You don't have to go to the urban center for everyday things though, you go there because that's where the jobs are.

When full remote becomes more wide-spread, that might change things rapidly.

It's not only jobs. Do you want to watch theater? Opera? Concerts? Major sports events? Do you want to join a club for an obscure African sport? I could go on and on.

There is a reason we've been congregating in cities for millennia, despite having to overcome many diseases which are made worse by overcrowdedness.

> It's not only jobs. Do you want to watch theater? Opera? Concerts? Major sports events? Do you want to join a club for an obscure African sport? I could go on and on.

It's primarily jobs though. I know quite a few people who don't care enough for the Opera or obscure African sports to pay two or three times as much in rent and taxes. It's a mixed bag, some love living in the city, but all have to live in the city if they want to work in certain jobs & have a career.

> There is a reason we've been congregating in cities for millennia, despite having to overcome many diseases which are made worse by overcrowdedness.

Yes, primarily because that's where the opportunities were, always. The colorful cultural life you describe was (and still is) enjoyed by the urban elite, that wasn't a thing for the working poor in e.g. 19th century Paris. Their entertainment would be a bottle of wine and laughter with friends after slaving away in the factories; much the same they'd have in a village, just minus having a job and some money. Today's working class might go to the movies (if they don't prefer Netflix), the theaters, opera houses, obscure sports etc are upper class things.

That might be changing, though I'm not convinced we'll see full remote work for large amounts of office jobs.

The urban poor in the 19th century went to see the performing arts, too. Yes, some theaters and operas were strictly for the bourgeoisie, but there were theaters for the proletariat too (and whole genres of plays written to appeal to them), and vaudeville/music-hall type venues. I don't know where you got this idea that the masses could only make their own entertainment at home.

It's not that they "could only" do that, it's that their primary life wasn't full of cultural entertainment as the comment made it sound. They came to the cities looking for work and and opportunity, not from a late-20th-century sense of "small town life isn't interesting enough".

The life described is one of privilege, not of the lower classes. It's pubs vs operas.

Much of that has been largely replaced with electronic media, and what remains is a “once in a while” occasion that people are willing to travel to. These days, much of the time, city-dwellers are the ones who have to travel to suburban venues.

The main reasons for urbanization were always economic and political. Rome was not built for the Coliseum; the Coliseum was built for Rome.

There are still a lot of us who really enjoy theater, opera, concerts, shows, and the like. And those things can only be had in a city.

It's true that local amphitheaters may book a few good live acts every year but that selection pales in comparison to what you can get every weekend in a reasonably-sized city. There are some fun local theater groups in my suburb too. But sometimes I really want to watch something other than Shakespeare.

That’s true. But since the mid-20th century, most people enjoy music, “dramatic productions” (for lack of a better generic term), and live sports electronically rather than in person.

I know it’s not the same, and I also enjoy live entertainment and the other amenities of cities. I just don’t think these amenities are historically a prime driver for urbanization. People historically move to cities for economic reasons, providing a lucrative and competitive market for entertaining them.

True, but that's not that common. And few people enjoy them so much as to live in the city for that reason alone.

Living in a major city, I and other people would still drive or even fly to other major cities for concerts or major sports events. That's not-that-frequent occassion, it's a bit more convenient if the event happens close to your home but living 100km from the city where it happens is not an obstacle anyway.

The location of jobs matters because many of them require daily commute. But for major entertainment events it's sufficient to be 'close enough' for the things that haven't yet been replaced with something that's accessible remotely. For example, 30 years ago living in a small town meant that your access to cinema was limited or at least delayed, so you were 'out of the loop' of the culture in some sense. That's not an issue anymore - not because there are more cinemas, because their role has decreased.

You can live in the suburbs and still enjoy theater, concerts, opera, etc. I live in a suburb. There is a performing arts center a bicycle ride away which outside of these Covid times had some kind of opera or symphony or ballet or something along those lines going on. The university nearby often had shows well. If you wanted to see a live show you could probably find one within 15min any given weekend.

There is a light rail line running through the suburb which connects downtown. Its a 30 minute train ride to go to the big event venue for big sports and concerts. This precludes the idea of going to the local minor league teams in the area as well which can often be just as much fun to watch and follow and far cheaper to attend.

There are club sports which participate in the park in my neighborhood. All I need to do is walk down the street and find people playing various kinds of sports. There are larger suburb-city owned sports complex on the bike trails for even more congregation.

Living in a suburb does not mean you can never go and see a show or a sports game or a concert.

Some jobs. There are more than there used to be in some cities but most technology jobs are still in suburban campuses and industrial parks.