What does the future of Manhattan, one of the most populated areas in the world, look like? Matthew Haag’s piece in the New York Times has us all wondering.
Some of the world’s biggest companies in all industries have already announced that employees will be working home for the rest of 2020. “Before the coronavirus crisis, three of New York City’s largest commercial tenants — Barclays, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley — had tens of thousands of workers in towers across Manhattan,” reads the Times. Manhattan is the largest business district in the country, but organizations can survive without it. The city became the juggernaut it is because of its location near the water. It was the best area to ship out to Europe and it was the first location immigrants arrived to — many of whom stayed. It was the place you wanted to be because it was the center of business. Industries developed, and Manhattan became the epicenter of the economy. Now, the dense population is considered a danger. And with today’s technology, is that dense and congested city a necessity?
Even if you do believe in-person interaction is crucial for a business and your mental well-being, is it necessary to be in a city? Many do not believe so. Why pay the money? Why endanger yourself from the virus? “Putting 7,000 people in a building may be a thing from the past,” said Jes Staley, the chief executive of Barclays. What does that mean for the city with skyscrapers as far as beyond the eye can see? Can you see the city replacing its skyscrapers with building structures you would see in a suburb? Real estate will always be a necessity as long as there are people. People will always need space to live their lives. But the question is, can we adapt to a world where living in a city, even one as great as New York, poses health dangers that we never had to consider before now?
Kommentare