The Experiential Advantage

Source: smartcitiesworld.net

Prior to our current pandemic, it's amazing how little was known or remembered about the 1918 "Spanish Flu" pandemic. 

There's a reason for this. It happened at the end of World War I, when locked-in combatants didn't want to display any weakness to the enemy. Even though the whole world was afflicted, little was written about it in the media of the time. In fact, I put "Spanish Flu" in quotes because it's generally acknowledged the virus did not originate there; it likely originated in the U.S. It became associated with Spain because, as a neutral nation during the war, it reported widely on the virus' impact there, and other nations engaged in battling the war and the flu wanted to point to Spain as the culprit and victim.

Whether remembered or not, the 1918 pandemic still resulted in more than 500 million people being infected, or about a third of the world's population at the time. Estimates widely vary but anywhere from 17 million to 50 million people worldwide died from the virus. In the U.S. alone it's estimated that about 30 million of the nation's 105 million people were infected, and somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 died (if you want to envision what a similar impact would be on today's population, our population is a little over three times larger now; you can do the math). Remember, this occurred at a time when there were no antibiotics or ventilators. And the whole ordeal played out over a very extended period, generally believed to last between February 1918 to April 1920. 

One thing, however, is pretty clear. Despite the widespread deaths and illnesses, the pandemic had little impact on how people lived, at least in the U.S. It did not trigger a widespread shift in lifestyle or land use. The rural-to-urban transition was in full effect at the time as industrial development was booming. Cities continued to boom because they had a jobs advantage. The wealthy who had the means certainly did move to railroad or streetcar suburbs on the urban periphery, but it would be many years before the suburban explosion really happened. The U.S. Housing Acts of 1934 and 1949, which made home mortgages more affordable (hello, 30-year mortgage!) and insured by the federal government, and created money for public housing and urban renewal projects, respectively, had quite a bit to do with the growth of the suburbs. So did the G.I. Bill and the Interstate Highway Act. There were also the three "A's" that facilitated the 20th century growth of the Sun Belt -- air conditioning, affordability and anti-union sentiment. Cities continued to grow rapidly for another 30 years following the conclusion of the pandemic -- through depression and a second world war -- until federal policies undermined their growth. 

This is why I believe dire predictions of the decline of cities because of this current pandemic are overreactions. There will be -- there are now -- short-term impacts, but I don't see how this leads to a new and permanent advantage favoring suburbia, or the single family home, or small or midsize cities.

You can start by looking at the three key claims made by pundits and observers regarding how COVID-19 would remake cities. First, they claim that there is a growing movement to flee density as people seek to relocate to areas that offer less exposure opportunities to illness. Related to that is a second claim -- expressing a desire for less density means a desire for more single family housing. But perhaps the most significant claim made regarding cities is that the ability to work remotely is transforming how we work, and ultimately will transform how we live. 

Honestly, it's probably too early to make a true assessment if city residents are now choosing to flee cities for lower density communities. Anecdotally, however, there is evidence that some people are electing to do so. Back in May the New York Times published a graphic that illustrated where New Yorkers who left the city during its crisis period eventually landed. They found that most movers were headed to second homes in the Hamptons or south Florida, indicating a largely wealthy COVID-related exodus:

"The empty feeling is the most pronounced in Manhattan. In April, a little more than half of those requests for destinations outside New York City originated in Manhattan, led by neighborhoods on the Upper West and Upper East Sides.

The data from neighborhoods that saw the most requests mirrors cell phone data showing that the city's wealthiest areas saw the most movement."

Certainly New York's wealthiest can afford to make moves that others cannot, but it's also conceivable that when the virus is under control, and particularly when a vaccine is available, they could easily return.

But it's not simply the wealthy making the move. Last month Curbed.com featured a story highlighting the stories of less-wealthy individuals who left New York City for their hometowns -- in Montana, South Dakota, upstate New York. If New Yorkers do leave en masse, it's perhaps people from the middle and upper-middle class demographic that concern the city:

"My reasons were less dramatic: Mostly, I fulfilled a deep desire for outdoor space. My longing to leave preceded the pandemic. I’ve spent the past eight years — since my second child was born — trying to free myself from our below-market-rate, duct-taped-together-but-beautiful fourth floor walk-up in Brooklyn. I searched endlessly for a place that somehow had all the best parts of New York — the vibrancy, the culture, the walkability, the people, the food. And fewer of the bad parts — the schlep, the expenses, the competition for resources, the competition for everything."

In the end, however, we need to ask the question: is this an issue for New York City, or all large U.S. cities? Are we getting the same reports of people fleeing other cities? If so, I'd argue that it's largely relegated to the wealthiest members of a city, like those in Manhattan's Upper East and West Sides. 

Then there's the growing sentiment that city-dwellers will express a new desire for single-family homes in the aftermath of the pandemic. Mansion Global recently touted the benefits of more square footage, more privacy, more autonomy and less density as reasons that single-family homes would become a sound investment in the post-pandemic era. Indeed, single-family home demand and prices have gone up recently, actually preceding the pandemic. But it's unclear how much of that has to do with the pandemic itself now, or with changing demographics as Millennials approach middle age and their child-raising years. Something to keep an eye on.

But the most oft-cited reason for the pandemic having a negative impact on cities is the wider acceptance of remote work. The argument goes that if workers can work from anywhere, they can choose to live anywhere -- leaving congested and overpriced cities behind. 

Again, there is some truth to that, and it could impact cities in the short-term. But cities have an advantage that, in my opinion, will kick in once again.

If there's anything we've learned over the last 30 years of urban rebound, it's that cities maintain an experiential advantage over suburbs and smaller cities. Cities have learned to play the wealth of commercial, social and cultural amenities to their benefit. People still crave the experiential advantage, despite the pandemic or its aftermath, and the vast majority of smaller or less dense places haven't completely added the amenities to effectively compete with cities. It's worth revisiting the last part of the quote above:

"I searched endlessly for a place that somehow had all the best parts of New York — the vibrancy, the culture, the walkability, the people, the food. And fewer of the bad parts — the schlep, the expenses, the competition for resources, the competition for everything."

The desire for experience, and not simply utility, has never been greater. I don't see it retreating anytime soon. In fact, entering a new era of remote work may have the benefit of aiding cities. It's certainly conceivable that remote work empties out office towers in our downtowns. But it's also possible that those office towers could be remade into more livable spaces -- mixed use structures with residential as well as commercial and office uses. If so, the adaptation could bring more people into even closer proximity to the amenities and experiences they want, and add to the housing stock in ways that make our cities much more affordable.

Pandemic or not, humans are social creatures. We want to interact with each other, share with each other, socialize with each other. It didn't take long for people to identify the homogeneity, stultifying conformity and isolation of post-war suburbia as significant downsides of the lifestyle. It led to the creation of new generations of people who sought more from their living environment. 

There will be short-term impacts on cities related to COVID-19. But the experiential advantage of cities is their wild card, and will continue to contribute to their rebound in the long term.