Will people leave the large cities?

[lady narcissa]

Will people leave large cities?  I won't.  I've only ever lived in large cities.  It is what I know and what I am comfortable with.  I enjoy visiting rural areas but I could never live there.  Suburbia is in no way for me since I don't drive.

The pandemic showed me, as with everything, there are downsides and upsides to being in whatever location you are in from rural to urban.  The downside for me in a city was lack of access to outdoor spaces as our Mayor closed off the lakefront and public parks.  But the upside was continued uninterrupted within walking distance access to everything else from pharmacies and doctors and package deliveries and fully stocked grocery stores and restaurants offering pickup and delivery.  Our public transportation systems continued uninterrupted on full regular schedules as well.  A Covid-19 testing site is within blocks of my house and if I came down with the virus I've got a major hospital with every type of doctor right there as well.  And several other major hospitals elsewhere in the city.

Cities, and large ones at that, will continue to exist.  But there will be population shifts and I don't think the same population hubs we have now will be necessarily the same ones in the distant future.  Environmental issues will be the major cause those shifts in the future.

Chicago has experienced population shifts in neighborhoods.  Certain areas, especially on the south side, have lost residents.  But other areas, such as the downtown core, have experienced large population growth such that the population total has pretty much netted out these past 10 years.  Most people I know who have left Chicago have not done so to move to the suburbs but have done so because they dislike cold weather and they have moved to south to Tennessee, North Carolina, and Texas.  I think Chicago will one day not be the second city in terms of population but I think that will be due to other US cities increasing in population, not Chicago drastically losing population.

The Chicago Tribune has an article today has an article about shrinking cities in the Midwest (other than Chicago) and  a lot of this has to do with jobs as we move away from an industrial economy.  But while those cities are shrinking, other cities down south and west are growing.  

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-census-illinois-cities-population-loss-20200608-elh5s7pq7vcjriqnlii6hyaiea-story.html

[Larry of the Lawn]

Someone mentioned people fleeing NY after 911.  Living about a tank of gas north of the city I've seen a ton of houses and properties bought up that had been on the market for years in the last month or so.  But according to realtor acquaintances and property managers most seem to be uberwealthy city people buying a getaway or retreat, as opposed to an actual exodus from the metropolis.  several were purchased without even being viewed (mostly Dutchess, Greene, and Columbia Counties).  Kind of worries they'll blow up the market as I'm looking at splitting a small plot up in the Adirondacks with a friend to use as a camp and probably won't be ready to purchase until fall.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

I can absolutely see an increased interest in living elsewhere, and the working from home thing can probably enhance that trend a little bit. But I doubt the order of magnitude is enough to make more than a dent in the century-long trend towards increased gentrification.

As per the quote in the first post, 5% of the New York residents had left the city during the pandemic. Even if they would all leave permanently, I think there'd be plenty of people eager to sweep in and buy those apartments for the new, lower price.

 

[butterbumps!]

I left ny last week for the next 3 months (renting a place in a mountainous suburbia).   It’s only because of a very specific convergence of factors that I’m doing the temporary exodus, and if any one factor was different, I’d have remained happily in the city through Covid.  It’s the first time I think I’ve ever felt the need for a backyard and more indoor space - I’m pretty content to live in very small quarters, and prefer going to parks than private backyards.  Leaving the city is a relief for this particular set of circumstances, but I’m anxious to get back.  Pretty as it is, I would not want to live in a place like this permanently for numerous reasons, including but not limited to my hatred of driving.

[Kalbear]

I live in the suburbs, and pretty heavily rural really. I have a reasonably short commute (10 miles, 20 min) to the city. And working from home has been amazingly great for me. I can see policies like Facebook's having a major flight out from SF into way cheaper places. 

[ants]

12 hours ago, Altherion said:

I was thinking of mentioning this, but it didn't really fit into that first post. Yes, the environmentalists have been pushing the idea of dense cities with mass transit as part of a greener future. In light of the pandemic, I'm reasonably confident that this dream is, if not dead, at least indefinitely delayed. There is no doubt at all that population density contributes to the spread of diseases and similarly it is clear that both mass transit and massive apartment complexes made the coronavirus worse. It might be possible to make do with Chinese-style quarantines and enforcement, but this is simply not happening in Western cities and nobody wants it to happen.

This ignores that Australia has one of the most urbanised populations in the western world (a huge % of our population is in our cities) and that despite that are handling covid very well.  Now, we're not as densely packed as many cities, but that just shows that exactly how the cities are built can still vary.  And we do have plenty of apartment blocks.  

[brook]

1 hour ago, ants said:

This ignores that Australia has one of the most urbanised populations in the western world (a huge % of our population is in our cities) and that despite that are handling covid very well.  Now, we're not as densely packed as many cities, but that just shows that exactly how the cities are built can still vary.  And we do have plenty of apartment blocks.  

A lot of the discussion in this thread has left me confused when it seems as if suburbia is treated as completely distinct from the city itself. I’m not familiar enough with the US to know if it because there is a difference between the structure of out cities or just how we think about them. 

Like I would describe where I live as medium density suburbia, but I would also say I live in a large city and am reasonably close to the cbd. If I moved further out I wouldn’t see that as “abandoning city living” (especially when if I did so my preference would be an apartment in parramatta which is hardly low-density!).

As much as the sea/tree change stuff gets hyped up by the media I certainly can’t imagine most Australian’s wanting to move to country towns.

[Zorral]

Isn't suburban living predicated on the City around which the suburbs aggregate?

How much room for housing 'out there' is there for enormous numbers living in cities?  Where will they live?  Who will provide the services, etc.?  Next thing you know, new cities.

It's the cities and the ridiculous erections that are still going up, that have to change.  There just isn't room in the 'country' for everybody without turning it urban too.

It's going to be very interesting to see how this shakes out.

But, because humans are like that, a likelihood is what happened in the centuries of periodic bubonic plague and other epidemics.  Wave after wave of illness and death, but once things recede, everybody returned to business as usual.  Which means in another couple of years live music and sports too

Of course earlier populations didn't know what we know about such diseases -- but they certainly knew about contagion, and that isolation was the best preventive, so those who could left town and isolated during the waves.  In the later outbreaks, past the 14th and early 15th centuries, the entire world wasn't infected at the same time. So then as in the 17th century when plague again returned to London, the court went to Oxford, where it continued its hedonism and court life as it did in London.

What we will see is a vast increase again in private vehicles and what will that mean as we still refuse to fund any improvement in the transportation sector? We'll also see more people focusing energy on having another pied-à-terre for retreat when the outbreaks happen.

Also not being digital and no phones etc., people had to travel for work in a way that some sectors don't.  Which will also lead to further degradation of quality of life for many while the corps keep getting richer, not even needing to provide workplaces and equipment.

However, Climate Catastrophe is remains actively in the house, and the effect of that on both housing and work is only starting to be seen, including migration.

[Luzifer's right hand]

On 6/9/2020 at 1:19 PM, The Drunkard said:

 

I think the absolute best approach would be having fewer people. 

Well 10 billion billion in efficent cities might be much better than 1 billion people with a western lifestyle.

[aceluby]

I think the premise of this question is kind of misleading.  Has COVID hit cities hard in the US?  Of course.  Does seasonal flu also hit cities hard first?  Yes.  Does seasonal flu eventually reach rural areas?  Again yes.  I think within the next couple of months, especially with how lightly general rural areas are taking the pandemic, you're going to see rural areas hit pretty hard with even worse healthcare options and more overrun rural hospitals.  It's how these things have typically worked.  So while people are leaving (most likely temporarily), rural areas aren't immune to the virus or the toll it will eventually take.  So I don't think the pandemic itself will be a reason for leaving cities.

If people can permanently work remotely, moving to a cheaper, rural suburban area can be enticing.  But there's a tradeoff there.  Small restaurants can't really survive there at any kind of scale, so those people can't really leave.  Jobs specifically for city living can't work in rural suburbia, so those people can't leave.  Racism is also very rampant in rural suburbia, so for POC it's far less enticing to leave.  Moving is also expensive, so the working poor can't really leave.  So it's really a few privileged people that even have that option, despite the social unrest and pandemic.

So in short, no, I don't think this is going to be any kind of trend in anything except the top income brackets, which is a smaller and smaller part of the population every day.

[Altherion]

18 hours ago, ants said:

This ignores that Australia has one of the most urbanised populations in the western world (a huge % of our population is in our cities) and that despite that are handling covid very well.  Now, we're not as densely packed as many cities, but that just shows that exactly how the cities are built can still vary.  And we do have plenty of apartment blocks.  

Sort of -- you are rather understanding the difference in density. There are five Australian cities with a population of over 1 million people: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. As you can see from those Wiki pages, they have population densities of 423, 508, 155, 320, and 412 people per square kilometer (respectively). For comparison, New York City has a density of 10,715 people per square kilometer, London has 5,666 and Paris has about 20,000. In other words, the great cities of Australia are more than an order of magnitude less dense than those of Europe. But yes, Australian-style cities might be the way things go (although note that they rely rather heavily on cars...).

[Iskaral Pust]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

Sort of -- you are rather understanding the difference in density. There are five Australian cities with a population of over 1 million people: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. As you can see from those Wiki pages, they have population densities of 423, 508, 155, 320, and 412 people per square kilometer (respectively). For comparison, New York City has a density of 10,715 people per square kilometer, London has 5,666 and Paris has about 20,000. In other words, the great cities of Australia are more than an order of magnitude less dense than those of Europe. But yes, Australian-style cities might be the way things go (although note that they rely rather heavily on cars...).

That’s crazy.  Those Aussie cities are only a third as dense as Houston!  And that already feels like one huge suburb rather than a city.

Chicago is 3x denser than Houston (so 9x denser than the Aussie cities), and that’s even considered to be a prime example of urban sprawl.

It sounds like residents of those Aussie cities are suburbanites already.  The dense, truly urban core must be tiny. 

[ants]

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

Sort of -- you are rather understanding the difference in density. There are five Australian cities with a population of over 1 million people: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. As you can see from those Wiki pages, they have population densities of 423, 508, 155, 320, and 412 people per square kilometer (respectively). For comparison, New York City has a density of 10,715 people per square kilometer, London has 5,666 and Paris has about 20,000. In other words, the great cities of Australia are more than an order of magnitude less dense than those of Europe. But yes, Australian-style cities might be the way things go (although note that they rely rather heavily on cars...).

Using a single average across an Australian city shows how little you know.  There are parts that are very spread out, and parts which are much more dense.  To the degree of New York's manhattan? No.  But sufficiently so that there are areas you can't see out of the 15th floor because your apartment block is surrounded by other apartment blocks? Yes.  

[HexMachina]

On 6/9/2020 at 9:26 PM, butterbumps! said:

I left ny last week for the next 3 months (renting a place in a mountainous suburbia).   It’s only because of a very specific convergence of factors that I’m doing the temporary exodus, and if any one factor was different, I’d have remained happily in the city through Covid.  It’s the first time I think I’ve ever felt the need for a backyard and more indoor space - I’m pretty content to live in very small quarters, and prefer going to parks than private backyards.  Leaving the city is a relief for this particular set of circumstances, but I’m anxious to get back.  Pretty as it is, I would not want to live in a place like this permanently for numerous reasons, including but not limited to my hatred of driving.

This is also why I will probably always live in or very close to a city now. I can’t drive, I’ve tried to learn and it makes me feel physically ill. So its a no from me to that.

Public transport isn’t awful in terms of length of time to get into the city, and the frequency of services is alright, save Sundays and bank holidays. Although as a caveat, this is from various small hubs in the suburbs and rural-urban fringe; if you happen to live away from there its a lot more inconvenient as you have to factor in travelling to these places first. Made commuting while living with my parents a nightmare.

The price of public transport is also appalling. I’m fortunate enough to get a reduced fare, but I believe that only applies to the end of the year (it was previously a student far, mow its 16-25 i think). The full fare makes me feel queasy to think how much i would be spending per week.

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, ants said:

Using a single average across an Australian city shows how little you know.  There are parts that are very spread out, and parts which are much more dense.  To the degree of New York's manhattan? No.  But sufficiently so that there are areas you can't see out of the 15th floor because your apartment block is surrounded by other apartment blocks? Yes.  

Every city has parts that are spread out and parts that are much more dense, but I can hardly put many density maps into a single post so the overall average densities serve as shorthand. The Australian cities are less dense both when comparing city cores and when comparing the parts that are spread out.

[Skyrazer]

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

Sort of -- you are rather understanding the difference in density. There are five Australian cities with a population of over 1 million people: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. As you can see from those Wiki pages, they have population densities of 423, 508, 155, 320, and 412 people per square kilometer (respectively). For comparison, New York City has a density of 10,715 people per square kilometer, London has 5,666 and Paris has about 20,000. In other words, the great cities of Australia are more than an order of magnitude less dense than those of Europe. But yes, Australian-style cities might be the way things go (although note that they rely rather heavily on cars...).

Those are not reasonable comparisons.

Those densities for Australian cities encompass the entire metropolitan regions. Australian cities don't really have defined city boundaries and what is considered within a city's metro region is rather arbitrary. A fairer comparison would be with those cities' metro populations/densities which would be something like:

NYC - 579 p/skm

London - 1701 p/skm

Paris I don't see a metro area listed.

Australian cities are generally similar to US cities when it comes to densities with Sydney/Melbourne being similar to denser US cities like Boston or SF.

[BigFatCoward]

6 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

 

The price of public transport is also appalling. I’m fortunate enough to get a reduced fare, but I believe that only applies to the end of the year (it was previously a student far, mow its 16-25 i think). The full fare makes me feel queasy to think how much i would be spending per week.

My wife pays nearly 7 grand a year for travel into london, WFH is saving us a fortune. We are lucky that I get subsidised trains (less than £1,000) and free tube. 

[A True Kaniggit]

16 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

My wife pays nearly 7 grand a year for travel into london, WFH is saving us a fortune. We are lucky that I get subsidised trains (less than £1,000) and free tube. 

Wow. That averages out to like 19 a day just for travel.

I'm assuming that's in pounds. So the equivalent would be about $24 a day? 

[BigFatCoward]

9 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Wow. That averages out to like 19 a day just for travel.

I'm assuming that's in pounds. So the equivalent would be about $24 a day? 

That is both train and tube. But yes, and it's only that low in $ because the exchange rate is so shit currently. If she bought a day ticket it would be £70. 

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Wow. That averages out to like 19 a day just for travel.

I'm assuming that's in pounds. So the equivalent would be about $24 a day? 

What amazes me is that anyone finds that huge sum amazing. I’m so resigned to the enormous costs these days