How will COVID-19 affect the rebirth of US cities?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by chris08876

On a side note, there is probally a positive to the sprawled out nature of the U.S.. Just hear me out.

Compared to a lot of other nations, our population distribution tends to be very spread out. We have peaks and troughs of density fluctuations along our very large metros. Compared to some other places, with a much higher urban population AND the U.S.'s distribution of key industries away from major urban centers (in some cases, smaller tows), our national security from the sense of the key weapons of mass destruction categories which are nuclear, chemical, and biological... we may fair better than some places like Italy or Spain for example (pick country with very high urban population but limited urban or geographical sprawl).

Our sprawled out nature could be an advantage. Has its shares of disadvantages as well, but also some positives. It would take a lot of nukes for example to render our nation crippled, whereas some nation states, 2 or 3 will do the job due to "X" nation having a much higher percentage of folks in 2 or 3 metros. Our land size, and sprawl IMO is an advantage in that respect. Just replicate it in the sense of chemical/biological. We can hide and shelter over a much larger sq-mile distribution AND this would require a much higher of magnitude of delivery and potency of categories 1, 2 and 3.

I doubt this country's population density is protecting us at all. Yes, half of the known cases are in NY, but NY is 1) most aggressively testing right now, and 2) that still leaves half of the cases not in NY. Also keep in mind that the major outbreaks in Italy, South Korea, and even China, occurred away from the most densely populated cities in those countries.

Unless it is determined that a substantial number of infections has occurred on public transit, there isn't really any behavioral situation in NYC, that I can think of, that makes it more susceptible than moderate density places (like Atlanta, for instance). It might even be the opposite.

[SFBruin]

I don't know how this will affect cities generally, but it seems like it will add to the growth of the grocery delivery industry and increase the prevalence of working from home.

[jtown,man]

Off-topic, I was wondering what this will do to retail. One of three scenarios are about to happen, I suppose:

1. Retail will keep on its slow but sure march to oblivion.
2. Retail will completely collapse as people become even more accustomed to shopping online.
3. Retail will have a short rebound as people now enjoy the chance to go out and actually shop.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I just gave 2 examples, plus NYC has about half of America’s COVID-19 cases. So, yeah, there is a correlation. You know, the whole “you can have your own opinion but not your own facts” thing, etc etc.

There's a correlation, yes. But not a causation. So speculating that urban living will be less desirable makes about as much sense as speculating that places that start with the letter N will be less desirable.

The biggest NY hotspot is in a fairly sprawly enclave, BTW (the Orthodox part of New Rochelle). The biggest NYC-proper concentrations are in Queens and Brooklyn.

It appears that the NY area presently has the most cases because NY tests far far more than any other state, and because the virus is especially concentrated in the Orthodox community.

[SFBruin]

Delete.

[llamaorama]

I think for retail, this incident and the following recession will wipe out the weaker companies that were in slow decline. But that might make some breathing room for the retailers that do survive during the recovery. Chains that combine retail and grocery and thus are still open, like Walmart and Target, will probably come out ahead.

I don't think this experience is pushing people who shopped at brick and mortar towards online shopping per se, because those people probably already buy things online and have for the last 15 years. Instead the big thing this might be introducing people to is local delivery and curbside pickup. Both for restaurants and retailer. That might actually be good for traditional retail. Best Buy for example has closed the store interiors and is selling things for pickup and having a mini-boomlet in sales because everyone needs work-from-home gear like headsets and computer peripherals.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

This thread is not here to supplant the other COVID-19 thread. Please discuss updates on the virus over there.


I have a specific topic in mind. For decades, US cities in particular have contended with a counterpoint which has often served as both competition and a release valve of sorts—their vast and low density suburbs.

Loathed on this forum, they are still out there and doing just fine.

The social distancing required to prevent the spread of this and any future pandemics can easily be achieved in suburbia, with everyone in their cars.

And as we can see, our most dense city, NYC, is right now the epicenter of the epidemic—and why not? It is just so easy for a virus to spread like wildfire in such a crowded environment.

Meanwhile, one of our other huge cities, LA, isn’t generating anywhere near the amount of case reports.

This gets one thinking that we’ve had a great 20-30 year run in the US where central cities have reasserted or, for the first time asserted, their dominance over their metros due to the desirability of denser urban living.

Will the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis change this?

^^^

I was just going to start a city "de-densification & covid" thread, but you beat me to it.

Observations:

1) density is not necessarily a cause of viral spread, as long as the living units are sanitary and spaced, and the people practice isolation during an outbreak. Many Americans so far have somewhat thumbed their noses at social isolation--e.g. the disgraceful beach crowds in Florida. It may take strict fines to get some people to isolate. Verticality in skyscrapers is a way to reduce human proximity, although the people do mingle on crowded streets.

2) Some dense cities, like Shanghai, Singapore, Seoul etc. have managed to contain the virus through stringent testing and quarentine measures.

3) Some less dense cities have had outbreaks, if people are allowed to crowd together in malls, theaters, etc.

So, properly done, density will be preserved, but the rich who can afford large suburban estates might start to favor those over high rise condos. The Manhattan condo market may continue to have hard times even after the outbreak ends. A lot will depend on what happens in the next few weeks in NYC and other cities. Hopefully it won't be as bad as some fear. Hopefully the curve of new infections will bend down.

[jmecklenborg]

This is going to destroy the "dream" of NYC to many young adults who moved there with romantic notions of the place. They're going to be yelling and slamming doors as roommate disputes get completely out-of-control in the city's endless small apartments.

[emathias]

Until/unless we have strong, widespread testing everywhere, we won't really know what places have more cases. If we can measure the strain on hospital systems, it might be an acceptable proxy for testing, but for all we know at the moment the numbers in NYC are higher because they're doing more testing. I've heard enormous anecdotal stories of rural areas being next to impossible to get tests done in. Urban areas tend to have the pull to force more through.

In the big picture, density obviously may mean faster transmission, but they also mean faster identification of a problem. A well-run health system can keep transmission low in a dense area, so part of the problem is a decimated CDC staff after Obama's left. Transmission in suburbs vs cities doesn't strike me as inherently different. Density is only one of many factors deciding how something spreads. Some diseases stop when they get to cities. In a lot of ways this virus is bad because it's not so deadly that every one instantly is on board with harsh isolation measures, but it is deadly enough to overwhelm the system. And it's not so transmissible that it's everywhere at once, but it's more transmissible than most other things. It's like it's the perfect storm of being an edge case that creates just enough uncertainty to allow a slow, uncertain response, but it's bad enough to actually create real problems. If it were Ebola, it would be stopped by any means necessary. If it were flu, it would not be bad enough to overwhelm existing systems. It's "just bad enough" to create a perfect storm of maybes that no one thought to plan for.

[bigstick]

772 cases and 25 deaths in Georgia, and still our ignorant GOV has not done much...He is a member of the Trump Society with low IQ's

[10023]

In typical SSP fashion, the first 3 or 4 responses completely ignore the intended topic. Oh, as does the post directly above this one.

Anyway, I don’t think the virus will affect cities (it’s a total non-event in the medium term), but the various degrees of lockdown and the devastating impact on the economy, and in particular tourism and hospitality, certainly will.

Recessions are never good for redevelopment, gentrification, etc., but this is a particularly bad one in terms of what is getting hit hardest. And I hope I am wrong, but I expect that a good portion of the restaurants, bars, independent shops and cultural institutions (i.e., the things that make people want to live in cities) that are being forced to close as a result of this never come back. The restrictions obviously affect urban neighbourhoods to a far greater extent than the suburbs, where people already practice social distancing in normal life.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by 10023

I expect that a good portion of the restaurants, bars, independent shops and cultural institutions (i.e., the things that make people want to live in cities) that are being forced to close as a result of this never come back.

This.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by 10023

Recessions are never good for redevelopment, gentrification, etc., but this is a particularly bad one in terms of what is getting hit hardest. And I hope I am wrong, but I expect that a good portion of the restaurants, bars, independent shops and cultural institutions (i.e., the things that make people want to live in cities) that are being forced to close as a result of this never come back. The restrictions obviously affect urban neighbourhoods to a far greater extent than the suburbs, where people already practice social distancing in normal life.

In particular, I think it's going to hit high-cost cities especially hard. It's one thing to have no income for a couple months when you also don't have any salaries to pay or inventory to stock - but the rent still has to be paid regardless. And when your rent is costing tens of thousands of dollars a month, not being able to make any income for a few weeks - let alone a few months - is going to be fatal for many businesses. The larger your share of expenses that's tied up in rent/mortgage, the worse off you'll be.

Likewise for their inhabitants. EI here amounts to 50% of your regular wage - but in a city where half the population spends more than 50% of their wage on housing alone, that's going to be a problem. For servers and tip-dependant workers it's even worse. I have some bartender friends that are already having to leave town and move back in with their parents come April 1, because their ~$800/month EI cheque (about 1/4 of their actual regular income, since it doesn't account for tips) doesn't even come close to covering rent.

In the longer term though, the vacancy rate will skyrocket which should depress prices for a while and create new opportunities. In a few years we may see a lot of new upstart businesses taking off in those empty spaces.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 10023

And I hope I am wrong, but I expect that a good portion of the restaurants, bars, independent shops and cultural institutions (i.e., the things that make people want to live in cities) that are being forced to close as a result of this never come back. The restrictions obviously affect urban neighbourhoods to a far greater extent than the suburbs, where people already practice social distancing in normal life.

It depends. I've been talking to the owner of my regular coffee shop just about every day since the shutdown in NYC began. (They're still allowed to be open for take away.) Last week he was frustrated that the landlord was continuing to be hard nosed about his rent even though his revenue had dropped by over 80%, but today he said that it could be an opportunity to get another space at a cheaper price when the dust settles. So I expect businesses to come back and fill the voids, but a lot will depend on how well this is managed by the national governments.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by 10023

In typical SSP fashion, the first 3 or 4 responses completely ignore the intended topic. Oh, as does the post directly above this one.

Anyway, I don’t think the virus will affect cities (it’s a total non-event in the medium term), but the various degrees of lockdown and the devastating impact on the economy, and in particular tourism and hospitality, certainly will.

Recessions are never good for redevelopment, gentrification, etc., but this is a particularly bad one in terms of what is getting hit hardest. And I hope I am wrong, but I expect that a good portion of the restaurants, bars, independent shops and cultural institutions (i.e., the things that make people want to live in cities) that are being forced to close as a result of this never come back. The restrictions obviously affect urban neighbourhoods to a far greater extent than the suburbs, where people already practice social distancing in normal life.

Hehe you didn't address the OP's topic either (denser urban living possibly being rethought because of the spread of COVID-19).

Threads go off topic, just like conversations do in real life.

[10023]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

In particular, I think it's going to hit high-cost cities especially hard. It's one thing to have no income for a couple months when you also don't have any salaries to pay or inventory to stock - but the rent still has to be paid regardless. And when your rent is costing tens of thousands of dollars a month, not being able to make any income for a few weeks - let alone a few months - is going to be fatal for many businesses. The larger your share of expenses that's tied up in rent/mortgage, the worse off you'll be.

Likewise for their inhabitants. EI here amounts to 50% of your regular wage - but in a city where half the population spends more than 50% of their wage on housing alone, that's going to be a problem. For servers and tip-dependant workers it's even worse. I have some bartender friends that are already having to leave town and move back in with their parents come April 1, because their ~$800/month EI cheque (about 1/4 of their actual regular income, since it doesn't account for tips) doesn't even come close to covering rent.

In the longer term though, the vacancy rate will skyrocket which should depress prices for a while and create new opportunities. In a few years we may see a lot of new upstart businesses taking off in those empty spaces.

Well rent payments are clearly going to need to be suspended until these businesses can reopen, and I find it shocking that places like NY and SF haven’t done that yet. Many landlords in London are doing it voluntarily, and I expect it becomes a government edict soon.

[10023]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Hehe you didn't address the OP's topic either (denser urban living possibly being rethought because of the spread of COVID-19).

Threads go off topic, just like conversations do in real life.

I did. I just said that the virus itself is a non-event and moved on to the negative consequences that I do think this whole fiasco will have for cities.

[JManc]

This virus in of itself potentially could have far reaching effects beyond this particular pandemic. People maybe wary of dense/ highly concentrated areas. I think that's a long shot but a small number of people could become hyper aware about cleanliness and crowded areas. The numbers of infections are mirroring population densities; New York City Area is off the charts. Upstate is sparsely infected.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by JManc

This virus in of itself potentially could have far reaching effects beyond this particular pandemic. People maybe wary of dense/ highly concentrated areas. I think that's a long shot but a small number of people could become hyper aware about cleanliness and crowded areas. The numbers of infections are mirroring population densities; New York City Area is off the charts. Upstate is sparsely infected.

Density is just one variable and probably not the most important correlating numbers of infections and how it is spreading. My understanding is that a lot of the infections in NY are coming out of Westchester County. Additionally, until the other States can catch up to NY as far as testing capability we really cannot extrapolate what is making the virus spread. CA is terrible with testing right now but much less dense Santa Clara County has many more cases that hyper dense San Francisco County.

[Acajack]

As I sort of alluded to on the previous page, while corporate decision-making and blockbusting certainly played a major role, what really did in inner city America in the 60s, 70s and 80s was millions of individual decisions made by American families.

Not just or primarily about this, but an interesting book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point