Demographic impact of urban exodus

[llamaorama]

Originally Posted by Qubert

The answer always has been socioeconomic integration. Wither it's Topeka, KS or Manhattan NYC whenever we segregate people by class we end up with these discrepancies.

That socioeconomic integration is further along in (many, not all) metro areas cs rural ones, though.

And rural sprawl is itself a way of resisting “socioeconomic integration” IMO. It let’s different groups isolate themselves. It’s a way to make local government unnecessary and then bleed it out through flight of tax generating activities.

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Yes, but that's not my point. It sounds like you agree with me, actually.

I'm not sure what I've said thus far that would suggest that I either agree or disagree with you. I'm not even sure how my one-line comment about Arkansas having nice natural amenities managed to set you off on a multi-paragraph tirade about how

Originally Posted by llamaorama

working class small towns and the rural sprawl are not so lovely places to live for a variety of reasons

and also

Originally Posted by llamaorama

if high income professionals capable of working from home decide to move from major metropolitan areas to rural areas, then the subsequent movement of working class service industry employees following them and their personal spending is going to be marooned in places that aren't going to be nice to them.

So, high-income professionals shouldn't move to rural or working-class small towns (in the South and Midwest in particular—not that they would anyway, duh, because those places are all terrible, obviously) because service workers would then be forced at gunpoint to follow them to places where backwards Southerners and Midwesterners will treat them poorly? Meanwhile, service workers are all well-paid and treated like royalty in urban areas and their kids all attend top-notch schools. Turns out I probably don't agree with you.

[craigs]

Yeah, I don't understand that argument. In the rural area in which I now live, there's much higher unemployment (perennially, not talking about COVID-19 here) than in the city I just left. It's much more likely that a previously jobless local would get one of those service jobs, should they start hiring people for such things, than for some fast-food worker to also move here from hundreds of miles away.

[Nomad9]

If remote work really catches on more permanently, one effect of all this could be even fewer families in large urban areas. Major urban areas are already really expensive for families. If you can work remotely, why spend out the nose to work in DC or SF for a small 2/3-bed house when you could live in Roanoke or Reno for much less and enough space for the kiddos plus a home office? City amenities are great, but the availability of remote work just incentives growing young families to live further away.

[craigs]

Reno isn't that cheap, believe it or not. It has been a recipient of Bay Area migration for over a decade.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Nomad9

If you can work remotely, why spend out the nose to work in DC or SF for a small 2/3-bed house when you could live in Roanoke or Reno for much less and enough space for the kiddos plus a home office?

Because you make a hell of a lot more money in DC than in Reno. If your work goes permanent remote your salary will plummet. And why were you in DC in the first place?

People aren't attracted to urban cores because of jobs, but environment. They want to be around like-minded people with similar worldviews, they want the amenities, they want the housing typologies. If you didn't like core DC living, you wouldn't be there in the first place; the suburbs are much cheaper and easier, esp. with kids.

And it's not very difficult for anyone with technical skills to get a job really anywhere in the U.S. It's not like it's easier to get a job in DC compared to Reno. If you're a medical professional or educator, rural areas are begging for you. And if your job is only available in DC and dislike cities, cheap sprawl is nearby, no reason to move to Nevada.

[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.

[llamaorama]

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

I'm not sure what I've said thus far that would suggest that I either agree or disagree with you. I'm not even sure how my one-line comment about Arkansas having nice natural amenities managed to set you off on a multi-paragraph tirade about how



and also



So, high-income professionals shouldn't move to rural or working-class small towns (in the South and Midwest in particular—not that they would anyway, duh, because those places are all terrible, obviously) because service workers would then be forced at gunpoint to follow them to places where backwards Southerners and Midwesterners will treat them poorly? Meanwhile, service workers are all well-paid and treated like royalty in urban areas and their kids all attend top-notch schools. Turns out I probably don't agree with you.

Your mis-characterization of my argument by adding your own adjectives(move at "gunpoint", "treated like royalty", "top notch schools") does not prove me wrong. I never said that people would be pushed to move, or that they had it really good where they are now. Just that they have it somewhat less bad, and a decline in jobs erodes the desire to live in a place over time leading to population loss.

While wages after cost of living and the quality of public schools are obviously terrible in the classic "urban ghettoes" and some big cities show up red on this map, in general most metro areas are better places to be than the south.

One of the interesting things this map also shows that rural areas in the plains midwest actually score the best. I just don't foresee coastal wall street or silicon valley types moving Grand Island or Scottsbluff.

http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/neighborhoods/
Source: Equality of Opportunity Project, found on the page linked above.

Yeah, I don't understand that argument. In the rural area in which I now live, there's much higher unemployment (perennially, not talking about COVID-19 here) than in the city I just left. It's much more likely that a previously jobless local would get one of those service jobs, should they start hiring people for such things, than for some fast-food worker to also move here from hundreds of miles away.

A long-term trend doesn't require the service worker from California to move to Arkansas next week. Eventually the jobless locals would get jobs, slowly. Migration would come from all over the US.

I would guess things would be similar to the decline of industry in the Rust Belt and relative increase in industry in the south. This didn't happen overnight nor did all the workers in Alabama come from Michigan. And there is a third variable of overseas outsourcing. But that doesn't disprove the real world outcome. In general you could accurately say that differences in going wages, unions, taxation, and regulations between states has led to a shift in industrial jobs to locations where the workers earn less, work longer shifts, face greater safety hazards on the job, and live in communities where other needs like healthcare and education are lower quality.

A rise in remote work would cause a similar race-to-the-bottom for the service industry due to the indirect movement of white-collar professionals.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Because you make a hell of a lot more money in DC than in Reno. If your work goes permanent remote your salary will plummet. And why were you in DC in the first place?

Sometimes it's not about money but quality of life. As exciting as big cities are, they are hectic, expensive and stressful for most. DC has the think tanks, government contractors and a lot of HQ's but if someone with the skill-sets can work at these companies remotely and don't want the hassle/ expense of DC, it's a win-win situation.

I have degrees and skills that are probably far more in demand in the Bay Area than in Houston but would never relocate there but would certainly take a remote opportunity with a company based there.

[llamaorama]

I think that NYC, LA, Seattle, SF, Washington DC, etc are one extreme end of the spectrum and that genuinely rural areas are the other extreme end of the spectrum.

80% of the population lives in a metro area, and the census recognizes 384 of them. Some of those metros at the bottom of the ranking are really just small towns with other small towns nearby getting lumped together statistically, but everything in the top 100 could definitely meet the subjective definition of "city" to the average person, while its only the top 10-15 big urban cores that stand out as being expensive, inconvenient, etc.

A place like Boise or Kansas City isn't really that expensive. People who live in central areas in dense housing do so out of choice, businesses that locate downtown instead of in an office campus in the suburbs are doing out of a company culture. I don't see how COVID is going to suddenly make people flee these places and move to somewhere in the sticks just because you get more house for your money. Sometimes more isn't everything, not everyone wants to live in the country. Especially when the country in most places isn't so interesting or desirable.

[mhays]

So far, the trend in my area appears to be a continued boom in urban housing. Most projects have restarted construction, or restarted design/entitlement/permitting, new proposals keep popping up at the start of entitlements, and some projects have broken ground during covid. Only one big one has said it's pausing, and that's a national developer who was nearing a start.

Developers tend to be optimistists. They often move projects forward until it's obvious they shouldn't. But starts are a better sign...the developer, financiers, future occupants (if applicable) need to spend real money.

The desire of money to be put to work is a factor. Real estate development can be an attractive bet. There's probably a Covid discount for construction if demand wanes, offsetting some added cost due to inefficiencies of during-Covid construction. You don't have to worry about occupancy until the building is complete, depending on project type.

But it's also a bet on the city. While the big, expensive cities might lose some residents to cheaper areas to the extent that full-time WFH becomes common, or even partial WFH, they'll also benefit from pent-up demand, and the ability of someone working in Topeka to live in the big city for a while. Some self-sorting is inevitable, and the high-desire cities probably win.

Meanwhile I count four office buildings that have started during Covid in my area...three in Downtown Bellevue (all at least rumored to be Amazon, including Bellevue's first 600'er), plus a shorter building in Seattle.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

Sometimes it's not about money but quality of life. As exciting as big cities are, they are hectic, expensive and stressful for most.

I agree with all this; my point is that if someone doesn't value urbanity, they would leave, regardless of whether or not there's a pandemic. There's no point to living in Dupont Circle over Herndon, VA, if you don't value what Dupont Circle offers.

And the idea that there's a bunch of people living in Dupont Circle who want to live in sprawl, but who were unable to pre-pandemic, doesn't make sense.

[dc_denizen]

real estate is taking off in formerly stagnant NYC suburbs though

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

real estate is taking off in formerly stagnant NYC suburbs though

Too early to tell. RE agents are making such claims; the actual posted sales show no such trend.

But yeah, if a news source talks to an agent, in, say, Westport, CT, she'll claim that half the planet is fighting for her inventory. Meanwhile my daily Zillow update shows very little transactional activity.

Now rentals are another story. If you have a house for rent in a beachy or forested area, you're making bank right now, for obvious reasons. But that ends by September, more than likely. And financial service workers are actually starting limited in-office work tomorrow.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I agree with all this; my point is that if someone doesn't value urbanity, they would leave, regardless of whether or not there's a pandemic. There's no point to living in Dupont Circle over Herndon, VA, if you don't value what Dupont Circle offers.

And the idea that there's a bunch of people living in Dupont Circle who want to live in sprawl, but who were unable to pre-pandemic, doesn't make sense.

I think there are enough of those who are ambivalent about where they live even if it's a desirable area like DuPont Circle. These people would not think twice about a job transfer to a sunbelt city and then happily live in the suburbs. This forum is an outlier for passionate urban living. To many, it's just where they happen to live.

[Nomad9]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I agree with all this; my point is that if someone doesn't value urbanity, they would leave, regardless of whether or not there's a pandemic. There's no point to living in Dupont Circle over Herndon, VA, if you don't value what Dupont Circle offers.

And the idea that there's a bunch of people living in Dupont Circle who want to live in sprawl, but who were unable to pre-pandemic, doesn't make sense.

Urban center vs. sprawl wasn’t really my point. I was talking about families that value urban lifestyles trading them out for smaller, less expensive cities (perhaps Reno was a bad example?).

Say I’m an attorney who has family/friends in the mid-Atlantic, so I get a fancy job in DC that really isn’t available outside the biggest US markets. I’m living in DC because I value urban living and hate sprawl, but I’m also starting a family. Now I have the chance to work remotely 90% of the time and go into the office only when needed. Instead of shelling out money for a small space in DC or moving to (still fairly expensive) Herndon, maybe I can get a decent sized house in a moderately walkable and established neighborhood in Richmond or Norfolk. That could be way more attractive than the previous dilemma.

Obviously this wouldn’t apply to people who want the most cosmopolitan life or already love suburbia, as you pointed out, but it could be an attractive middle option.

[mhays]

Yes, but how many will have jobs that make that easy? I can buy that maybe 10-25% of all office jobs will be at least partially WFH. An even higher number wouldn't be surprising. But living in Richmond and working in DC means the commute needs to be both occasional and predictable. No spur-of the moment 7:00 am meetings, just that one day a week you've planned for. What is it, 2.5 hours at rush hour?

I'm just guessing on this stuff like everyone else. But it seems like some categories will emerge...people totally free to live anywhere (very few), people tied to an office but only occasionally (how tied will relate to how far they'll go), people who need to commute frequently but not every day (who need to stay local but won't care about the commute quite as much), people who work at the office but have a little more leeway, and people who stay in the old ways but have a slightly more liberal sick leave policy they remain afraid to use for good reason.

It remains to be seen whether the superstar cities lose people who don't want to live in them, or gain more people because companies can locate there while having an easier time recruiting worldwide without relying on those who are willing to afford them PLUS (breathe) people choosing to live in a city they've dreamed about living which they can now do despite working in other cities.

[Nomad9]

Originally Posted by mhays

Yes, but how many will have jobs that make that easy? I can buy that maybe 10-25% of all office jobs will be at least partially WFH. An even higher number wouldn't be surprising. But living in Richmond and working in DC means the commute needs to be both occasional and predictable. No spur-of the moment 7:00 am meetings, just that one day a week you've planned for.

Right, this is premised in the theory that those spur of the moment things will largely be on zoom or something now. I don’t think the category I mentioned is huge, just potentially another incentive to pull even more young families.

Now, if companies start MAKING employees work from home and downsizing office space on a large scale, that could really drive this because then you need extra space that’s hard to get in expensive cities.

It’s really all guesswork. Personally, I think in a few years we’ll see that things haven’t really changed much. People want to go back to “normal”—once it’s truly safe to do so (vaccine, eradicated some other way) people are going to jump at our old routines, just perhaps in a more sanitary fashion.

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Your mis-characterization of my argument by adding your own adjectives(move at "gunpoint", "treated like royalty", "top notch schools") does not prove me wrong.

you're arguing against a rhetorical that would never even happen, hence the "gunpoint" comment—that's the only way you'd ever get the type of service worker migration that you're fretting over. and if wealthy professionals ever were to move en masse to some rural town in Arkansas, for example, don't you think that might change the culture and economics of that place just a little bit? improve the schools? etc. what you really seem to be saying is "i don't want what happened to the rust belt to happen to my city, so nobody go anywhere." the map you posted is basically the distribution of historically black communities in the US versus the more recent westward migration of white wealth. so... duh. but, again, a redistribution of wealth of the type that this thread imagines would alter that landscape. so IMO your argument just comes across as a typical, tired polemic against the "backward" south and midwest, which have had to contend with decades of economic plundering by coastal douchebags due to deregulation, among other things.

[Acajack]

For what it's worth, I live in an inner suburban area that's about 10 km from Canada's parliament (equivalent to Capitol Hill) in Ottawa.

My city of Gatineau doesn't have a "strong" downtown, though neighbouring Ottawa across the river truly does.

Over the past couple of weeks I've gotten three cold calls (including one about an hour ago) from real estate agents saying demand for my neighbourhood is red-hot. Asking if I'd be interested in selling my house.

I've been living here for 20 years or so and this has very rarely happened in the past.