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

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

For NYC at least, this isn't the first time that the city has been crippled during the internet age. Many of us who were here during Sandy also spent weeks, or months, working from home because office buildings and train infrastructure had been severely damaged. Sandy was far more of an existential threat to New York than the pandemic. I know people whose apartment buildings were inhabitable for months after Sandy. Large office towers in lower Manhattan were shut for the better part of a year.

Sandy was the first real life demonstration of what climate change could mean for NYC, and also exposed the unique vulnerabilities of NYC versus other large cities like Chicago or Dallas. After the storm a lot of companies started to think about disaster scenarios, the risks of staying in NYC versus relocating, etc. Most, if not all, large companies decided to move critical computer infrastructure away from New York, but no large company that I know of made a decision to relocate from New York because of Sandy. The damage from Sandy still hasn't even been fully repaired, but since then extremely high-risk lower Manhattan has added workers, and so has Midtown, particularly in Hudson Yards. I'm bringing all of this up to say that there is little precedent that the pandemic will disproportionately affect New York.

As a fellow NYer, I would like to take this thesis to heart, but there's something to be considered here:

Sandy, a terrible, destructive event, was ultimately a localized one. Both it along with 9/11 (another moment that drew NY's corporate preeminence into question) didn't necessarily cause C-suite types to fundamentally question the concept of having their workers come into an office 5 days a week, 8+ hours a day.

The problem isn't COVID in-and-of-itself, since I know that will one day sort itself out, but the fact that this experience has caused a certain Pandora's Box to open. Sometimes world events cause paradigm shifts that send society on a different trajectory than would have happened otherwise. NYC fundamentally came into existence due to the network effects of businesses wanting to be around other businesses. Take that away and a lot of NY's raison d'etre goes away.

[TexasPlaya]

Feels like this is just speeding up the growth in second and third tier cities that was already occurring, especially in third tier cities.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Qubert;9100274Sandy, a terrible, destructive event, was ultimately a localized one. Both it along with 9/11 ([I

another moment that drew NY's corporate preeminence into question[/I]) didn't necessarily cause C-suite types to fundamentally question the concept of having their workers come into an office 5 days a week, 8+ hours a day.

Certain industries actually did. Post Sandy, some of the large consulting firms went through phases where they dramatically downsized the amount of office space that they leased in Manhattan.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Certain industries actually did. Post Sandy, some of the large consulting firms went through phases where they dramatically downsized the amount of office space that they leased in Manhattan.

Many companies, and especially after 9/11, did reduce their Manhattan footprint. I remember there was a time between about 9/12/01 and around 2005-ish that many people truly did believe Lower Manhattan was finished as a CBD. The key is that while NY did suffer after both events, the concept of people being in an office didn't really change. The only difference was people said "Let's put some people in Morristown, NJ just in case". And let's face it, during NY's epic decline in QOL during the 1965-1995 period, people also looked to move offices elsewhere.

Now, what's happening is companies are questioning wither to have an office at all, wither it's on Park and 53rd or White Plains. *That* convo didn't happen after 9/11. No one envisioned terrorism causing bond brokers to trade from their kitchen table in bunny slippers.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

What you continue to fail to take into account is the permanent move to “work from home” status.

There's no such thing. I don't know any major company planning permanent WFH. Even tech companies are signing massive long-term leases. Trophy office towers have sold for peak pricing during the pandemic.

Everyone I know cannot wait till normalcy. WFH post-pandemic will be about greater family-work flexibility, not ending office space.

But putting all this aside, How does "work from home" disadvantage cities? No one has explained this. What's the rationale for preferring McMansions over brownstones, or Applebees over bistros, or lawns over playgrounds, if they WFH?

And most U.S. metros have most of their jobs in sprawl, not cities. So why would city dwellers be disadvantaged if they no longer had to schlep to some random office park?

People want to live in cities. No one is living in a city vs. a suburb because they want to work in an office.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Qubert

Many companies, and especially after 9/11, did reduce their Manhattan footprint. I remember there was a time between about 9/12/01 and around 2005-ish that many people truly did believe Lower Manhattan was finished as a CBD.

Following 9-11, Lehman Brothers global HQ was temporarily moved to two Times Square hotels. Bankers were working out of hotel rooms. Morgan Stanley relocated half their corporate staff to the woods in Northern Westchester. Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank didn't have any office space, really. It was insane. Around 40 million square feet of office space was either destroyed or temporarily uninhabitable. Lower Manhattan smelled of death months later, and many people considered it finished.

Covid is comparatively much less of a threat.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Qubert

Many companies, and especially after 9/11, did reduce their Manhattan footprint. I remember there was a time between about 9/12/01 and around 2005-ish that many people truly did believe Lower Manhattan was finished as a CBD. The key is that while NY did suffer after both events, the concept of people being in an office didn't really change. The only difference was people said "Let's put some people in Morristown, NJ just in case". And let's face it, during NY's epic decline in QOL during the 1965-1995 period, people also looked to move offices elsewhere.

Now, what's happening is companies are questioning wither to have an office at all, wither it's on Park and 53rd or White Plains. *That* convo didn't happen after 9/11. No one envisioned terrorism causing bond brokers to trade from their kitchen table in bunny slippers.

Right, I hear you but I'm skeptical that this is actually a longterm trend. I wasn't in the workforce around 9/11, but I think Sandy is a much more analogous situation to the pandemic. When Sandy hit we actually did have most of the work from home capabilities that we have today. We also had a situation where large segments of the workforce spent a lot of time working from home out of necessity. Some office buildings in lower Manhattan were uninhabitable for over six months. Many companies did evaluate how necessary it was for workers to be in Manhattan. After a year most of that was largely forgotten and there were more people than ever before.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I guess some of us didn't know. If you didn't, when they talk about the big cities on the coasts, usually in a political context, they are not talking about Mobile, Alabama, lol.

Right. The term “coastal elite” refers to the liberal big cities along the West Coast and along the East Coast primarily the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast (and S Florida). Definitely not Mobile or Corpus Christi.

[the urban politician]

I’m glad some people are being more optimistic

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's no such thing. I don't know any major company planning permanent WFH. Even tech companies are signing massive long-term leases. Trophy office towers have sold for peak pricing during the pandemic.

Everyone I know cannot wait till normalcy. WFH post-pandemic will be about greater family-work flexibility, not ending office space.

But putting all this aside, How does "work from home" disadvantage cities? No one has explained this. What's the rationale for preferring McMansions over brownstones, or Applebees over bistros, or lawns over playgrounds, if they WFH?

And most U.S. metros have most of their jobs in sprawl, not cities. So why would city dwellers be disadvantaged if they no longer had to schlep to some random office park?

People want to live in cities. No one is living in a city vs. a suburb because they want to work in an office.

One of the obvious issues with WFH is the demise of public transportation in the US. Our systems are geared towards commuters, once they are cut by a significant percentage, our already cash-strapped public transit agencies will be in a really bad place.

[JManc]

I think WFH is here to stay but mostly to augment office work; if an employee needs to stay home (sick kid, sick themselves, etc) they can do so and not really impact their productivity. My wife is back in the office but now can take an odd WFH day here and there where as it was unthinkable before.

I worked from home for 10 years; liked it at first then hated it.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by JManc

I think WFH is here to stay but mostly to augment office work; if an employee needs to stay home (sick kid, sick themselves, etc) they can do so and not really impact their productivity. My wife is back in the office but now can take an odd WFH day here and there where as it was unthinkable before.

I worked from home for 10 years; liked it at first then hated it.

This. My company is making my position 3 weeks at home and 1 week in office. My company was in the midst of upgrading a small, one story office park composed of about 5 buildings but have reimagined their plan with COVID. A lot of the "back office" will be going towards the new schedule and we'll be sharing work stations.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

One of the obvious issues with WFH is the demise of public transportation in the US. Our systems are geared towards commuters, once they are cut by a significant percentage, our already cash-strapped public transit agencies will be in a really bad place.

It will be interesting. Here in Austin, we just passed our most expensive and ambitious public transportation expansion. I do applaud Austin for paying up to actually build light rail where people and job centers currently exist instead of going cheap (like our embarrassing commuter rail) and using existing line(s) and hoping growth occurs around it. However, I do worry about future critical mass but Austin has a strong core and growth profile. NYC and Chicago are concerning though.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's no such thing. I don't know any major company planning permanent WFH. Even tech companies are signing massive long-term leases. Trophy office towers have sold for peak pricing during the pandemic.

Everyone I know cannot wait till normalcy. WFH post-pandemic will be about greater family-work flexibility, not ending office space.

But putting all this aside, How does "work from home" disadvantage cities? No one has explained this. What's the rationale for preferring McMansions over brownstones, or Applebees over bistros, or lawns over playgrounds, if they WFH?

And most U.S. metros have most of their jobs in sprawl, not cities. So why would city dwellers be disadvantaged if they no longer had to schlep to some random office park?

People want to live in cities. No one is living in a city vs. a suburb because they want to work in an office.

There is a valid point that was made in another thread, though, which is if people are spending a lot more time at home, a lot of them are likely to want more space.

Going forward I don't expect the social aspects of the lockdown to persist eternally of course, but without saying everyone is going to WFH, I definitely think that there will be way more people working way more often from home, as a permanent thing, than there were prior to March 13, 2020.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

It will be interesting. Here in Austin, we just passed our most expensive and ambitious public transportation expansion. I do applaud Austin for paying up to actually build light rail where people and job centers currently exist instead of going cheap (like our embarrassing commuter rail) and using existing line(s) and hoping growth occurs around it. However, I do worry about future critical mass but Austin has a strong core and growth profile. NYC and Chicago are concerning though.

Awesome news for Austin! I used to live near the Red Line and loved it. Not so useful, but a really nice train.


Just some food for thought, I was doing some research for a community profile and I found some information about my neighborhood in Chicago, the Near Southside.

Percent of people that work in central Chicago(Loop, Near North, Near Westside): 48%

How many of these people live where they do because of their proximity to work?
Even if they go to a hybrid model, how many will figure a longer commute once or twice a week is worth it for the benefits of moving out of the city?

I really am sorry for being so pessimistic, but this is really getting to me. What is bothering me also is the lack of care people in my urban planning program are showing to this issue. They are so sidetracked with other issues(that I won't get into, because it's political) that they seem oblivious to these developments.

[twister244]

I think it's simply a bit too early to really tell what the long term impacts from all of this will be. Everyone brings up the typical reasons why certain cities will suffer: Ability to WFH from a larger house in the burbs, Lower COL, etc.

But.... Then there's people like me, who can now do my job from anywhere (and I mean anywhere from here to Paris to Tokyo). My company has offices in Boulder, Boston, and Tel Aviv, with folks scattered elsewhere (APAC, UK). When I first joined, it was because of the cluster of talent in Boulder. But, I no longer feel tied to living in Colorado. If I wanted to, I could move to Chicago, NYC or London tomorrow and continue my job as though nothing changed. We have already indicated we are scaling down our main office in Boston, and I suspect our Boulder office will not have its lease renewed.

I also find it interesting to read trends on real estate in larger cities. Here in Denver, our urban rents have dipped slightly, but definitely not a collapse. But, in real estate, Denver is more on fire now than ever before.
https://www.westword.com/news/covid-...reaks-11841507
https://www.5280.com/2020/11/denvers...or-first-time/

It's getting to the point where Chicago is increasingly looking like a bargain to me (even with the higher taxes). Or, I could simply be a digital nomad with a co-working membership for a year or two.

Point is, yes, there are tons of people that will expedite their moves to smaller communities. But, there will be a whole new world unlocked for those of us that can work from co-working spaces and WFH coming out of this. This means some folks who always wanted to live in city X, but where tied to city Y because of their job may be able to make that move now while keeping their jobs.

I reference Chicago because it's somewhat unique right now. The coastal cities have both high taxes and high real estate prices, while Chicago is just higher taxes. Denver's average house price was under $500k a few years ago, but now it's over $600k.

[Six Corners]

You guys really think people only live in the city out of convenience? That if it wasn't for their jobs they would move to whatever nowhere town they came from? That they really say to themselves, "man, having great restaurants, culture, and a social scene close by is great, but what I really want to do is go back to my economically struggling town where the only people I know anymore are my own immediate family and the kids I knew who peaked in high school who I share nothing in common with." Really? The 20 somethings moving back home are doing so because they lost their jobs. In a lot of these articles about people leaving the city, they suggest that not many expect to leave the city long-term. Most have expressed the desire to come back when the economy returns. OR perhaps they move back to where they came from, but to an urban environment there? Kansas City, Omaha, Birmingham - they all have urban centers, walkable neighborhoods, and culture. It's not the same level as larger urban centers, but moving back to a city such as these does not automatically mean someone is buying an acreage near a strip mall.

Mark my words, WFH will not be a situation where a majority of companies simply have no office space anymore and everyone works out of their house. That doesn't work for a lot of companies. Many may have a hybrid system where maybe you come in a couple days a week. Others will have more tolerant policies about working from home more frequently. But many companies thrive on having their workers close together. Or they thrive on having a space to impress clients. Not every industry needs this, but many do. It's worth more than the price of real estate. And the companies that do go to having a majority of employees permanently work from home are not going to simply allow these people, long term, to make, say, NYC or Bay Area wages if they all end up moving out of such expensive areas. Paying someone Bay Area wages to live in rural Kentucky is paying them money that could go to pleasing shareholders instead.

So relax. The cities are fine. For every article out there proclaiming, yet again, as they have been since the start of the urban renaissance, that it was all a trend, there is an article like this one from City Observatory claiming the opposite: https://cityobservatory.org/youthmovement/

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by twister244

I think it's simply a bit too early to really tell what the long term impacts from all of this will be. Everyone brings up the typical reasons why certain cities will suffer: Ability to WFH from a larger house in the burbs, Lower COL, etc.

But.... Then there's people like me, who can now do my job from anywhere (and I mean anywhere from here to Paris to Tokyo). My company has offices in Boulder, Boston, and Tel Aviv, with folks scattered elsewhere (APAC, UK). When I first joined, it was because of the cluster of talent in Boulder. But, I no longer feel tied to living in Colorado. If I wanted to, I could move to Chicago, NYC or London tomorrow and continue my job as though nothing changed. We have already indicated we are scaling down our main office in Boston, and I suspect our Boulder office will not have its lease renewed.

I also find it interesting to read trends on real estate in larger cities. Here in Denver, our urban rents have dipped slightly, but definitely not a collapse. But, in real estate, Denver is more on fire now than ever before.
https://www.westword.com/news/covid-...reaks-11841507
https://www.5280.com/2020/11/denvers...or-first-time/

It's getting to the point where Chicago is increasingly looking like a bargain to me (even with the higher taxes). Or, I could simply be a digital nomad with a co-working membership for a year or two.

Point is, yes, there are tons of people that will expedite their moves to smaller communities. But, there will be a whole new world unlocked for those of us that can work from co-working spaces and WFH coming out of this. This means some folks who always wanted to live in city X, but where tied to city Y because of their job may be able to make that move now while keeping their jobs.

I reference Chicago because it's somewhat unique right now. The coastal cities have both high taxes and high real estate prices, while Chicago is just higher taxes. Denver's average house price was under $500k a few years ago, but now it's over $600k.

Very interesting perspective!

I'll have to think that over, but I've had a conversation with my girlfriend stating kind of what you are saying, "hey, we could move to Thailand for a year or two, nothing is holding us back."

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Six Corners

You guys really think people only live in the city out of convenience? That if it wasn't for their jobs they would move to whatever nowhere town they came from? That they really say to themselves, "man, having great restaurants, culture, and a social scene close by is great, but what I really want to do is go back to my economically struggling town where the only people I know anymore are my own immediate family and the kids I knew who peaked in high school who I share nothing in common with." Really? The 20 somethings moving back home are doing so because they lost their jobs. In a lot of these articles about people leaving the city, they suggest that not many expect to leave the city long-term. Most have expressed the desire to come back when the economy returns. OR perhaps they move back to where they came from, but to an urban environment there? Kansas City, Omaha, Birmingham - they all have urban centers, walkable neighborhoods, and culture. It's not the same level as larger urban centers, but moving back to a city such as these does not automatically mean someone is buying an acreage near a strip mall.

Mark my words, WFH will not be a situation where a majority of companies simply have no office space anymore and everyone works out of their house. That doesn't work for a lot of companies. Many may have a hybrid system where maybe you come in a couple days a week. Others will have more tolerant policies about working from home more frequently. But many companies thrive on having their workers close together. Or they thrive on having a space to impress clients. Not every industry needs this, but many do. It's worth more than the price of real estate. And the companies that do go to having a majority of employees permanently work from home are not going to simply allow these people, long term, to make, say, NYC or Bay Area wages if they all end up moving out of such expensive areas. Paying someone Bay Area wages to live in rural Kentucky is paying them money that could go to pleasing shareholders instead.

So relax. The cities are fine. For every article out there proclaiming, yet again, as they have been since the start of the urban renaissance, that it was all a trend, there is an article like this one from City Observatory claiming the opposite: https://cityobservatory.org/youthmovement/

It's never been about all people making the move or all businesses ending their leases. It doesn't have to be even a majority. If a small minority decide to move, or in the case of buisnesses, decide to end their leases, it will have a huge impact.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Six Corners

You guys really think people only live in the city out of convenience? That if it wasn't for their jobs they would move to whatever nowhere town they came from?

Right, the entire premise is flawed. The relative appeal of cities has nothing to do with the preponderance of remote work.

Covid has hurt cities, short-term, but it has nothing to do with remote work, and everything to do with the fact that people can't congregate. All the stuff that makes cities appealing are (mostly) on hold.