The Covid-19 pandemic will force societal change. It already has. It triggered a near global pause on life and work as we knew it in a way that we have never seen before and would likely never have seen otherwise. It has highlighted issues we were dismissing, problems we were ignoring and inefficiencies we were overlooking. In short, it has shone a spotlight on a whole host of systems within our cities – both globally and locally – that simply weren’t working.
It is no great surprise, then, that many are arguing that now is the time to look for the silver lining and come back stronger than ever. It’s a fair and valid point; that we use the insight garnered from this rare worldwide pause to build on and improve the places we live, work and play. To address those cultural, economic and social issues and put them right, rather than blindly returning to the way life was before. If only things were that simple.
The truth is that reimagining cities post-Covid will likely be even more complex than it was before. But that doesn’t mean the opportunity to drive change isn’t there. It just requires a careful, considered approach. One that should see real estate at the forefront.
Roger Smith, design director at global design practice Gensler, Devin Vermeulen, WeWork’s former creative director now interim head of product at Brooklyn-based hospitality start-up Getaway and Greg Lindsay, director of applied research at the New Cities Foundation, join forces to discuss the complex nature of reimagining urban development at a time of unprecedented change and consider why for many in real estate, keeping up with the demands of the consumer won’t just be crucial, it will be key to survival.
In the pursuit of happiness
One of the biggest warnings, and one that is echoed by all three of these urban trends experts, is that demand will dictate how our cities evolve. This demand is likely to focus more around equality, balance, health and wellbeing than ever before. “We need to build communities into our cities again,” says Gensler’s Smith. “The demand for happiness should never be overlooked.”
Real estate must not only embrace whatever it is that the people – the consumers – call for when it comes to the future of our cities, it will need to try desperately hard as a sector not to immediately convert future requirements into a route to financial gain alone.
“Unfortunately, real estate and development has been hugely driven by profit above all else in the past,” says Getaway’s Vermeulen. “Historically the industry tends to take trends, looks at them through a solely financial lens and then everything starts to fall apart. Take the office cubicle. That was introduced in the 1960s as an ‘activity office’ not unlike our modern version of activity-based working. It was never meant to be the norm. Then real estate got hold of it as a concept and cubicle farms were born; using them as a tool to try to cram as many people into one space as possible. Soon the fact that this was a concept designed to make people happier at work was lost and you have created a horrible environment. As soon as we recognise that pattern and as soon as we, as consumers, stop giving our money to people doing shitty things, this really is one of the simplest ways we can effect change and make sure developers are truly driven by community demand.”
And even now, already, there is evidence that real estate might be making some mistakes, says New Cities Foundation’s Lindsay. Or at least there needs to be a clear distinction drawn between what’s right in the height of the crisis and what is right long-term, because those things are not always going to be the same.
“Real estate can play a huge role in reshaping our cities and the assets within them beyond this pandemic,” he says. “I haven’t seen much evidence of that yet and where I have it is not necessarily being done in a positive way, at least not for the long term. In response to lockdowns I can see the temporary need for ghost kitchens, dark stores and dead malls. It is an interesting and potentially smart short-term response. But as a long-term asset class they are effectively disappearing hundreds of thousands of retailers and I worry it could do irreparable damage to our cities if we lose all of these businesses.”
There is an answer, he says. And that is for real estate to think less about particular assets in isolation and more about how those assets can be redistributed throughout cities in a way that not only brings communities back together but offers an alternative way of living and working.
“We need to think more about mixed use in communities,” he says. “The sector has trailed behind on that front for years but this could be a real solution.”
Gensler’s Smith agrees and advocates a worldwide focus on a “hyper mixed-use” model of development where cities become less about the urban sprawl as a whole and more about creating a network of connected villages. The evidence, he says, suggests that this is where demand is heading.
Walk from home
“I don’t think city population numbers will dramatically change,” Smith adds. “But I do think there will be a migration. That doesn’t mean everyone will stay in their homes. Instead of a work-from-home trend, what if it’s a walk-from-home solution? What if we have an opportunity to create density and a mix of uses where people can walk a short distance to their office?”
Not unlike the Parisian 15-minute city concept, Lindsay says the concept flies in the face of urban economics but could well be the city-wide mindset shift everyone needs to start getting their heads around.
“In a local neighbourhood like this you need to make the real estate assets work triple, quadruple overtime,” he says. “This is where tech comes in. What can we use and how can we make more mixed-use, reusable spaces?”
It won’t be easy, he concedes. A mass policy change would be required to “bail out” mass city infrastructure and start to support people living in these smaller, more walkable districts. But that doesn’t mean it is not the way forward. Not least because it could start to address a wide range of issues from the changing nature of work preferences right through to major social and cultural problems.
On the subject of the changing nature of work, Vermeulen says that a “third space” concept was emerging pre-Covid and that localised districts would likely support this trend. “Mixed use it key,” he says. “I was having conversations three years ago with activists in Williamsburg who were trying to get the city to build more mixed-use commercial space there. When it comes down to it, you think about a city like New York as a whole but really it’s a selection of urban suburbs. The best solution is that people can walk to work, reducing travel and this is where we see the emergence of the third space. Not offices, not homes but collaborative office spaces in the suburbs.”
The trick, adds Lindsay is not to be too prescriptive about the way people in cities should work or live in the future and advocate a “work-from-anywhere” approach that doesn’t reject the concept of the office or the concept of home working but rather offers a choice. However, he is quick to add that this will only work if those city suburbs and the districts away from the centre are given the due care and attention they need. It’s a role that he hopes the real estate sector and city jurisdictions alike will take seriously.
“We don’t want to see a K-shaped recovery where white-collar workers who live in affluent areas have an opportunity for this lovely, local life while accelerating inequality for other communities and communities of colour that have been marginalised and pushed further and further back from city centres. We need to build racism and inequality out of our urban environments.”
A chance to rebalance
Combatting social injustice is one by-product of the pandemic that, if properly addressed, could be a real opportunity to instil change, adds Smith. “This crisis has revealed so much,” he says. “Social injustice has become very clear and people are now more aware of institutionalised policies that have held people back. The hope is that we are now much more focused on inequities in cities and we are all searching for more of a balance.”
The big question everyone should be asking themselves, adds Vermeulen, is “why would we go back to the way things were?” It is a question that applies to social inequality and systematic racism he says, but also to things as simple as contributing to traffic and commuting.
“All of a sudden people have realised that they can reduce carbon emissions by not going to the office every day or they can get an hour of their day back. That doesn’t mean we all just stop going into the office altogether, as there needs to be a balance and cities need some movement to thrive. It is more about how we retain some of the things that have been better because of the pandemic while we mitigate the things that have been worse.
“Not to minimise the impact of the pandemic but there were things happening before that we knew about and knew we needed to fix but we would never have said: ‘OK, everyone stop going to work for a while and let’s see what happens to emissions when we eliminate traffic’. This situation has given us so much research that we never would have otherwise had and the hope is that we will all collectively say ‘let’s not go back to that and start looking at some solutions instead’.”
It won’t be straightforward. It will require major overhauls to some traditional policies, practices and systems. It will also require a willingness to adapt. It will call for a clever use of tech and smart solutions but also a true dedication to balancing long-term solutions with a flexible approach to development. It will be a lot of hard work and it might take some time. But, ultimately, it will be worth it – if not for the greater good than for the survival of our cities and the companies delivering the assets and infrastructure that support them. “Make places where people want to be,” says Vermeulen, “and they will come.”
To send feedback, e-mail emily.wright@egi.co.uk or tweet @EmilyW_9 or @estatesgazette
