Listen now | Jason Segedy asks the question that most cities are asking, "who are we and where are we going?" Also, we discuss whether or not Rust Belt cities should accept managed decline
Another great episode, Kevin. One point about the comment that Jason makes towards the end of the podcast, when you're talking about small and mid-sized cities and he observes that there are "a lot" of such cities, and "only so big of a pie for all those cities to compete for": you guys ding Richard Florida's "creative class" approach to urbanism earlier in the podcast, and probably justifiably so, but what Jason said about mid-sized cities is very similar to Florida's analysis of the effects of remote work, in a Strong Towns interview he had with Chuck Marohn during the pandemic:
"Here's what I think remote work really does for the knowledge worker, the creative class, the third of the workforce that has the ability to do remote work….There are three big moves when you graduate from college. First, after college, the talented kids are still going to New York and San Francisco and LA and London; no doubt about that. But the second big move is when you have a family, when kids arrive for you. When that happens, only the super lucky or the super rich can afford to live in those cities with enough space. So what they tended to do is go to the nearby suburb. So they would go to the San Francisco suburbs, they would go to the New Jersey, Connecticut, or New York suburbs….What remote work does is say, whoa! Kansas City, Tulsa, Bentonville, Iowa City…Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Columbus: you now have a shot at these people. So what remote work does is…give the knowledge worker a bigger portfolio of choices. And then you have really smart cities like Tulsa where…the George Kaiser Family Foundation says they are going to proactively recruit remote workers. Now Bentonville, where the Walton Family Foundation is headquartered, has figured this one out too….And at the same time when I visit Minneapolis…when i go to Bentonville, Tulsa, Kansas City…Milwaukee, I find they have better amenities now than most of the superstar cities. They have better coffee shops, better restaurants, better co-working spaces. Why? Because those cities are more affordable, so young chefs, young entrepreneurs, young people who want to develop real estate flock to those cities because they're more affordable. So…you're going to get to about 24 “rise of the rest” cities, and then small places like Bozeman, Jackson Hole, Park City, Utah, and then you'll add in the college towns like Ann Arbor, Madison, Iowa City. But pretty soon…if you're up to 50 places, you're up to a lot. And then there are a lot of places that just aren't competing very effectively. So I think what happens is you get a few more winners in this new era of remote work, including some second-tier cities in rural areas, and then you get a lot more losers….This necessary connection between where you work and where you live is broken, but it doesn't lift all boats." (https://www.youtube.com/embed/QusL6uUh060?start=1297)
Really interesting, thanks for that. I’m probably more bullish on smaller cities and towns in general than Jason was on the show, and others are in the urbanism world. I often find R. Florida to be annoying and pedantic, but he hits on some very good points in that quote.
My sense is remote work is a positive force, but other forces are also at work that change the game for what is attractive to places. Some are economic, some are cultural. When I left college in 1994, most smaller and mid-sized cities kind of sucked. And mass consumer culture was still dominant, which didn’t have appeal for a lot of educated young people. The places to get something else were the top-tier cities and college towns. That’s totally changed now. Food and entertainment culture is better literally everywhere. A lot of highbrow culture, which used to require one of those very big cities, can be had virtually anywhere. So that can be had now, surely in small amounts, but in very inexpensive places where life is just easier. Even if remote work doesn’t pan out as much, the experience people will have of this will be life-changing for many. I wrote in 2020 that millions of people would leave the big coastal markets, and never go back. That pattern is holding, and I expect it to grow.
I even think the impact will be felt by young 20-something’s. Again, we I left college, staying in my Midwest city didn’t have near the shine as going to Chicago or Miami or Seattle. I don’t think that’s the same with young people anymore. Even cities like KC have become attractors for the young and single. As that continues to happen, smaller regional cities like Wichita and Topeka and others will feel a spin-off benefit.
Very long answer to say… I generally agree it’s a good time for smaller cities and towns, and the smart ones will push their nature aggressively.
Another great episode, Kevin. One point about the comment that Jason makes towards the end of the podcast, when you're talking about small and mid-sized cities and he observes that there are "a lot" of such cities, and "only so big of a pie for all those cities to compete for": you guys ding Richard Florida's "creative class" approach to urbanism earlier in the podcast, and probably justifiably so, but what Jason said about mid-sized cities is very similar to Florida's analysis of the effects of remote work, in a Strong Towns interview he had with Chuck Marohn during the pandemic:
"Here's what I think remote work really does for the knowledge worker, the creative class, the third of the workforce that has the ability to do remote work….There are three big moves when you graduate from college. First, after college, the talented kids are still going to New York and San Francisco and LA and London; no doubt about that. But the second big move is when you have a family, when kids arrive for you. When that happens, only the super lucky or the super rich can afford to live in those cities with enough space. So what they tended to do is go to the nearby suburb. So they would go to the San Francisco suburbs, they would go to the New Jersey, Connecticut, or New York suburbs….What remote work does is say, whoa! Kansas City, Tulsa, Bentonville, Iowa City…Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Columbus: you now have a shot at these people. So what remote work does is…give the knowledge worker a bigger portfolio of choices. And then you have really smart cities like Tulsa where…the George Kaiser Family Foundation says they are going to proactively recruit remote workers. Now Bentonville, where the Walton Family Foundation is headquartered, has figured this one out too….And at the same time when I visit Minneapolis…when i go to Bentonville, Tulsa, Kansas City…Milwaukee, I find they have better amenities now than most of the superstar cities. They have better coffee shops, better restaurants, better co-working spaces. Why? Because those cities are more affordable, so young chefs, young entrepreneurs, young people who want to develop real estate flock to those cities because they're more affordable. So…you're going to get to about 24 “rise of the rest” cities, and then small places like Bozeman, Jackson Hole, Park City, Utah, and then you'll add in the college towns like Ann Arbor, Madison, Iowa City. But pretty soon…if you're up to 50 places, you're up to a lot. And then there are a lot of places that just aren't competing very effectively. So I think what happens is you get a few more winners in this new era of remote work, including some second-tier cities in rural areas, and then you get a lot more losers….This necessary connection between where you work and where you live is broken, but it doesn't lift all boats." (https://www.youtube.com/embed/QusL6uUh060?start=1297)
Thoughts?
Really interesting, thanks for that. I’m probably more bullish on smaller cities and towns in general than Jason was on the show, and others are in the urbanism world. I often find R. Florida to be annoying and pedantic, but he hits on some very good points in that quote.
My sense is remote work is a positive force, but other forces are also at work that change the game for what is attractive to places. Some are economic, some are cultural. When I left college in 1994, most smaller and mid-sized cities kind of sucked. And mass consumer culture was still dominant, which didn’t have appeal for a lot of educated young people. The places to get something else were the top-tier cities and college towns. That’s totally changed now. Food and entertainment culture is better literally everywhere. A lot of highbrow culture, which used to require one of those very big cities, can be had virtually anywhere. So that can be had now, surely in small amounts, but in very inexpensive places where life is just easier. Even if remote work doesn’t pan out as much, the experience people will have of this will be life-changing for many. I wrote in 2020 that millions of people would leave the big coastal markets, and never go back. That pattern is holding, and I expect it to grow.
I even think the impact will be felt by young 20-something’s. Again, we I left college, staying in my Midwest city didn’t have near the shine as going to Chicago or Miami or Seattle. I don’t think that’s the same with young people anymore. Even cities like KC have become attractors for the young and single. As that continues to happen, smaller regional cities like Wichita and Topeka and others will feel a spin-off benefit.
Very long answer to say… I generally agree it’s a good time for smaller cities and towns, and the smart ones will push their nature aggressively.