Are Big cities Losing Their Edge?

Fifteen years ago, I worked in finance from my Manhattan apartment. Despite pressure to relocate to Texas, I argued that leaving New York would hurt my career in finance and media, and I’d need compensation for that loss.

Ultimately, I continued working remotely. Today, winning that argument is nearly unachievable. The financial industry is booming in Texas, and people are building triumphant media careers everywhere. This raises a critically important question: is the era of the dominant big city ending?

Obituaries for the big city have been written repeatedly in recent years. First, people predicted those who left during the pandemic wouldn’t return-but many did.Then came the argument that remote work would cause commercial property and tax revenue to collapse, triggering a “city spiral of decline.” So far, people are returning to offices, and commercial properties are stabilizing.

Life in a big city remains appealing if you can afford it. Though, big cities are more vulnerable than they appear. They’ve weathered downturns, pandemics, and the rise of work-from-home arrangements, but they may not survive the current crises of affordability and technological change impacting the labor market.

Urbanist Richard Florida and economist Ed Glazer both argue that cities like San francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, New York, and chicago are special because they attract creative and ambitious people. This creates a network effect-a virtuous cycle. Inventive minds attract others in related fields, quickly building a critical mass of people energized by each other’s creativity. Whether collaborating directly or simply knowing each other socially, members of Florida’s “creative class” learn about new technologies, capabilities, and trends faster.

This made cities incredibly attractive to the educated and ambitious.