Colleagues and I have been starting to craft a prescient understanding of what climate nomadism will look like. I think this will be a reality and I'd imagine workplaces and industries should start strategizing around it, especially those in higher risk areas.
That is fascinating and I'd love to see that material when you're done. It's definitely something to consider, especially as offices are very quiet in cities during the summer now, so even if people aren't fully climate nomads, a lot might be out of town for a few months each year in the future.
A really nice piece. I love the pull through of the different characters and perspectives in/on this very complex and real challenge. I wonder if terms like "new urban order" and "old order" are doing more harm than good. Cities, of all of the creations of people through history are the most complex, complicated, perhaps invested and powerful. And of all of the characteristics, principles and attributes of any city the most essential is simply "being there". Before any of our theories, infrastructures, policies and culture kicks-in or get "revised", we need bums-in-seats or feet-on-streets. Without this we have nothing to talk about. The complex pulls and motivations that make this happen then become varying degrees of active or passive systems thinking.... policy, market, culture, infrastructure. It would feel strange to "mandate" people back to their offices, but on the other hand we may need to pilot some shock policies to jumpstart the heart again if we don't want to risk losing the patient. A "side benefit" (that should be enough without radical policy) is that the work that comes from people working together in common space, is inevitably better and more efficient on net . Which is why we have cities to begin with. Hopefully we can get to a new city order that builds on the old city order wherein we find that the old and the new are mostly the same! _scott francisco
Yes, I do wonder how closely the new urban order will resemble the old one ... that said, I just don't see cities supporting tons of big arts institutions anymore (many cities can't already, but even in Philly, I imagine more will consolidate). I think cities will endure, but what we do in them, how we get around, how many people have regular routines, will change.
Great post, thought provoking as your writing always is! From a public good standpoint, I see the value in having populations aggregate in dense urban areas on multiple fronts (increases diversity and its many cobenefits, more efficient, and lower environmental footprint). And forcing back to work from a productivity standpoint is logical when the data holds. But from a "public good" standpoint feels totally wrong to me. To save the job of the trolley worker or the sandwich lunch shop cashier getting less activity due to WFH seems as ludicrous as an argument to restrict access to ATMs a few decades ago to avoid replacing bank workers. I think when jobs, or valuable institutions, are struggling, the answer should be to compensate via redistribution not coercion (e.g., maybe a higher tax on WFH workers, or maybe the cashier will find more work at new cafes opening up to fuel the higher demand in residential wfh areas, rather than in the city centers)?
I love the comparison to the ATM and bank teller situation...lots of good points here. Not sure what the right policies are yet to cope with the economic disruption, we will have to see!
Colleagues and I have been starting to craft a prescient understanding of what climate nomadism will look like. I think this will be a reality and I'd imagine workplaces and industries should start strategizing around it, especially those in higher risk areas.
That is fascinating and I'd love to see that material when you're done. It's definitely something to consider, especially as offices are very quiet in cities during the summer now, so even if people aren't fully climate nomads, a lot might be out of town for a few months each year in the future.
I'll keep you in mind as we develop this. And we are definitely looking into it specifically for folks who do more place-based public serving work.
A really nice piece. I love the pull through of the different characters and perspectives in/on this very complex and real challenge. I wonder if terms like "new urban order" and "old order" are doing more harm than good. Cities, of all of the creations of people through history are the most complex, complicated, perhaps invested and powerful. And of all of the characteristics, principles and attributes of any city the most essential is simply "being there". Before any of our theories, infrastructures, policies and culture kicks-in or get "revised", we need bums-in-seats or feet-on-streets. Without this we have nothing to talk about. The complex pulls and motivations that make this happen then become varying degrees of active or passive systems thinking.... policy, market, culture, infrastructure. It would feel strange to "mandate" people back to their offices, but on the other hand we may need to pilot some shock policies to jumpstart the heart again if we don't want to risk losing the patient. A "side benefit" (that should be enough without radical policy) is that the work that comes from people working together in common space, is inevitably better and more efficient on net . Which is why we have cities to begin with. Hopefully we can get to a new city order that builds on the old city order wherein we find that the old and the new are mostly the same! _scott francisco
Yes, I do wonder how closely the new urban order will resemble the old one ... that said, I just don't see cities supporting tons of big arts institutions anymore (many cities can't already, but even in Philly, I imagine more will consolidate). I think cities will endure, but what we do in them, how we get around, how many people have regular routines, will change.
Great post, thought provoking as your writing always is! From a public good standpoint, I see the value in having populations aggregate in dense urban areas on multiple fronts (increases diversity and its many cobenefits, more efficient, and lower environmental footprint). And forcing back to work from a productivity standpoint is logical when the data holds. But from a "public good" standpoint feels totally wrong to me. To save the job of the trolley worker or the sandwich lunch shop cashier getting less activity due to WFH seems as ludicrous as an argument to restrict access to ATMs a few decades ago to avoid replacing bank workers. I think when jobs, or valuable institutions, are struggling, the answer should be to compensate via redistribution not coercion (e.g., maybe a higher tax on WFH workers, or maybe the cashier will find more work at new cafes opening up to fuel the higher demand in residential wfh areas, rather than in the city centers)?
I love the comparison to the ATM and bank teller situation...lots of good points here. Not sure what the right policies are yet to cope with the economic disruption, we will have to see!