[ghaff]

In general, that's probably considered around the nadir of a lot of US cities. When I graduated from grad school in about the mid-80s, aside from some finance people in Manhattan, my classmates mostly didn't move into cities. I'm not sure anyone I knew went to live in Boston in spite of quite a few getting jobs in the area--but pretty much all the computer companies were in the suburbs/exurbs. Boston was losing population until the very late 90s or so.

The trend for many new college grads to strongly prefer cities is a relatively recent phenomenon.

[jasonfarnon]

I agree. A lot of US cities experienced that upswing in the 90s, so I'm not sure why I would attribute it to the central artery project.

[ghaff]

In Boston's case specifically, the Big Dig did improve the living experience--after a fairly long period of time. (And there were some incremental public transit improvements.) But many US cities also had reduced crime rates and other quality of living improvements, the exact reasons for which are still debated and which led to many employment opportunities returning to cities.

My former company opened a relatively large near-downtown office and, while they're keeping a suburban office, it will be much reduced from its earlier main location.

[dugmartin]

I think partially it was because it was so cheap. In the late 90s I had an apartment a block from the lake in the Lakeview neighborhood in the Chicago north side and it cost $400 a month. Before that I lived out in the Chicago suburbs and my apartment was $800 a month.

[tptacek]

That was a steal. I lived in Lakeview from 1995 to 2000 (with a brief detour in San Francisco) and every place we rented was north of $1500, nowhere near the lake.