heartland doesn't have a hard definition. Ohio used to have the slogan "welcome to the heart of it all" on their state welcome signs. All of our family road trips as a kid usually involved driving across Ohio, so I thought Ohio was the heartland because it's kind of shaped like a heart, lol.

I grew up in Michigan and I don't ever once recall anyone referring to it as "the heartland". Michigan is also on an international boundary, so it's not exactly "interior".

Originally Posted by mousquet

By the way, would you call Midwestern cities like Milwaukee, Chicago or even Detroit more or less located right on the shores of the Great Lakes non coastal? These are oddities, but then the Great Lakes geographical configuration itself is odd, probably unique on Earth like some inland fresh water sea.

IMO, it seems like after the year 2000 the distinction between Great Lakes cities and northeast cities is growing wider. Back in the 90s "northern cities" was a common catchall to refer to the northeast corridor cities and Great Lakes cities, which were all part of the Manufacturing Belt. As northeast coast cities recovered more quickly from urban decay, it seems like a distinction has taken root.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Heartland doesn't have a hard definition. Ohio used to have the slogan "welcome to the heart of it all" on their state welcome signs. All of our family road trips as a kid usually involved driving across Ohio, so I thought Ohio was the heartland because it's kind of shaped like a heart, lol.

I grew up in Michigan and I don't ever once recall anyone referring to it as "the heartland". Michigan is also on an international boundary, so it's not exactly "interior".



IMO, it seems like after the year 2000 the distinction between Great Lakes cities and northeast cities is growing wider. Back in the 90s "northern cities" was a common catchall to refer to the northeast corridor cities and Great Lakes cities, which were all part of the Manufacturing Belt. As northeast coast cities recovered more quickly from urban decay, it seems like a distinction has taken root.

ohio seems way too far east to me to be considered “heartland.” i think of kansas, really. i see it used in kansas city much more than st louis for instance, where we use the term “gateway” a lot to preceded non-profits for instance.

[badrunner]

Didn't we have this exact same thread a few weeks ago?

Anyway,
flight to the burbs, yes.
flight to the heartland, no.

[The North One]

Nobody refers to themselves as "heartland" anywhere in the Great Lakes, and I've been to the absolute most rural nowhere areas, they don't talk like that.

It's a forced patronizing term. The only time I really see it used is when some big media outlet is writing a stupid think piece (like this one) or when somebody is visiting and was misled (by reading one of these dumb pieces of course) into thinking that was an acceptable term to use.

[mousquet]

Ok, to stick to the original topic, if you want to get any idea, you just watch real estate and their trends in the specialized media with no troll.

Over here, real estate has been stagnant for the pandemic, if not going down moneywise. This is an unusual phenomenon locally, as real estate prices have been on a constant rise for decades.

First off, there are restrictions regarding international traveling, while the city economy widely relies on freedom of move, whether it would be business or leisure. Hotels and restaurants have been crying since they missed tourists so much. Local night clubs have been closed since March. And selling booze in bars is now a precarious business over here.
I mean, so many things have changed since February and the explosion of the pandemic, it is hard to believe it.

But there is a deeper, more fundamental reason for people to leave the city. We don't build enough stuff here, given the big demand, whether it's be international or simply French. There are tons of so-called "infill" projects of various quality under construction in the central city and over the inner suburbs, but that's not enough. Local cost of living has been very high, especially the cost of real estate, then more and more people are leaving for satellite towns like Rouen, Normandy or Orléans, Central France where prices are much better for what you get out there, while Paris is easily reachable by train from these towns. This causes stagnant real estate value too, and I fear it might be on a longer run.

Covid will soon be defeated, huh. Paris's NIMBYism is actually a much more fearsome opponent.

That's it, what we're seeing right now over here.

[Stay Stoked Brah]

Originally Posted by mousquet

By the way, would you call Midwestern cities like Milwaukee, Chicago or even Detroit more or less located right on the shores of the Great Lakes non coastal? These are oddities, but then the Great Lakes geographical configuration itself is odd, probably unique on Earth like some inland fresh water sea.

Great Lakes cities are considered to be non coastal. another oddity is that a lot of people on the east and west coasts often forget that Texas is coastal. Houston is the 3rd largest coastal metropolitan region in the u.s. (MSA). the word coast is defined as land next to the sea. sea is defined as salt water. by definition, Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit cannot be a coastal city.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by sentinel

I think in the short-term 1-2 year period, Covid may be the driving factor for some population shifts, but in the long-term, the primary reason may be cost of living. The East and West coasts are very cost prohibitive for a lot of people. Not everyone obviously, but for a majority of Americans it may not make sense to live in an expensive urban area, especially when a pandemic has proven it's possible to work from anywhere in our highly connected world, where information is accessible and transferable near instantaneously. Does that mean that there would be a steady migration to the Great Lakes region (to use one example)? Unsure; the infrastructure is here, and quality of life improvements are visibly increasing, especially in cities that have been seen as urban failures in the past. But weather is a big factor, and if someone who is used to LA/Inland Empire weather, they'll probably move to Dallas or Phoenix first, before considering the Great Lakes region, unless a job or family commitment is the reason they're moving here.

On a personal scale, I would love for Chicago to grow again, but increased urban development, gentrification, reduction in targeted crime may not be enough. The weather is definitely not going to be a primary motivator for many to move here, unless winters don't bother them (although as I write this it's approaching 70 degrees, and has been like this for almost an entire week, totally abnormal and worrisome for this time of year, but I digress). I've said it before and I still firmly believe it after so many years: Chicago, and the greater Great Lakes region are horrible at marketing their strengths, and have allowed outside media influences to write their stories. LA and NYC are prime examples of highly localized media presences that extol their home cities, and I think that's great. I just wish their was as massive a presence here that would do the same in Chicago.

I think much of the commentary here, like this one, is veering way off the original topic

The pandemic forces that are hurting the Bay Area and NYC are not benefitting Chicago either. Chicago is the same boat as them, perhaps worse off than anywhere except NYC, with its intense job concentration downtown and the preponderance of rail transportation.

This discussion is more about large urban centers versus the burbs and sprawl/rural areas, as opposed to a coast vs Chicago kind of thing

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by Stay Stoked Brah

Great Lakes cities are considered to be non coastal. another oddity is that a lot of people on the east and west coasts often forget that Texas is coastal. Houston is the 3rd largest coastal metropolitan region in the u.s. (MSA). the word coast is defined as land next to the sea. sea is defined as salt water. by definition, Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit cannot be a coastal city.

You sound right. I guess even New Orleans or Mobile, Alabama are basically sort of coastal towns too, but it's all the Gulf of Mexico, which is a peculiar cultural context of some kind.
I've never been to Florida, but I bet it's somewhat split for that reason.

It's well known. When people say coastal in NA, they mean either the Atlantic or Pacific ocean.

Dan is right. These names are more cultural like habits than anything geographically accurate anyway.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Stay Stoked Brah

Great Lakes cities are considered to be non coastal. another oddity is that a lot of people on the east and west coasts often forget that Texas is coastal. Houston is the 3rd largest coastal metropolitan region in the u.s. (MSA). the word coast is defined as land next to the sea. sea is defined as salt water. by definition, Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit cannot be a coastal city.

The colloquial use of "coastal city" is not defined by salt water, it's defined by open ocean (or near open ocean). Absolutely nobody considers Houston to be "coastal" in the colloquial sense. It IS coastal in that it sits on a coast, but so does Chicago and Cleveland. Detroit does not sit on a coast, and neither does Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington D.C.

[Stay Stoked Brah]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The colloquial use of "coastal city" is not defined by salt water, it's defined by open ocean (or near open ocean). Absolutely nobody considers Houston to be "coastal" in the colloquial sense. It IS coastal in that it sits on a coast, but so does Chicago and Cleveland. Detroit does not sit on a coast, and neither does Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington D.C.

The gulf coast has gulf coast cities, Houston is one of those gulf coast cities, it has a one of the largest seaports in the world. Houston is coastal by every sense of the definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Houston
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States