Subscribe
According some recent data from the US Census Bureau and USPS (via this CityLab article), the number of Americans who registered (between March 2020 and February 2021) that they were making a permanent move somewhere else, only increased by about 3%. And the vast majority of people that did move tended to simply spread out and move within the same metro area -- about 84%. About 7.5% moved within the same state. And about 6% moved to some other top 50 metro area in the US.
Some are of the opinion that these moves to the outskirts of cities would have happened regardless. The pandemic simply sped things up. Perhaps. But whatever the case may be, CityLab and others have argued that an "urban exodus" is likely the wrong way to describe what is happening. Despite reports that everybody seems to be moving to Texas and Florida (yes, Miami saw a spike), most people are simply spreading out in geographies where they already happened to live.
The notable exceptions are the Bay Area and New York. San Francisco and San Jose -- both of which usually register as being two of the most expensive housing markets in the US -- saw permanent moves increase by 23% and 17%, respectively. Compared to other metro areas in the US, these figures stand out. (I assume this data is collected after somebody goes to the post office and says that they want to change their address forever.)
But we are already seeing net outflows from San Jose and San Francisco start to taper off (see above). It's also important to keep in mind that these cities were losing people well before the pandemic started. They are expensive places. And the fastest growing cities tend to be ones that sprawl, have a more elastic housing supply, and are consequently more affordable. That said, I suspect we'll see this tapering off continue. The "urban exodus" isn't going to be what it's cracked up to be.
Images: CityLab
The Knight Foundation recently published a report looking at what attaches people to the place in which they live. To get this information, they surveyed over 11,000 Americans, some of which live in urbanized areas and some of which just live in metro areas across the United States. This is interesting information to know at any time point in time, but you could argue that it's even more important at a time like this, where everyone seems to be questioning everything about cities.
Here are two of their key findings:
People who spend more time in the principal or main city of a metro area -- whether as residents or as frequent visitors -- tend to be more attached. This is is true both in terms of how they feel, but also in terms of how they act, such as how much they give back to the community. I suppose you could debate whether going to the city creates attachment or whether attached people tend to go to the city, but this association does seem somewhat intuitive to me. I am imagining a greater sense of place in principal cities.
People who choose to live in a place because of its quality of life tend to express more attachment than people who live in a place for other reasons -- such as for work. About 40% of Miami transplants cited the climate as the primary factor for moving. Sounds right. Weather is pretty hard to control, but there are lots of other things that cities can do to improve quality of life. And it seems to be one of the stickier factors. Similarly, access to cultural activities and recreational amenities seem to lead to greater attachment.
More specifically, here are how some people feel about their metro areas:
This month’s issue of Monocle Magazine has a feature on a new masterplanned community to the north of Cartagena called Serena del Mar. Currently under construction, the entire 971 hectare community is slated to be finished by 2030. When complete the developers believe it will house upwards of 200,000 people — effectively an entirely new city.
It will also be entirely self-governing. There will be no mayor or city council. Revenue to operate the community will be collected through a mandatory monthly fee, though low-income residents will be exempt from paying it. As I understand it, large projects in Colombia have historically been mired in corruption issues, and so this is probably a response to that.
But the approach has naturally caused a bunch of skepticism. Does this bifurcate the city between public and private? Is this a vote of no confidence on Cartagena's current governance structures? Building a city from scratch is also exceptionally difficult (there's a quote in Monocle from Toronto's own Shawn Micallef on this). Cities usually take time to evolve and settle in.
I don't know enough (or anything, really) about Colombia, Cartagena, and this development project to comment specifically. And so I won't. But these are the questions that are being asked of contemporary masterplans. There's a reason most (or all) of the tech companies involved in large scale masterplans have banned the word "campus" from their lexicons.
According some recent data from the US Census Bureau and USPS (via this CityLab article), the number of Americans who registered (between March 2020 and February 2021) that they were making a permanent move somewhere else, only increased by about 3%. And the vast majority of people that did move tended to simply spread out and move within the same metro area -- about 84%. About 7.5% moved within the same state. And about 6% moved to some other top 50 metro area in the US.
Some are of the opinion that these moves to the outskirts of cities would have happened regardless. The pandemic simply sped things up. Perhaps. But whatever the case may be, CityLab and others have argued that an "urban exodus" is likely the wrong way to describe what is happening. Despite reports that everybody seems to be moving to Texas and Florida (yes, Miami saw a spike), most people are simply spreading out in geographies where they already happened to live.
The notable exceptions are the Bay Area and New York. San Francisco and San Jose -- both of which usually register as being two of the most expensive housing markets in the US -- saw permanent moves increase by 23% and 17%, respectively. Compared to other metro areas in the US, these figures stand out. (I assume this data is collected after somebody goes to the post office and says that they want to change their address forever.)
But we are already seeing net outflows from San Jose and San Francisco start to taper off (see above). It's also important to keep in mind that these cities were losing people well before the pandemic started. They are expensive places. And the fastest growing cities tend to be ones that sprawl, have a more elastic housing supply, and are consequently more affordable. That said, I suspect we'll see this tapering off continue. The "urban exodus" isn't going to be what it's cracked up to be.
Images: CityLab
The Knight Foundation recently published a report looking at what attaches people to the place in which they live. To get this information, they surveyed over 11,000 Americans, some of which live in urbanized areas and some of which just live in metro areas across the United States. This is interesting information to know at any time point in time, but you could argue that it's even more important at a time like this, where everyone seems to be questioning everything about cities.
Here are two of their key findings:
People who spend more time in the principal or main city of a metro area -- whether as residents or as frequent visitors -- tend to be more attached. This is is true both in terms of how they feel, but also in terms of how they act, such as how much they give back to the community. I suppose you could debate whether going to the city creates attachment or whether attached people tend to go to the city, but this association does seem somewhat intuitive to me. I am imagining a greater sense of place in principal cities.
People who choose to live in a place because of its quality of life tend to express more attachment than people who live in a place for other reasons -- such as for work. About 40% of Miami transplants cited the climate as the primary factor for moving. Sounds right. Weather is pretty hard to control, but there are lots of other things that cities can do to improve quality of life. And it seems to be one of the stickier factors. Similarly, access to cultural activities and recreational amenities seem to lead to greater attachment.
More specifically, here are how some people feel about their metro areas:
This month’s issue of Monocle Magazine has a feature on a new masterplanned community to the north of Cartagena called Serena del Mar. Currently under construction, the entire 971 hectare community is slated to be finished by 2030. When complete the developers believe it will house upwards of 200,000 people — effectively an entirely new city.
It will also be entirely self-governing. There will be no mayor or city council. Revenue to operate the community will be collected through a mandatory monthly fee, though low-income residents will be exempt from paying it. As I understand it, large projects in Colombia have historically been mired in corruption issues, and so this is probably a response to that.
But the approach has naturally caused a bunch of skepticism. Does this bifurcate the city between public and private? Is this a vote of no confidence on Cartagena's current governance structures? Building a city from scratch is also exceptionally difficult (there's a quote in Monocle from Toronto's own Shawn Micallef on this). Cities usually take time to evolve and settle in.
I don't know enough (or anything, really) about Colombia, Cartagena, and this development project to comment specifically. And so I won't. But these are the questions that are being asked of contemporary masterplans. There's a reason most (or all) of the tech companies involved in large scale masterplans have banned the word "campus" from their lexicons.
This chart is showing the "perceived accessibility to quality features." The left column is what they believe to be the national average. And the other columns are for Akron, Charlotte, Detroit, Macon, Miami, Philadelphia, San Jose, and St. Paul. Looking at one row in particular -- affordable housing -- we see that about 50% of Americans surveyed believe they have access to it. In comparison, only 29% and 12% of residents in Miami and San Jose, respectively, feel the same way.
For a full copy of the report, click here.
Chart: Knight Foundation
This chart is showing the "perceived accessibility to quality features." The left column is what they believe to be the national average. And the other columns are for Akron, Charlotte, Detroit, Macon, Miami, Philadelphia, San Jose, and St. Paul. Looking at one row in particular -- affordable housing -- we see that about 50% of Americans surveyed believe they have access to it. In comparison, only 29% and 12% of residents in Miami and San Jose, respectively, feel the same way.
For a full copy of the report, click here.
Chart: Knight Foundation
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
