Subscribe
So here's the headline: More people are moving to Manhattan than before the pandemic. This is true. But an even more accurate description might be that New York City was losing people before the pandemic and it is still losing people. But things have rebounded since the lows of the pandemic and it is now losing less people. Here are two charts from Bloomberg:
This is generally good news since the increased exodus (to places like Miami) led some to believe that one of the most important global cities in the world was now dying. I never thought that was the case. But there's no arguing against the fact that the fastest growing cities in the US are the ones with more affordable housing and fewer constraints on new development.
Well this is interesting, yet not surprising: According to RBC's annual "Home Ownership Poll", three out of every five respondents (so nearly 60%) said that location is more important than buying a larger home. Now, there's only so much you can glean from a single survey question, but the overarching sense is that people's home-buying attitudes are now starting to revert back to pre-pandemic levels.
Other evidence includes how quickly urban residential rents/prices have bounced back and, in many cases, now exceed their pre-pandemic levels. Below is a chart from the WSJ showing residential net-effective median rent prices in Manhattan. The low came in November 2020 when the median rent price hit $2,743 per month. But today it is well over $3,500, which is the highest it has been in a decade.
https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1506451164937789441?s=20&t=wCqayRJY2vmf9kTNJ3A4QQ
Certain aspects of how we will continue to live and work in our cities is admittedly still evolving (see my recent post on office utilization). But part of our pandemic narrative was that location was no longer going to matter, or at least not matter nearly as much. New York City, to give just one example, had died forever. But that was obviously bullshit. And what we are seeing in the residential space is an important leading indicator. Location always matters.
So here's the headline: More people are moving to Manhattan than before the pandemic. This is true. But an even more accurate description might be that New York City was losing people before the pandemic and it is still losing people. But things have rebounded since the lows of the pandemic and it is now losing less people. Here are two charts from Bloomberg:
This is generally good news since the increased exodus (to places like Miami) led some to believe that one of the most important global cities in the world was now dying. I never thought that was the case. But there's no arguing against the fact that the fastest growing cities in the US are the ones with more affordable housing and fewer constraints on new development.
Well this is interesting, yet not surprising: According to RBC's annual "Home Ownership Poll", three out of every five respondents (so nearly 60%) said that location is more important than buying a larger home. Now, there's only so much you can glean from a single survey question, but the overarching sense is that people's home-buying attitudes are now starting to revert back to pre-pandemic levels.
Other evidence includes how quickly urban residential rents/prices have bounced back and, in many cases, now exceed their pre-pandemic levels. Below is a chart from the WSJ showing residential net-effective median rent prices in Manhattan. The low came in November 2020 when the median rent price hit $2,743 per month. But today it is well over $3,500, which is the highest it has been in a decade.
https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1506451164937789441?s=20&t=wCqayRJY2vmf9kTNJ3A4QQ
Certain aspects of how we will continue to live and work in our cities is admittedly still evolving (see my recent post on office utilization). But part of our pandemic narrative was that location was no longer going to matter, or at least not matter nearly as much. New York City, to give just one example, had died forever. But that was obviously bullshit. And what we are seeing in the residential space is an important leading indicator. Location always matters.
Berlin is considering something pretty radical. A grass roots movement called Volksentscheid Berlin Autofrei, or the People’s Decision for Auto-Free Berlin, is trying to turn the entire core of the city into a car-free zone. (There would be some exceptions and so we should maybe call it primarily car free.)
The area in question is everything inside of the city's circular S-Bahn train line (pictured above), which would make it the largest car-free zone or mostly car-free zone in the world. It's larger than Manhattan and it's about the size of London's zones 1 and 2, to help give you a sense of the scale.
So far the group has collected about 50,000 supportive signatures and, according to Fast Company, the Senate of Berlin is set to make a decision on the proposal next month. I have no idea how much community and/or political momentum this actually has, but I love how bold of an idea this is.
Is it too bold?
Again, it is perhaps useful to flip the question and use Seth Godin's status-quo-bias-checker model when thinking about this. If the center of Berlin was already car free and a community group had just come forward with a plan to now allow vehicles, how do you think you'd feel? I could see that being contentious.
Do you think Berlin should do it?
Image: City of Berlin via Fast Company
Berlin is considering something pretty radical. A grass roots movement called Volksentscheid Berlin Autofrei, or the People’s Decision for Auto-Free Berlin, is trying to turn the entire core of the city into a car-free zone. (There would be some exceptions and so we should maybe call it primarily car free.)
The area in question is everything inside of the city's circular S-Bahn train line (pictured above), which would make it the largest car-free zone or mostly car-free zone in the world. It's larger than Manhattan and it's about the size of London's zones 1 and 2, to help give you a sense of the scale.
So far the group has collected about 50,000 supportive signatures and, according to Fast Company, the Senate of Berlin is set to make a decision on the proposal next month. I have no idea how much community and/or political momentum this actually has, but I love how bold of an idea this is.
Is it too bold?
Again, it is perhaps useful to flip the question and use Seth Godin's status-quo-bias-checker model when thinking about this. If the center of Berlin was already car free and a community group had just come forward with a plan to now allow vehicles, how do you think you'd feel? I could see that being contentious.
Do you think Berlin should do it?
Image: City of Berlin via Fast Company
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
