Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician
|
I don't know what's going to happen. Like you my instinct is that WFH is bad news for cities. But I might be surprised and it's good. Or it might end up being a less big deal than I expected. I don't know. It's probably bad.
But if it's bad for cities then by the same principles it's going to be especially bad for suburbs. Any thesis that says "the suburbs will benefit from WFH at downtown's expense" is probably half-baked. Suburbs exist so that people can access downtown. That's it.
If commuters don't need to access downtown and can stay in the burbs because of WFH then the places that benefit are the places those people go to on vacation. Ski towns. Beach towns. Places that are full of family and connections. Attractive places that are cheap and connected, The Ozarks, The Red River Gorge, The Blue Ridge Mountains.
I think there's evidence that those places are seeing an increase in demand due to WFH. But interesting, vibrant downtowns like Chicago's are places that people go on vacation. I've worked from home exclusively for two decades and that's *why* I live in Chicago. I like it here and it's where I moved when I didn't any longer have to work in a suburban cube farm.
I expect that WFH is fine for S.F. and NYC. There are enough people that want to move to those downtowns that supply and demand will take care of it. And places like Boise and Nashville and Portland that are appealing but don't have any universities, infrastructure or industry-focus to speak of should benefit too. I expect that the most significantly impacted are places where people HAVE to be but don't WANT to be. It's easy to think of a number of urban centers like that, but that list includes almost every suburb of every city. Most exist almost solely because of people trying to get as far away from work as the rules of geometry permit. Those residents are the ones most likely to decamp to whatever environment suits them best.