Is there any point living in a big city after coronavirus?

If cities such as London, New York and Paris are unattractive to the most ambitious and enterprising citizens, then they will become a drag on their national economies, writes Hamish McRae

If there is no buzz in the city, what is the point of being there? (AFP/Getty)

One metre is better than two metres – at least in the sense that many day-to-day social activities work better if you are three feet away from someone but not if you are six feet away. So for the pubs and restaurants, the easing of the two-metre separation guidance will be the game-changer. Some semblance of normality could resume.

Or will it? The great question, and it is a social matter as much as an economic one, is whether cities will get back to normal, or will they be gravely and lastingly damaged by the whole experience of the past few months. It matters a lot for a host of reasons. If cities such as London, New York and Paris are unattractive to the most ambitious and enterprising citizens, then they will become a drag on their national economies rather than a driver of them. If you can do your job remotely, perhaps meeting once a week rather than every day, then what is the point of living in a city centre? Better to have more living space and a garden. If the theatres are shut for months, can they revive? If there is no buzz, what is the point of being there?

Those of us who can remember visiting London in the immediate years after the Second World War can testify to the dreariness of the city. London, in the expression of the time, “had the stuffing knocked out of it”. Population fell; people wanted to move away.