Large Cities Were Already Losing Population. Then Came the Coronavirus.

Sabrina Tavernise and Sarah Mervosh write an article for The New York Times that generated a lot of discussion since its publication because it speaks to one of the big points of debate about the future of cities and development in the wake of the coronavirus, namely, whether people will move away from the city in waves as a result of the pandemic. 

The potential for massive demographic shift away from cities, according to the article, can be traced to the affordability challenges that existed in many large, successful cities before the coronavirus outbreak. The following paragraph pretty much sums up one school of thought that has emerged about how the pandemic will change the United States:

The pandemic has been particularly devastating to America’s biggest cities, as the virus has found fertile ground in the density that is otherwise prized. And it comes as the country’s major urban centers were already losing their appeal for many Americans, as skyrocketing rents and changes in the labor market have pushed the country’s youngest adults to suburbs and smaller cities often far from the coasts.

According to the article, the current effects of the stay-at-home orders in place all over the country, the fear of contagion, and additional concerns, like the long-term budgetary pain expected to overwhelm local and state budgets later this year, could inspire city dwellers to seek less densely populated areas. 

Toward the end of the article, a few prominent voices, like Jed Kolko and Ed Glaeser, are offered a chance at rebutting the premise of the article. Moving is less common in uncertain economic times, according to Kolko, and cities are much healthier than in the past, according to Ed Glaeser. 

For an indication of which way the country is headed, Tavernise and Mervosh cite the situation in Boca Raton, Florida where real estate brokers reports a major increase in homebuying interest from residents currently living in the Northeast.