Demographic impact of urban exodus

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by craigs

Although I have no ties to Reno, I feel like I should point out that it's far from the worst metro of 640,000 in the nation. Because of the large casino-resorts, there are more concerts and shows than normal for a city its size, with a lot of singers and comedians coming to town throughout the year. Many bars and restaurants are allowed to stay open 24-7 (normally). And since Tahoe and the ski resorts are an hour away, the outdoor recreation is top notch.

If it wasnt for my business being here in the Bay Area, and if it wasnt for the fact that I want my kids to grow up in a diverse and liberal city, I would have already moved up that way to Douglas County, NV and would have built a house on the land I bought there years ago. Maybe when the kids go off to college.

[eschaton]

I'm going to take this thread in good faith for a second - and presume that - post-COVID - some things go back to normal (like people begin eating out again) but in other ways there's a "new normal" (increasing telecommuting, meaning people can "work from anywhere.")

If you take these two things together, I don't think it means particularly good things for the suburbs in particular. Suburbs grew essentially for two reasons. One of them was they offered cheap(ish) housing within reasonable commute of jobs. The second was related to perceptions of school district quality.

Now, even if we settle into a "new normal" some things are not going to change. First people will still post-COVID place some premium on being close to amenities, with walkable areas still commanding a price premium. Secondly, birth rates are way down, as are family sizes, which means school districts are increasingly less important (witness the long-term decline in student enrollment in "top school districts" across the Northeast).

Thus, I'd expect the overall change would be a greater shift from major metropolitan areas to mid-sized metros - all the way down to micropolitan areas. But I don't think it would result in a suburban explosion in and of itself. And one could argue if demand fell in the major metros, the easing of costs in cities like NYC and San Francisco could result in a return to some of the artsy cache which originally made the cities appealing.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Secondly, birth rates are way down, as are family sizes, which means school districts are increasingly less important (witness the long-term decline in student enrollment in "top school districts" across the Northeast).

There's a lot of (anecdotal) chatter about how the pandemic will "save" the high-performing exurban districts, who have had plummeting enrollment in recent years.

It doesn't make much intuitive sense, as dropping birthrates don't help communities laser-focused on child-rearing. Also, if there really were permanent increased interest in such communities, it would likely be for weekend homes, which doesn't do anything for enrollment or school quality.

Of course, if you believe in a total paradigm-change, where people no longer value walkability, urbanity, proximity to amenities or proximity to employment, then it's a potential game-changer.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'm going to take this thread in good faith for a second - and presume that - post-COVID - some things go back to normal (like people begin eating out again) but in other ways there's a "new normal" (increasing telecommuting, meaning people can "work from anywhere.")

If you take these two things together, I don't think it means particularly good things for the suburbs in particular. Suburbs grew essentially for two reasons. One of them was they offered cheap(ish) housing within reasonable commute of jobs. The second was related to perceptions of school district quality.

Now, even if we settle into a "new normal" some things are not going to change. First people will still post-COVID place some premium on being close to amenities, with walkable areas still commanding a price premium. Secondly, birth rates are way down, as are family sizes, which means school districts are increasingly less important (witness the long-term decline in student enrollment in "top school districts" across the Northeast).

Thus, I'd expect the overall change would be a greater shift from major metropolitan areas to mid-sized metros - all the way down to micropolitan areas. But I don't think it would result in a suburban explosion in and of itself. And one could argue if demand fell in the major metros, the easing of costs in cities like NYC and San Francisco could result in a return to some of the artsy cache which originally made the cities appealing.

I think the pandemic has mostly accelerated trends that were already happening. I don't think the people who were running up the cost of living in dense mega-cities suddenly want ex-urban, car-centric homes. What they do want is a balance of space and convenience/proximity. For people in New York, I think you'll see a lot of the more affluent millennials looking for property in rural areas outside of NYC for weekend getaways, while still maintaining a residence in the city.

I think you'll also see spillover from big expensive cities to the less expensive urban areas with "good bones" that can support car-free lifestyles. It's already clearly happening in Philadelphia, and I would watch Baltimore over the next decade.

[JManc]

It's not just the pandemic compounding current trends but some are genuinely attuned to escalation of social unrest to which seem to be concentrated in cities. I seem to be fairly insulated/ detached out here in suburbia from all the goings on in Houston. Many find that attractive.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by JManc

It's not just the pandemic compounding current trends but some are genuinely attuned to escalation of social unrest to which seem to be concentrated in cities. I seem to be fairly insulated/ detached out here in suburbia from all the goings on in Houston. Many find that attractive.

There's been zero evidence of a "whitelash" nationwide. Indeed, even as someone who is politically supportive of Black Lives Matter I've been shocked at the polling - that it appears a plurality of white people are now supportive (a big reversal of a few years ago) and among moderates hostility to the police has risen, rather than any level of racial fear.

Of course, there are a certain kind of white people - conservative-leaning white people - who might see this as yet another reason to get out of dodge. The thing is, these people do not like in the big gentrifying enclaves. Except for some isolated pockets in established cities in the Northeast, they tend to not live in cities at all.

Basically, the dynamic back during the urban riots day was "white people + cops vs. blacks (and Latinos to a much lesser extent)" - the dynamic now is "conservative white people + cops vs. people of color, woke white progressives, and to a lesser extent educated white people in general" - with the latter group being largely the white folk who live in cities anyway.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by eschaton

There's been zero evidence of a "whitelash" nationwide. Indeed, even as someone who is politically supportive of Black Lives Matter I've been shocked at the polling - that it appears a plurality of white people are now supportive (a big reversal of a few years ago) and among moderates hostility to the police has risen, rather than any level of racial fear.

Of course, there are a certain kind of white people - conservative-leaning white people - who might see this as yet another reason to get out of dodge. The thing is, these people do not like in the big gentrifying enclaves. Except for some isolated pockets in established cities in the Northeast, they tend to not live in cities at all.

Basically, the dynamic back during the urban riots day was "white people + cops vs. blacks (and Latinos to a much lesser extent" - the dynamic now is "conservative white people + cops vs. people of color, woke white progressives, and to a lesser extent educated white people in general" - with the latter group being largely the white folk who live in cities anyway.

I live in an upper middle class, predominately white neighborhood (North Center, Chicago) and the number of "Black Lives Matter" and "Say Their Names" signs on houses or written in chalk on the sidewalks lead me to believe, anecdotally, that any talk of people leaving cities because they are afraid of social unrest is massively overblown.

As you mentioned, the people who buy the Fox News rhetoric about "chaos in the streets" of American cities aren't ones to live in them anyway. I mean, people can just look outside their windows...

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Handro

As you mentioned, the people who buy the Fox News rhetoric about "chaos in the streets" of American cities aren't ones to live in them anyway. I mean, people can just look outside their windows...

I mean, I guess the good side of this is it might lead to an increasing emptying out of the few remaining conservative white enclaves in cities - places like Howard Beach in NYC, Packer Park in Philly, etc. Then they either become POC neighborhoods (providing a new place for those gentrified out from the core to live) or just flip to being yuppie neighborhoods, depending upon how well-positioned they are.

[Nomad9]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I mean, I guess the good side of this is it might lead to an increasing emptying out of the few remaining conservative white enclaves in cities - places like Howard Beach in NYC, Packer Park in Philly, etc. Then they either become POC neighborhoods (providing a new place for those gentrified out from the core to live) or just flip to being yuppie neighborhoods, depending upon how well-positioned they are.

Why is that a good thing? I’m not sure more political/racial segregation helps anything. Maybe to the extent those people are NIMBYs, but NIMBYs come in all political flavors.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Nomad9

Why is that a good thing? I’m not sure more political/racial segregation helps anything. Maybe to the extent those people are NIMBYs, but NIMBYs come in all political flavors.

I'm being partially tongue-in-cheek here, looking for a silver lining. That said, if anyone leaves cities due to "chaos in the streets" it's going to be these folks - the remaining conservative-leaning white ethnics. It's not going to be the yuppie class.

As an aside, it is pretty astonishing that there are so few GOP-leaning white neighborhoods left in urban areas outside of NYC. Philly has a handful, and I think Baltimore has 1-2. Part of that is because there's still strong political machines in place in cities like Boston and Chicago which keep this same tranche of people voting Democratic. But by and large this kind of of voter has just been displaced into the suburbs.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

As an aside, it is pretty astonishing that there are so few GOP-leaning white neighborhoods left in urban areas outside of NYC. Philly has a handful, and I think Baltimore has 1-2. Part of that is because there's still strong political machines in place in cities like Boston and Chicago which keep this same tranche of people voting Democratic. But by and large this kind of of voter has just been displaced into the suburbs.

Because NYC has three white ethnic demographic typologies rarely found elsewhere: Orthodox Jews, former Soviets and Italian-Americans with recent Italian roots. These are the Trumpy neighborhoods.

Also, NYC doesn't have residency requirements for municipal workers, so doesn't have cop/firefighter/teacher/transit worker neighborhoods, i.e. culturally conservative neighborhoods that still vote Dem largely due to union affiliations. The cop neighborhoods are on LI, and in Rockland/Orange counties.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by eschaton

There's been zero evidence of a "whitelash" nationwide. Indeed, even as someone who is politically supportive of Black Lives Matter I've been shocked at the polling - that it appears a plurality of white people are now supportive (a big reversal of a few years ago) and among moderates hostility to the police has risen, rather than any level of racial fear.

Of course, there are a certain kind of white people - conservative-leaning white people - who might see this as yet another reason to get out of dodge. The thing is, these people do not like in the big gentrifying enclaves. Except for some isolated pockets in established cities in the Northeast, they tend to not live in cities at all.

Basically, the dynamic back during the urban riots day was "white people + cops vs. blacks (and Latinos to a much lesser extent)" - the dynamic now is "conservative white people + cops vs. people of color, woke white progressives, and to a lesser extent educated white people in general" - with the latter group being largely the white folk who live in cities anyway.

I'm not talking about police brutality or racial fears but more long term social/ political instability.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'm being partially tongue-in-cheek here, looking for a silver lining. That said, if anyone leaves cities due to "chaos in the streets" it's going to be these folks - the remaining conservative-leaning white ethnics. It's not going to be the yuppie class.

As an aside, it is pretty astonishing that there are so few GOP-leaning white neighborhoods left in urban areas outside of NYC. Philly has a handful, and I think Baltimore has 1-2. Part of that is because there's still strong political machines in place in cities like Boston and Chicago which keep this same tranche of people voting Democratic. But by and large this kind of of voter has just been displaced into the suburbs.

Yea it's weird, Chicago has big swaths of the city (see: Bungalow Belt) that is pretty damn "conservative" in just about every way, until they get to the voting booth and "vote blue no matter who". Chicago political machine is deeply entrenched...

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Handro

Yea it's weird, Chicago has big swaths of the city (see: Bungalow Belt) that is pretty damn "conservative" in just about every way, until they get to the voting booth and "vote blue no matter who". Chicago political machine is deeply entrenched...

Those are heavily municipal worker neighborhoods. People who work for the city would be foolish to vote for those who wish to harm their salary/benefits.

[BEER]

I don't think an urban "exodus" will happen. What we will see is a trickle of outbound folks. A steady trickle can have disastrous impacts to municipal budgets though. Consider this, fiscal year budgets are nearing their end around June 30th. The next fiscal year budgets for cities and states is going to have to be cut. Those cuts will be sharp and it will be painful. These cuts will be yet another reason for the trickle out to continue out of badly hurt municipalities.

The analogy that comes to mind for me is the 1970s after the civil unrest of the late 1960s. Like today, at that time there was another global pandemic of 1968 that originated in Asia. That pandemic killed 100,000 Americans. The similarities of those times to today are striking.

[craigs]

If COVID-19 goes away after X number of months this year or early next, or if it becomes an annual event that is nonetheless manageable and less disruptive than what we're going through, I think there will be some increase of city-to-suburb movement due to WFH options, but I think cities will continue to grow and thrive as they have the past 15, 20 years. In such a scenario, the popularity of city living won't be significantly altered even if there is population churn.

However, if COVID-19 doesn't go away, or regularly brings significant disruption every year or twice a year well into the future, I think there could be a long-term shift in momentum away from crowded places toward more privatized, less crowded places.

As one who just left San Francisco after having lived within city limits for a combined 24 years of my life, I think the best things about cities like that are the restaurants, bars, shops, clubs, halls, theaters, museums--indoor venues that could either be shuttered or effectively halved by government order, or simply go bankrupt for lack of business should COVID-19 become a permanent or semi-permanent existential threat.

Without the benefits but with all the high costs of living in very small homes in cities like SF, I could see a long-term shift in momentum away from city living and toward suburban living. I don't think the rents or mortgages can realistically drop enough to get the balance right for a lot of today's urbanites if we're working, educating, cooking and drinking at home half the year long.

I don't ever see our great cities being 'abandoned,' but I can see a worst-case scenario in which they partly depopulate and lose many or most mom 'n' pops, which would lessen street activity and set off a downward spiral. I'm optimistic we can eventually tame the virus and I certainly hope the worst-case scenario never comes to pass.

[mhays]

Another counterpoint... Let's say that in 2022 most people will still work at workplaces, and more want to avoid commutes. Why not live withing walking distance from work if you can afford it?

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by craigs

Although I have no ties to Reno, I feel like I should point out that it's far from the worst metro of 640,000 in the nation. Because of the large casino-resorts, there are more concerts and shows than normal for a city its size, with a lot of singers and comedians coming to town throughout the year. Many bars and restaurants are allowed to stay open 24-7 (normally). And since Tahoe and the ski resorts are an hour away, the outdoor recreation is top notch.

I lived in Reno from ages 10-18, and my parents still live there.

It's gotten a bit better as a city than I remember when I was young, but yes, the reason to live there is the mountains. The casinos mostly get washed-up artists, but they still get some more cultural acts than you might expect. The Eastern Sierras as one of the prettiest parts of the US. The climate is decent too (dry, relatively mild summers and winters, snowy but not too cold). The wind can get pretty bad though.

Incomes are not very good compared to cost-of-living (housing is expensive, partially due to Californians, partially because the valley is mostly full) and the economy is very boom and busty. Earthquakes and wildfires are a hazard.

One potential issue in living in a state like Nevada is that, if you have kids and you want them to go to college, your in-state options are limited. The University of Nevada is a decent school (disclaimer: my dad is on faculty there), but it's not a great school compared to some other flagship state institutions. So, pretty much everyone smart goes out of state for college and of course many don't come back. I only have one or two friends from high school who still live in Reno...

[TWAK]

It just got too expensive for me to live in the bay area so I moved to a more affordable area, which is possible in CA. It's all about the distance to the large metro areas and county.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by craigs

However, if COVID-19 doesn't go away, or regularly brings significant disruption every year or twice a year well into the future, I think there could be a long-term shift in momentum away from crowded places toward more privatized, less crowded places.

I can say with 100% confidence that humanity would not accept COVID-19 as a permanent plague on human life. There will very likely be a vaccine by this time next year. At the very least, there will be an effective treatment. Because of that, the cynicism about the future of cities is probably way off. So many things would have to go wrong for humans to abandon cities that its pretty inconceivable to me.