The Era of Urban Supremacy Is Over
 

Interesting op ed piece in the NY Times today. Bound to not be popular on SSP but is it accurate?

‘The Era of Urban Supremacy Is Over’
March 15, 2023
By Thomas B. Edsall

Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C., on politics, demographics and inequality.

On the last day of February, Glen Lee, the chief financial officer of Washington, D.C., issued a warning to the mayor and members of the District of Columbia Council, who are undertaking such costly ventures as free bus service and expanded affordable housing.

“The Covid-19 pandemic,” Lee wrote, “has brought about significant changes in the District’s population and economy, with potential long-term implications.” Revenue estimates, he said, have “been lowered due to 1) a more pessimistic economic outlook; and 2) a deteriorating real property market.”

In Lee’s view, there are still more danger signals:

Recently completed preliminary real property tax assessments, which is the basis for FY 2024 real property tax revenue, are lower than anticipated, and year-to-date revenue collections through January for deed and unincorporated business taxes, both of which are gauges of strength of the real estate market, are drastically lower than last year.

Washington is not alone. Most of the nation’s major cities face a daunting future as middle-class taxpayers join an exodus to the suburbs, opting to work remotely as they exit downtowns marred by empty offices, vacant retail space and a deteriorating tax base.

The most recent census data “show almost unprecedented declines or slow growth especially in larger cities,” William Frey, a demographer and senior fellow at Brookings, emailed in response to my query...

... Even more damaging to the finances of major cities is the fact that the men and women most likely to move to the suburbs are among the highest-paid key sources of income and property tax revenues: workers with six-figure salaries in technology, finance, real estate and entertainment. Those least likely to move, in turn, are much less well paid, working in service industries, health care, hospitality and food sales....

....as Bloom, an economist at Stanford, described the overall remote-work pattern in an email:

The trend now is for professionals and managers to be hybrid, typically three days in the office from Tuesday to Thursday and two days at home. What we see is employees moving further from city centers to the suburbs of the same city. This is the donut effect, and it’s hitting every large city in the U.S. and in Northern Europe. But importantly they are not leaving big cities and going to Boise or Hawaii, but going to the suburbs of big cities so they can still commute in three days a week.

This is a reversal, Bloom continued,

of a 1980-2019 phenomenon of people moving into city centers. Now we are going back to the 1950s to 1970s trend of people moving to the suburbs. Hybrid work-from-home folks want more space and trade that for a longer commute, and so are reversing their parents’ trend of moving toward city centers — now we are moving back out again to the suburbs....

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/15/o...bs-future.html

yet another article citing yearly estimates which have shown to be wrong. :shrug:

Not sure where this goes but I wouldn't ever bet against most humans wanting to have their cake and eat it too. If that's on the table.

Glancing at the article, I cannot believe a well-regarded columnist like Thomas Edsall -

A. Cited Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox, liars-for-hire who have been playing the urban doom loop propaganda for 40 years;
B. Cited peak-pandemic 2020-2021 data to make a point about long-term trends; and
C. Compared decennial Census data to annual Census estimates, which use totally different methodology, and will always result in huge year-over-year swings.

So, yeah, the article is complete garbage. The pandemic was basically the rapture for the Kotkin/Cox types. They'll play that tune for decades now.

Bad data = bad conclusions.

Also, what's with the article title? "The Era of Urban Supremacy Is Over"?

In the U.S., it never began. The U.S. has been infused with Jeffersonian ideals, romanticizing rural culture, and demonizing urban agglomerations, since the nation's founding. I guess we need to get back to that 2019 "urban supremacy" era, before the spawning of suburbia and small town life...

The problem with his assertion is he comes from city with a defined urban to suburban split. Well mostly. There’s the NoVa cities and red line burbs. In many regions that’s not the case. In LA or Dallas or most of the biggest MSA’s there are structurally suburban places in the city and structurally urban places in the suburbs. In the future most of the nations biggest regions will be like this due to diverging growth trends.

The east coast but really like NJ and PA really is the worst region in the US for geographical class segregation and inequality and that’s what’s really being commented on. This guy doesn’t like the progressive direction DC is taking. He is rooting for eastern suburbia, which is ultra NIMBY low density split level on 2 acres stroad land with private schools and private tennis and swim clubs and clustered mall retail. The working class live in remnant older town centers or 1970s apartment clusters that are neglected.

Edsall has never seen a data point on something he considers leftist that he doesn't want to write a disingenuous op-ed about.

Are we referring to this Thomas B. Edsall?

https://fedsoc.org/contributors/thomas-edsall

Does anybody remember conservatives like this guy (five media fellowships at the right-wing Hoover Institution) declaring, or even acknowledging, any sort of "era of urban supremacy?"

Because it seems to me that there must be widespread acknowledgement of an "era" before it can be summarily declared over by those who live to make such declarations.

It's funny how some commentators are basing this whole "cities are going to be abandoned" nonsense just because of people working from home, as if that's the only reason why cities exist. Hell, if I didn't have to work at all, I'd still want to live in an urban area vs. rural New Hampshire or something.

WAT DA PAK.

"Urban supremacy" is both a bad and dumb choice of words, but it's worth asking whether this moment is a turning point that will see the "return to the city" trend of the past couple of decades turned around.

Undesirable things like stagnation happen when cities aren't growing, so let's hope not.

Definitely agree though "don't worry be happy" (as some are saying) is not situational analysis.

The moment a more conservative president is elected he'll force federal employees back to the office. Per the greater topic, millions of sq. footage is currently under construction in many big cities. Its curtains for older buildings but newer spaces will remain in demand. WFH is a fad but I suspect its now considered a "right" by some employees as we continue to deepen the equity dialog at work. Trends in the tech sector are mostly relevant to only a few cities in the west. Lets have this same conversation 3 years from now.

I don't disagree but Philadelphia is faring unusually well in the metrics cited in this article.

1. Remote work isn't universal in Philly as some of our biggest employers are Eds & Meds. Our newest growth sector is cellular genetics & bioengineering (i.e. people that go into labs every day). Even during the height of the pandemic, my scientist friends were going into work every day.

2. We're the recipient of a lot of NE corridor relocations. That is, people that need to be in proximity to NYC or DC for work but not there every day. (I'm one of them. Work in Lower Manhattan...moved to Philly during the pandemic).

Philly's tax receipts are unusually robust from what I've read (though the assumption is the fortunes will change). I also just read an article in the WSJ that said that Philly was second only to Austin (in the US) in the absolute number of new households making more than $150K per year.

In any case. The article is garbage. Citys are ecosystems in and of themselves that create innovation and thus wealth. Any move away from them is only transient. One could even argue the current hybrid structure will actually increase innovation and wealth within cities. Yes, you don't have to go into the office everyday and deal with a commute. But for those that stay in urban environments but are working remotely or in a hybrid structure nonetheles, they too are the recipients of that additional free time. I'd argue the additional free time for those ensconced in innovation centers (i.e. cities) just gives them even more time to innovate.

Saying "don't worry be happy" would be one thing, but this is just a bad take with bad data. If we want to discuss the challenges currently facing cities, this ain't it.

Yeah, the whole WFH thing in Washington seems especially egregious. It really reinforces the poor image of government jobs. They have some advantages over normal companies in hiring (no nepotism, for example), but the actual workload seems like a cupcake since there is absolutely no incentive to show up early and kick ass.

We'll see: https://nypost.com/2023/02/15/nyc-co...emotely-adams/

Why are you equating WFH with slacking or poor performance? In my job, all quantifiable metrics showed increased productivity during WFH. There's so much time wasted commuting, chit chatting in the office, coordinating stupid stuff like reserving meeting rooms....all that goes away when working from home. Shifting public meetings from in-person to virtual has led to a drastic increase in attendance and diversity of attendees, and it's much more efficient and cost effective. Many government jobs are very well suited to remote work, as there isn't as much emphasis on creative collaboration and group work.

Your second point about government jobs is probably true, but unrelated to WFH. There is less of an incentive to show up early and kick ass, but there's also fewer perks and career growth potential. Public sector employees don't get bonuses or any of the office perks you hear about companies using to lure employees back to the office. They're often paid less than the private sector, promotional opportunities are fewer, and office conditions are pretty bare bones. It's a trade off for increased stability and usually generous benefits and pensions.