Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 648

For years, the data has been clear . Many Americans are moving from expensive cities, like Los Angeles, to less expensive metropolitan areas like Dallas-Fort Worth.

But Wendell Cox's recent article over at New Geography is a good reminder that these data sets can be limited. The US Census Bureau currently tracks domestic migration at the county level only. This can be a bit of a problem as counties vary dramatically in terms of geography and population.

The New York metropolitan area, for example, is comprised of 25 different counties averaging about 750,000 residents. The Los Angeles metropolitan area, on the other hand, is compromised of two counties averaging about 6.6 million residents.

These sorts of nuances become important when you're trying to figure out things like whether people are moving to/from urban cores or the suburbs. Case in point: The San Diego metro area is compromised of a single county. When people move there, the data says nothing about how urban or suburban they might be.

Dallas-Fort Worth is a lot easier to read. Since 2010, it has had the largest net domestic migration of any metro area in the US: +443,000 residents. But county data reveals that it is entirely suburban. The core (Dallas County) actually lost 57,000 people from 2010 to 2019. And this is not unique to the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

Photo by Gabriel Tovar on Unsplash

Feargus O'Sullivan is back with another Bloomberg CityLab article about " the iconic home designs that define our global cities ." In this recent article he focuses on the Barnrikehus of Stockholm (and also talks about Sweden's housing market in general). Originally built in the 1930s, the slab-like midrise buildings were largely intended to address two pressing problems: 1) the need for affordable housing and 2) Sweden's incredibly low birthrate (supposedly the lowest in Europe at the time).

The Barnrikehus template was deployed on the edges of Stockholm and other Swedish cities. The designs were/are fairly simple. Very little ornament (this is Scandinavia). Four or five storeys usually. And no more than about 12 meters deep. This allowed for better natural ventilation, which was important for stymying the spread of tuberculosis. The rents were also heavily subsidized and declined even further with every child in the family. In other words: the more kids you had, the less rent you had to pay.

The suites were fairly compact, with many around the 430 square foot mark. This kind of space might have housed a family of six according to O'Sullivan. But compared to the other available housing options at the time, this was a significant improvement. Perhaps not surprisingly, these "child-rich houses" (which is how the name translates) developed the same kind of social housing stigma that was prevalent in many other countries and cities around the world.

But that perception changed over time and, today, these rent-controlled apartments are apparently highly sought after. ( Here's a listing to give you a taste of what they're like.) Originally on the fringe of cities like Stockholm, they are now very well located and offer a high standard of living. (You also can't go wrong with white walls and pale woods.) To learn more about the evolution of Stockholm's depression-era housing, click here .

Photo by  Jon Flobrant  on  Unsplash

Earlier this week, Amazon announced that it plans to return to an "office-centric culture" as its baseline. Its rationale was that being in an office allows the company to better "invent, collaborate, and learn together." All of this was laid out in an announcement that was distributed to its teams globally. On the other end of the spectrum, Twitter continues to double down on working from home. The company, which is currently hiring, is even trying to target talent that may be disgruntled by the fact that their current company is planning for them to return to the office. Two very different approaches. So which one is right?

This is, of course, a great debate right now and the right answer probably depends on a myriad of different factors, some of which are likely specific to the company. Dror Poleg has been trying to think through this problem with something he calls the talent equation (because it's all about talent). It works like this: level of in-person interaction x overall size of talent pool = innovation and financial success . The basis behind this equation is pretty simple. In-person interaction is great for business. This much we know. But you also need the right talent interacting. Allowing remote work is one way of expanding the size of your talent pool. But again, you do this at the expense of in-person interaction.

In-person interaction is what makes cities the great organisms that they are. And I believe firmly in this side of the equation over the long-term. Even right now I find that when I go into the office, my call and Zoom volumes go down dramatically and I have more time to think, collaborate, and do, you know, actual work. This is because many interactions don't require a Zoom meeting when you're in the office. You stop by someone's desk. You ask a thing (usually pretty quickly). And then you go off and action that thing. But I also acknowledge that for some companies, access to the right talent -- and lots of it -- may be a real challenge, particularly in smaller cities.

Like Amazon, I am a supporter of office-centric work cultures. But I do think that Poleg's talent equation is a useful way to think about this debate right now.

Photo by Shridhar Gupta on Unsplash