I think your Chicago instincts may be off. It seems to receive almost as many annual visitors as NYC. It seems to be quite a destination. This is likely because its so central to the Midwest. If you're in Boston or DC you rarely need to go to NYC whereas Chicago is THE hub for the center of the country. Comparative advantage will likely matter, going from Boston-NYC means you lose out on a lot of the academia, the new England lifestyle, the culture and history. Going from Cleveland to Chicago, however, has very few drawbacks! Chicago in particular seems to have a very large pool of people living in cities that are Chicago-lite and arent all that appealing to live in. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-visited-cities-in-the-us.html
This is thought-provoking for my hometown, Minneapolis. Minneapolis has done quite well relative to other mid-sized Midwest cities, but with the rise of remote work, how many people will want to stick around for the winters?
Really like the Seattle analysis there. While I think it affords better quality of life than Detroit, I agree that it's too closely tied to a single, major employer. If that changes, it can unravel fast, and they are in every part of the Seattle economy.
Will people want to permanently work remote? Not sure if there's good data on WFH vs in-person productivity (I'd assume this varies by job title and age), but I've felt output has stayed constant despite increases in hours worked (I'm a software developer). Also, I feel like most people prefer the office (esp younger people w/ closer work friends), but my circles are not very representative.
I think we need to differentiate between daily amenities and occasional amenities as different places have different strengths. We just moved from NYC metro to Cleveland. Why? The things we care about on a *day to day* basis is high quality real estate / neighborhood at a great price, great schools, beach/waterfront and cultural amenities (theatre and orchestra within 10 minutes and easy parking). Stuff like a tropical setting or an amazing new Broadway production we can access with an easy weekend trip given how uncrowded the airport is. Yes winters are tough but if you have a decent job and can travel you can get away quite easily. So yes I agree boosters always think they are more special than they are - but there is plenty to like about 2nd tier cities. I just don’t see how one can argue that they have worse “daily” amenities.
This wfh thing is way overblown. People are less productive out of physical proximity to their colleagues. Face to face is where it’s at.
Videoconferencing has been around for years. It was suboptimal in 2010 and it’s just as suboptimal now. The (physical) network effect is where greatness happens. Planning needs proximity.
Boston and Seattle will be fine. Miami will remain a predominantly Latin American city, reliant on tourism, with few well paid jobs and high violent crime. Climate change will likely render it uninhabitable inside 30 years.
Right, people are videoconferencing now not because of some sudden leap in technological progress, but because they’re not allowed to come into the office. That seems to be the elephant in the room a lot of people are missing.
Interesting. But I actually think that whether or not people will move out of the city will depend to a great degree on that city's core industry. if your city "specializes in" healthcare, biotech, manufacturing, etc. then your workers are staying put. I mean, yes there are jobs in all those fields that can be done remotely (healthcare coding for example) but most of your workforce has to come in. If you're a city that specializes in government (basically the state capitals and DC), then it's a bit more of a mixed bag. There I expect we will see people come in to the office but not as much as before, This, I expect, will lead to people moving to the suburbs and the exurbs. That will have political as well as economic implications. If you are a business that specializes in tech, publishing, stuff that is done on the cloud then yes, I suspect you will see a lot of high-priced staff leave. So I wouldn't focus on whether the city is a "superstar" or not but more on that city's industries.
I manage a large distributed team that has collaborated digitally very effectively across continents for the last decade. However, there's a big difference between having multiple remote offices of different sizes and the pandemic atomization, where everyone is in their separate (home) office. We can continue existing projects effectively because the tacit knowledge undergirding the project is already in place. But starting new projects is harder, because all the informal f2f communication of a shared office has to be replaced by clumsier digital proxies. We need direct human contact to start the best projects.
I spent the better part of my pandemic (stranded in US, that is, before I was able to return to China) in Seattle. It's utterly gorgeous. I could easily see it being a "lifestyle city" in the same vein as more conventionally glamorous towns.
I tend to agree with Matt's take on things. But this is one where we differ. Agglomeration effects are (literally) as old as civilization itself, and aren't going away. In five years they'll be back with a vengeance. Today's super star cities will still be 2030's.
What's up with his obsession with Boston winters? The weather that time of the year in southern, coastal NY is very similar to what you get in the Tristate. Did Matt get locked out of his dorm room in Cambridge one night back in January, 1999, as is still suffering PTSD?
As a Seattle area resident, who moved here from the Bay Area, I feel attacked and I think that Matt needs to visit Seattle and reassess.
Seattle's population is understated because alot of professionals live on the 'eastside' across the bridges and commute into Seattle (or Redmond). It is more dispersed than SF.
To be sure the city itself sucks; it has a huge homeless problem and none of the charm of SF or attractions of NYC. However the Puget Sound area has a relatively mild climate and amazing natural beauty which is a big draw. It also has alot of already well-established growing businesses so the economy will keep doing just fine even if new business startups do decline. A huge advantage Seattle has over SF or NYC is people actually build here; construction is constant in the area, alot of it in the eastside towns, so although Seattle is expensive its much cheaper than the Bay Area. Its a good place to live!
Seattle is expensive, no doubt. But Seattle is quite frankly an awesome city with plenty to do. Way more than Detroit. I find it hard to believe that there would be a mass exodus.
I will not live anywhere that doesn't get cold in the winter. I live in Cleveland now. I wonder if there is a large segment of people who like winter enough to behave like me.
Two things I'll mention before reading the rest of the comments:
First, it seems like Seattle is the one major city on this list that has really gotten its stuff together over the past few years. It's got major transit expansion, huge amounts of residential construction, and even before the pandemic was having decrease in the number of people driving into downtown even as the number of people working there was increasing, and housing prices were starting to decrease because of housing supply keeping up with demand. And with the pandemic itself, Seattle seems to be the only major city that has managed well (Washington has been in the bottom ten states for cases and deaths for basically the entire time after the first couple weeks, and Jenny Durkan and Jay Inslee seem to have worked together far more effectively than Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo, or even London Breed and Gavin Newsom).
The other interesting case is Austin. It often gets talked about in ways that make people think it's a major city, despite being way smaller than even Seattle. But it looks like it's developing some of this "superstar" dynamic. And I have to admit, I am one of many people currently taking advantage of remote work to live in Austin.
We're looking to buy a house in Seattle soon to be near family, we kind of can't win no matter what prices do. Either we'll lose a bunch of money on the investment or our child won't be able to afford to live near us when after graduation. Oof.
I think your Chicago instincts may be off. It seems to receive almost as many annual visitors as NYC. It seems to be quite a destination. This is likely because its so central to the Midwest. If you're in Boston or DC you rarely need to go to NYC whereas Chicago is THE hub for the center of the country. Comparative advantage will likely matter, going from Boston-NYC means you lose out on a lot of the academia, the new England lifestyle, the culture and history. Going from Cleveland to Chicago, however, has very few drawbacks! Chicago in particular seems to have a very large pool of people living in cities that are Chicago-lite and arent all that appealing to live in. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-visited-cities-in-the-us.html
This is thought-provoking for my hometown, Minneapolis. Minneapolis has done quite well relative to other mid-sized Midwest cities, but with the rise of remote work, how many people will want to stick around for the winters?
Bringing it back to land-use, playing the hits.
Really like the Seattle analysis there. While I think it affords better quality of life than Detroit, I agree that it's too closely tied to a single, major employer. If that changes, it can unravel fast, and they are in every part of the Seattle economy.
Will people want to permanently work remote? Not sure if there's good data on WFH vs in-person productivity (I'd assume this varies by job title and age), but I've felt output has stayed constant despite increases in hours worked (I'm a software developer). Also, I feel like most people prefer the office (esp younger people w/ closer work friends), but my circles are not very representative.
I think we need to differentiate between daily amenities and occasional amenities as different places have different strengths. We just moved from NYC metro to Cleveland. Why? The things we care about on a *day to day* basis is high quality real estate / neighborhood at a great price, great schools, beach/waterfront and cultural amenities (theatre and orchestra within 10 minutes and easy parking). Stuff like a tropical setting or an amazing new Broadway production we can access with an easy weekend trip given how uncrowded the airport is. Yes winters are tough but if you have a decent job and can travel you can get away quite easily. So yes I agree boosters always think they are more special than they are - but there is plenty to like about 2nd tier cities. I just don’t see how one can argue that they have worse “daily” amenities.
This wfh thing is way overblown. People are less productive out of physical proximity to their colleagues. Face to face is where it’s at.
Videoconferencing has been around for years. It was suboptimal in 2010 and it’s just as suboptimal now. The (physical) network effect is where greatness happens. Planning needs proximity.
Boston and Seattle will be fine. Miami will remain a predominantly Latin American city, reliant on tourism, with few well paid jobs and high violent crime. Climate change will likely render it uninhabitable inside 30 years.
Right, people are videoconferencing now not because of some sudden leap in technological progress, but because they’re not allowed to come into the office. That seems to be the elephant in the room a lot of people are missing.
Interesting. But I actually think that whether or not people will move out of the city will depend to a great degree on that city's core industry. if your city "specializes in" healthcare, biotech, manufacturing, etc. then your workers are staying put. I mean, yes there are jobs in all those fields that can be done remotely (healthcare coding for example) but most of your workforce has to come in. If you're a city that specializes in government (basically the state capitals and DC), then it's a bit more of a mixed bag. There I expect we will see people come in to the office but not as much as before, This, I expect, will lead to people moving to the suburbs and the exurbs. That will have political as well as economic implications. If you are a business that specializes in tech, publishing, stuff that is done on the cloud then yes, I suspect you will see a lot of high-priced staff leave. So I wouldn't focus on whether the city is a "superstar" or not but more on that city's industries.
I manage a large distributed team that has collaborated digitally very effectively across continents for the last decade. However, there's a big difference between having multiple remote offices of different sizes and the pandemic atomization, where everyone is in their separate (home) office. We can continue existing projects effectively because the tacit knowledge undergirding the project is already in place. But starting new projects is harder, because all the informal f2f communication of a shared office has to be replaced by clumsier digital proxies. We need direct human contact to start the best projects.
Late to the party. A few thoughts:
I spent the better part of my pandemic (stranded in US, that is, before I was able to return to China) in Seattle. It's utterly gorgeous. I could easily see it being a "lifestyle city" in the same vein as more conventionally glamorous towns.
I tend to agree with Matt's take on things. But this is one where we differ. Agglomeration effects are (literally) as old as civilization itself, and aren't going away. In five years they'll be back with a vengeance. Today's super star cities will still be 2030's.
What's up with his obsession with Boston winters? The weather that time of the year in southern, coastal NY is very similar to what you get in the Tristate. Did Matt get locked out of his dorm room in Cambridge one night back in January, 1999, as is still suffering PTSD?
“southern, coastal, NE”
As a Seattle area resident, who moved here from the Bay Area, I feel attacked and I think that Matt needs to visit Seattle and reassess.
Seattle's population is understated because alot of professionals live on the 'eastside' across the bridges and commute into Seattle (or Redmond). It is more dispersed than SF.
To be sure the city itself sucks; it has a huge homeless problem and none of the charm of SF or attractions of NYC. However the Puget Sound area has a relatively mild climate and amazing natural beauty which is a big draw. It also has alot of already well-established growing businesses so the economy will keep doing just fine even if new business startups do decline. A huge advantage Seattle has over SF or NYC is people actually build here; construction is constant in the area, alot of it in the eastside towns, so although Seattle is expensive its much cheaper than the Bay Area. Its a good place to live!
Great post!
"Anywhere people like to visit will be a place that remote workers like to live."
That is starkly true here in Bend. The housing inventory is 0.3 months, and the median time on market is four days:
https://beaconappraisal.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BEACON-REPORT-NEW-January-2021.pdf
Surely not sustainable.
Seattle is expensive, no doubt. But Seattle is quite frankly an awesome city with plenty to do. Way more than Detroit. I find it hard to believe that there would be a mass exodus.
I will not live anywhere that doesn't get cold in the winter. I live in Cleveland now. I wonder if there is a large segment of people who like winter enough to behave like me.
And by large, I mean "large enough to foil Matt's argument."
Two things I'll mention before reading the rest of the comments:
First, it seems like Seattle is the one major city on this list that has really gotten its stuff together over the past few years. It's got major transit expansion, huge amounts of residential construction, and even before the pandemic was having decrease in the number of people driving into downtown even as the number of people working there was increasing, and housing prices were starting to decrease because of housing supply keeping up with demand. And with the pandemic itself, Seattle seems to be the only major city that has managed well (Washington has been in the bottom ten states for cases and deaths for basically the entire time after the first couple weeks, and Jenny Durkan and Jay Inslee seem to have worked together far more effectively than Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo, or even London Breed and Gavin Newsom).
The other interesting case is Austin. It often gets talked about in ways that make people think it's a major city, despite being way smaller than even Seattle. But it looks like it's developing some of this "superstar" dynamic. And I have to admit, I am one of many people currently taking advantage of remote work to live in Austin.
We're looking to buy a house in Seattle soon to be near family, we kind of can't win no matter what prices do. Either we'll lose a bunch of money on the investment or our child won't be able to afford to live near us when after graduation. Oof.