Photo: Yadid Levy / norden.org

At the height of the pandemic, many feared a decline in the vitality of urban cores as employees without essential, site-specific jobs were encouraged or required to work from home and maintain social distance. While the impact on urban cores post-pandemic has been less dramatic than expected in many geographies, several strategic planning questions regarding the city centre have emerged.

Studies in the Nordic Region show how urban centres experienced population decline in relation to increased remote work during the pandemic, but the implications on urban cores can be difficult to track. Using the grid-based Nordic Urban-Rural Typology, researchers found that the general trend of population growth continues to be most dramatic in urban regions, with inner and outer urban areas experiencing the greatest population increases (Stjernberg et al., 2024). During the pandemic, the Nordic countries in general experienced positive internal net migration for outer urban areas and rural areas close to urban areas, and negative internal net migration in inner urban areas.

Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden all experienced a change from negative to positive internal net migration to rural areas close to urban areas in 2021; simultaneously, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden all saw decreases in internal net migration in inner urban areas whilst outer urban areas experienced an increase from 2020 to 2021 (Sánchez Gassen & Stjernberg, 2024). These shifts suggest that the pandemic may have contributed to encouraging people away from inner urban areas and towards more suburban areas and nearby rural towns.

However, data from 2022 show that internal net migration has returned to similar patterns as before the pandemic, with inner urban areas in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden all experiencing internal net migration increase, and fewer people migrating towards rural areas (Sanchez Gassen & Stjernberg, 2024).

A study published by Region Stockholm in 2022 also provided evidence linking remote work opportunities to migration patterns, showing that 33% of people who moved away from Stockholm County to another county in the region expressed remote work opportunities as a factor in their decision-making, alongside housing and access to nature (Andersson & Wolf, 2022). In qualitative interviews with employees of several Swedish public agencies, Thulin et al. (2023) learned that remote work opportunities triggered several people to relocate away from central urban areas, aiming for more space within their homes to work and around their homes for enjoying nature. Yet Haunstrup Christensen et al. (2024) report that, in Denmark, only about 10 percent of those who moved during the pandemic restrictions were motivated by the pandemic itself. And Thulin et al. (2023) also heard from several interviewees that they decided to relocate to the city centre to be closer to their workplace. Another 2023 study from Tillväxtverket delivered results showing that those with remote work potential in their jobs are more likely to participate in trends of counter-urbanisation whilst maintaining their jobs in the City of Stockholm (Eliasson, 2023). Tønnesson (2021) examined migration in Oslo, finding that people who moved away from the city in 2020 were, to a greater extent, those who had teleworkable jobs compared to previous years. The study suggests that, if telework continues to be possible, there may be a greater chance that such residents may not return to the city.

In 2022, the City of Helsinki reported that an increase in remote work may have an impact on employees' choice of place of residence. While city centre locations are likely to remain attractive, the research suggests that remote work may increase residents’ interest in nearby suburbs, smaller towns, and even sparsely populated areas (Lönnqvist & Salorinne, 2022). Referring to research by Delventhal et al. (2020), the report predicts that jobs in cities are likely to focus all the more on the best and most accessible locations, despite remote work opportunities providing more locational freedom for employees. Similarly to the international perspective from Florida et al. (2023, see below), they suggest that this is due to agglomeration benefits of large cities (Lönnqvist & Salorinne, 2022).

Despite some people’s changing mobility patterns, research suggests that the high interest in a hybrid style of remote work may mean a less dramatic emptying out of urban cores than once predicted (Randall et al., 2022-a; Eurofound, 2024). Within this remote work research project at Nordregio, Granath Hansson and Guðmundsdóttir (2024) considered the possibilities of remote work in smaller Nordic towns. They indicate that hybrid work will limit the distance that people may be willing to live outside of capitals since they may continue to require access to the city centre. But if the city centre is to continue to thrive in a new era of remote work, urban attractiveness seems to play a key role. The continuation of hybrid work also poses a challenge to the office space dilemma. One article from Finnish media outlet YLE has highlighted the importance of location, accessibility, and adaptability of office spaces that continue to accommodate employees gathering (Sandell, 2022). This means that, depending on the type of company, it may be unlikely that centrally located offices will relocate entirely, especially if they already benefit from the urban agglomeration effects.

These results are emphasised in much of the academic literature.

Despite these discussions emerging during and immediately following the pandemic years, researchers from a Swedish study are clear to note that “whether the observed mobility patterns impose a serious challenge for urban centres, and a renaissance for cities and rural areas outside of the metropolitan regions, is of course too early to say” (Eliasson, 2023, 24).

From an international perspective during the pandemic, Florida et al. (2023)

Importantly, this paper provides a social analysis of urban cores without conducting a methodologically rich study, and the ideas proposed by Florida et al. (2023) are more speculative than scientifically substantiated.

discuss potential post-pandemic changes in the urban form and system, as well as the potential measures to secure the urban built environment against future risks. The authors foresee an increased interest in suburbs close to major cities, but also the opposite trend of “work-live neighbourhoods” in cities which offer many amenities but where transport over longer distances is not necessary. Furthermore, university towns and tourist destinations may be potentially positively affected by remote work trends. Authors predict that “outside of these limited cases, most intermediate cities, towns and rural areas are less likely to benefit much from the advantages of remote work. First, because only a limited share of their existing workforce can telework. Second, because they lack the agglomeration economies that knowledge-intensive and creative industries require” (Florida et al., 2023, 1522). Although the authors speculate that hybrid work is a probable “new normal” with effects on mobility, transport, and real estate, the article also considers that we may see further movement into the centre due to lower rents and an increased interest in having access to urban amenities. Overall, the authors maintain that the city is an irreplaceable and attractive place to live and work because of its rare opportunities for clusters of people and the exchange between them—particularly young people who gain access to career building opportunities in major cities that cannot be replaced by smaller or online settings. Several authors echo the theory that larger cities could retain agglomeration benefits or develop towards an alternative polycentric spatial model, while smaller towns might have to fight harder for vitality in their cores (see, e.g., Delventhal et al., 2023; Sweet & Scott, 2024).

Other international studies discuss the impact of the pandemic on urban cores. A study investigating post-pandemic recovery of Central Business Districts (CBD) in 62 US and Canadian cities found that the form and function of downtown cores have changed, but this change started already before the pandemic (Chapple, 2023). Furthermore, they report that cities with larger and more densely populated downtowns, larger professional and tech sectors, and higher dependence on public transport, have struggled more to recover. In another study, Srivastava (2022) identified three effects of the pandemic on downtown San Francisco: less demand for office space, declining retail demand and closure of stores, as well as lower tax returns. A Canadian-based study by Sweet and Scott (2024) points to lower activity in downtown Toronto which might have long-term effects and lead to spatial restructuring and new uses of space. When cores are deemed less valuable, real estate prices and wages may change. However, the authors caution that outcomes will depend on reactions by real estate owners and changes in aggregate economic activity. Currie et al. (2021) conducted a questionnaire with residents of Melbourne, Australia, during the pandemic to demonstrate how people would work and move within and outside of the Melbourne CBD. Based on residents’ expectations, they predicted that working from home would continue to increase after the pandemic, but at a much higher rate within the CBD compared to the rest of the city.

Florida et al. (2023) discuss future potential developments of central shopping areas. They point out that retail was under pressure before the pandemic due to the rise in online shopping. Entertainment is said to gain on goods-selling and there is an increasing acceptance of more experimental and showroom retail premises. In line with Holiss (2021), a mix of production-living-working spaces are referred to as something that could reshape high streets. Further, the authors state the need for more flexibility in planning if housing or live-work spaces are to be incorporated into high street textures, and the urban form should be adapted to potential future health risks. Increased hybrid work and a related decline in the presence of high-income earners in central areas could have a negative impact on real estate prices and rents there. It is hypothesised that this could increasingly turn cores into cultural and civic gathering places rather than shopping and office hubs. The authors suggest this could have a counter-gentrification effect and allow for more people to live centrally, including artists and creatives (Florida et al., 2023).

From a retail and office perspective, Mischke et al. (2023) investigated the impact of the pandemic on real estate in “superstar” cities in Asia, Europe, and the US. They report that office attendance is down 30 percent, and that this has ripple effects on demand for retail and office space, as well as housing. However, they caution that real estate is local, and that demand will vary substantially by neighbourhood and city. They also suggest that demand may be lower in neighbourhoods and cities with dense office space, expensive housing, and large employers in the knowledge economy. To adapt to, and even thrive, in this new reality, the authors suggest embracing a hybrid approach, for example, by developing mixed-use neighbourhoods, constructing more adaptable buildings, and designing multi-use office and retail space.

Globally speaking, some unfolding patterns show signs of a “business as usual with greater use of hybrid working model” scenario. Initially described by the OECD (2021), this scenario suggests that macro trends of urbanisation will continue, predominantly due to cities’ capacity to cluster economic and social activities for innovation and productivity, as well as having positive environmental benefits by enabling large populations to live compactly (OECD, 2021). In their original formulation of the scenario, the OECD predicted that most workers would remain in urban areas in order to maintain access to centralised workplaces at least some of the time, but that the increase in remote working in a hybrid form would mean reduced pressure on public transport, increased mobility between localities of remote work outside of cities (e.g., second homes), and greater flows of people in and out of non-urban regions (OECD, 2021). However, some patterns also suggest that the doughnut effect

The doughnut effect implies that people will move out of urban cores and settle in commuting zones in the outer rings of major metropolitan areas. An extension of this would indicate that the area of the commuting zone would widen as people opt for lower density and more affordable housing while maintaining proximity to urban amenities (OECD, 2023).

might be extending.

In his paper “The post-pandemic city: speculation through simulation”, Batty (2022) underlines the difficulty in predicting long-term effects of pandemic practices but suggests a number of potential scenarios for London. The results of these simulations show that the central city regains its primacy post-pandemic in the majority of the scenarios. Delventhal et al. (2022) model a permanent increase in working from home arrangements in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. They find three effects “(1) Jobs move to the core of the city, while residents move to the periphery; (2) Traffic congestion eases and travel times drop; (3) Average real estate prices fall, with declines in core locations and increases in the periphery” (Delventhal et al., 2022, 1). Both remote workers and populations with on-site jobs are claimed to make welfare gains—remote workers save time and money through less commuting and moving to more affordable neighbourhoods, and on-site workers spend less time commuting thanks to easing traffic congestion and have improved access to jobs and lower average real estate prices. Delventhal and Parkhomenkoc (2023) add that broader access to jobs has the potential to reduce wage inequality between residential areas and thus work against spatial concentration of talent and spending.