Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ryan Klinefelter's avatar

No, it hallows them out. Cities' input are people, their output are a network effect of collaboration/creativity/productivity.

The remote work and allowing out of cities should bring price balance to real estate markets, allows for diversity with affordable housing, and allows for more flexibility for its former residents that immigrate to suburbs and smaller towns. But if the output of cities or towns or villages are network effect of collaboration/creativity/productivity, then cities as entities suffer.

But also sadly, there is probably not enough network created in smaller towns to create a vibrant collaboration over the long-term as infrastructure and suburban/urban design takes many years to implement. Vibrant towns are not just created overnight, they need to be developed. These towns might get more expensive as well, more crowded - I'm thinking Lake Tahoe as an example - and thus less rewarding to live. Arguably this has happened already in many places within driving distance of larger urban cities.

I think there are a few American examples of cities that are shells of themselves from the 1900s. St. Louis, Detroit, and Cleveland come to mind. They might be rebounding now, 50-100 years later, but can we argue that large populations leaving these cities was anything but bad for the cities wholistically?

Expand full comment
Davide Tarasconi's avatar

Yes-ish? I think it's early to tell. If the positive effects are going to happen, they are going to happen over a long period of time, through accumulation of national+local policies and personal choices.

It's about choices, really, both at the political and personal level. And about trade-offs. I've been living in Milan, Italy for the past 10 years, but, like most of the people living in Milan, I grew up in a countryside village.

Came for the job, stayed for the job, but now, like many, I'm reconsidering my choices.

It's not straightforward though. As much as I long for lower rents, green hills, milder summers, Milan is a quintessential business-centric city. Money is here. Big fish clients are here. Also: the city visibly improved during the past few years. I don't own a car in Milan, and that's a big plus in terms of quality of life — coming from a village in the middle of nowhere, I know what does it mean to need a car to go anywhere.

As and independent consultant, I can twist and turn the way I do business to adapt to smaller clients who don't care if I work remotely, allowing me to expand to international clients too. But that's not for everybody, I would argue that there's a very tiny percentage of people that could even think about the choices and opportunities I could think about.

For most people coming from countryside villages or smaller cities, "living in the big city" is the peak of their life, they are not going to leave. I know a lot of people that wouldn't leave Milan even if it was burning down.

So I think it will be a good thing for some specific aspects of the city life (less load on the public transportation system on peak hours, more investments on micromobility, more walkable areas) even in the short terms, but I don't expect drastic changes on the big stuff (I don't believe rents will lower significantly, unless there a political intervention, which I doubt will ever happen — historically, at least in Milan, landlords prefer keeping a house empty to lowering the rent).

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts