As the centers of media and political discourse, large cities, notably New York, have a unique ability to promote themselves, asserting that dense, core urban areas own the future. Yet in reality, even during good times, and well before the pandemic, Americans have been headed, in increasing numbers, to suburbs, exurbs and to smaller cities. Romantic illusions to past urban recoveries may make people feel better, but they ignore both long-lasting trends and new realities.
People vote with their feet, and today, only a small percentage of Americans live in or around the core urban counties. In 1950, the core cities accounted for nearly 24% of the U.S. population; today the share is under 15%. In contrast, the suburbs and exurbs grew from housing 13% of the metropolitan population in 1940 to 86% in 2017, a gradual increase of 2% a year. Despite all the talk of young people and families and others coming “back to the city,” suburbs accounted for about 90% of all U.S. metropolitan growth since 2010; over that time, suburbs and exurbs of the major metropolitan areas gained 2 million net domestic migrants, while the urban core counties lost 2.7 million.
Much the same can be said about the economy. During the last decade, roughly 80% of all job growth has been in the suburbs. Suburbs also generate the bulk of patents; in fact, three-quarters come from areas with less 3,500 people per square mile, less than half the density associated with urban centers.
The pandemic accelerated these already existing trends. New census numbers show that San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles led the population loss sweepstakes over the past year, while people headed to the Sunbelt, suburbs, exurbs or even small towns.
But the real issue now is not so much the pandemic per se but the rise of dispersed work. Midtown offices are still more than half empty — and that’s not just the pessimist’s way of seeing the glass. While they will recover some, they will likely not replace a large portion of what was lost. Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom suggests that remote workers will ultimately constitute at least 20% of the workforce, more than three times the pre-pandemic rate.
This leaves the large central business districts such as Midtown particularly exposed. As long-time urban booster Richard Florida notes, central business districts represent “the last gasp of the old Industrial age.” He adds, “This idea that you have to pack and stack these office workers and they have to commute in at 9 and leave at 5 and work in cubicle farms— it’s just silly. It is completely out of touch with the way people work.”
Some corporate executives, particularly big financial firms like Goldman Sachs, will fight the trend, given their massive investments in soaring offices and the CEOs’ and COOs’ fixation with occupying the elite suites above the clouds. Yet the worker bees are somewhat less enthusiastic. McKinsey & Company reports that more than one-half of surveyed employees would like their employers to adopt more flexible hybrid working models. More than one quarter of employees indicated that “they would consider switching employers if their organization returned to fully on-site work.”
We have passed the days when employers can reasonably demand people work five days a week in Manhattan, accepting all the absurdly high costs, the crowding and stress in exchange for a job. The rewards may still be high enough in some industries, notably corporate finance and media and theater, but for most people and companies, a traditional urban location is now more a choice than a necessity.
What does that mean for New York and other great traditional cities? The first priority cities need to deal with a social order that has become, as a recent MIT report suggests, inhospitable to working- and middle-class residents. If traditional urbanism is a choice, not a necessity, cities must also compete with the periphery by addressing crime, homelessness and public education.
New York also needs to diversify from the “transactional city” that replaced the older industrial model but now itself has to be rethought. To maintain a healthy middle and working class, the city needs not just global dealmakers but also more specialized craft-based manufacturing. It must leverage its status as a major entrepot, and look to spread jobs, particularly in the information and software sector, out to the boroughs where the vast majority of New Yorkers live.
To construct a better future, New York needs to make itself more attractive to individual talent from around the world. That means not building more antiquated towers, including some eight million new square feet about to be dumped on the market, or more luxury apartments. The proper focus should be on improving the daily lives and prospects for the still substantial population that would choose New York if the cost in dollars and everyday stress is not too exorbitant.
Kotkin is a fellow in urban studies at Chapman University and author of “The Coming of Neo-Feudalism.” This is adapted from an Intelligence Squared debate on the future of big cities.
