[hn_throwaway_99]

I think the aftermath of coronavirus is really going to be larger that most people are anticipating when it comes to work and migration patterns:

1. In the past 25 years there has been a huge re-migration back to cores of major cities. I think that is going to stop.

2. Suburbs and exurbs I think will become way more popular. The normal limiting factor on those locations is the commute, but I think so many more companies will be used to remote work after this (even if they don't necessarily prefer it) that you'll see a lot more "come into the office once or twice a week" type things that make living in the exurbs a lot more bearable.

3. I don't foresee migration away from the major metros. People will still go where the jobs are, and if anything I see the pandemic making strong companies stronger and smaller, weaker companies weaker. Definitely would not be willing to put a lot of money down on this 3rd point, though, could see a trend toward 2nd/3rd tier cities.

[kolikotime]

I think your third point is mostly strong. I see most companies going to partial remote but staying in their current locations. For growth to 2nd/3rd tier cities to dominate we’d need to see stronger job growth there than in major metros, or for near universal remote work. Also with this huge recession most people will be more hesitant to move without a secured job. I think your assertion is correct.

[groby_b]

Disagreement on #2 and #3:

#2: Suburbs/exurbs are completely unsustainable. I'd predict that after this is over, local food sources will figure prominently on people's minds. We might see a return to smaller satellite cities if zoning changes to a saner mixed zoning approach. (You don't want big box stores. You do want smaller stores embedded in the local community. I'm not sure there's the political will to go there, because small stores can't afford making lots of campaign donations)

#3 depends highly on how long we'll be distancing. At some point, habits will be formed, and cities will be less appealing. Combine that with likely increased WFH, and way too high rent in cities, and migration might be tempting. I'd hope the satellite cities are smart enough to densify accordingly (because urban sprawl is unsustainable, but again, many interests aligned against that).

Independent point #4 - the importance of communities you're actually part of is currently driven home. I think the desire to be close to family/friends/social groups might increase. (There's the counter argument of our new habits of video socializing, but it's fundamentally less appealing than knowing people who have your back are living close to you)

A lot of these patterns hinges ultimately on how willing companies will be to continue WFH. There's also the interesting question what happens with lots of useless office space if we do move to large-scale WFH on a persistent basis.

In general, I'd expect lots of higher-order effects ricocheting through society for a long time to come :)

[restalis]

"...and way too high rent in cities..."

Rental cost merely reflect the supply and demand. A significant drop in demand should put pressure on rental costs. However, I'm skeptic that such a drop will come from "the desire to be close to family/friends/social groups". People moved against that before and I don't see that changing. I also don't see any time soon people getting less interested in the opportunity that comes with city life.

[groby_b]

We've currently got an extended period of time ahead, where we'll have to learn to do without a lot of the cultural opportunities that come with city life.

A lot will depend on how much and how rapidly lockdown can be eased. If we spend 18-24 months without many of the benefits/opportunities of city life, or at least with those opportunities significantly diminished, culture will rapidly shift to different models - and those are likely more location independent.

And yes, of course rent is a supply/demand question, but the current experience is "the rent is too damn high", and that puts a certain amount of pressure on city living. Take away enough upsides, and it's not worth it any more.

Rent might drop as a result, but it will be a lagging indicator of cities becoming unpopular.

At the same time, closeness to social groups is being valued higher, because we're currently learning that a lonely/isolated life is not a good life. And, like any traumatic event, we're also learning that a supportive community matters, a lot.

You seem to assume that current forces and values hold, despite a global traumatic event. I think that we're in for a complete change of the landscape. The future will tell.

[baggy_trough]

Saying that suburbs and exurbs are "completely unsustainable" is a massive exaggeration.

[nitrogen]

It's a meme that just won't die even when we are currently seeing the major downsides of very high population densities. I moved from SF to a suburb in another state (with a balanced budget requirement) and have 3x the space for ⅓ the price. I am still closer in commute time to the major job centers than most of my SF coworkers were.

[Fricken]

High density neighbourhoods are too popular, nobody lives in those places anymore.

[perl4ever]

That sounds like an allusion to a Yogi Berraism, but I don't think it really is.

When I lived downtown within a 10 minute walk of work, it was pretty nice, but most of the space was not apartments; it was commercial. Offices, restaurants, etc. In fact, my apartment was a converted hotel - the sort of place I couldn't hope to afford in NYC or DC.

So, isn't it kind of normal for central urban areas to be too dense and high rent for (normal) people to live in?

Conversely, I'm living within city limits now, but practically it's indistinguishable from (and adjoining) "suburbs" so saying people need to live in this sort of place instead seems meaningless to me.

[vonmoltke]

Unlike restaurants, which the original quote referred to, people sometimes live in places they don't like because of extenuating circumstances. Just because a whole bunch of people are living in densely-packed neighborhoods doesn't mean they all want to live in them.

[Fricken]

If nobody wanted to live in these places they wouldn't be so expensive. Law of supply and demand.