I am surprised, although maybe I shouldn't be, by how quickly many seem to be allegedly turning their back on cities. According to the New York Times, cities were "losing their allure" well before this pandemic, and this might just be the tipping point. The underlying argument: Density is bad. We should probably all move somewhere bucolic, where the cost of housing is less and work isn't so stressful. Zoom only when necessary.
But as the chief economist for Indeed, Jed Kolko, rightly points out in the article, how people behave (and think) during a global pandemic is probably not a great indicator for how they will want to live their lives when this is all over. It's also not clear that urban density is really the contributor of spread. Hyper-dense cities such as Seoul and Hong Kong have been performing relatively well. (Joe Cortright has some thoughts on this.)
Once we get to the other side, we will see the data and we will get a better understanding of this current situation. And then in hindsight, we will find ways to rationalize the outcomes to ourselves. In the interim, I'm not about to bet against cities. Here's how Paul Romer, professor at New York University, put it in this recent interview in City Journal:
"I think the underlying economic reality is that there is tremendous economic value in interacting with people and sharing ideas. There’s still a lot to be gained from interaction in close physical proximity because such interaction is a large part of how we establish trust. So I think that, for the rest of my life, cities are going to continue to be where the action is."
This week it was reported that a South American family has bought and closed on ~$27 million worth of residential condos at Waterline Square in Manhattan. Apparently they went into contract (after the online showings) and closed on the same day, which I suppose you can do when it's an all-cash deal like this was. The agent, Maria Velazquez, didn't disclose who the family was, but apparently they're from Peru and they wanted a safe place to park their money during this pandemic. Uncertain times usually create buying opportunities, and it sounds like the family did get a bit of a bulk discount here. But it's also interesting to see where capital is flowing right now and what is perceived as a safe haven. Residential real estate in one of the world's preeminent global cities probably won't come as a surprise to any of you.
Smartphone user data is hugely valuable at a time like this. Which is why governments all over the world from Israel to South Korea are using aggregated telecom data to try and track how their citizens are moving during this pandemic.
Some are calling this a violation of digital rights. I don't know enough to comment on that specifically, but I do know that the value to society as a whole is clear. It strikes me that if we knew (1) who was infected (you know this by doing widespread testing), (2) where people have been, and (3) where people are today, we would be in a much better position to contain the spread.
To that end, Singapore's Ministry of Health has been publicizing a surprising amount of information regarding its cases. And that data has been in turn made into interactive maps. You can see who is infected, where they live and work, which hospital they were admitted to, and so on. Is this an overshare? Or is this price of collective health and security?
The New York Times has similarly gone and visualized the movement of people and the virus using data from major telecoms, Baidu, and other sources; though in this case it is more of a retrospective view of what went wrong as opposed to a proactive management tool. The argument they make is that Wuhan's lockdown was too little, too late.
According to the NY Times, 175,000 people left Wuhan on January 1st alone. Throughout the month of January, outbound travel from Wuhan accelerated as many started to fear a lockdown. About 7 million people left in January. Where they travelled to can be found here. Would it be too draconian to use this kind of mobile phone data to see who is obeying a lockdown and who is not?
Images: New York Times