The Other Side of WFH: Impact on Urban Economic Structure

Many urban workers have quietly experienced a lighter life in recent years without having to go to the office every day. Mornings no longer start with a rush. No energy is wasted on the road before work truly begins. There is time for breakfast. There is space to simply sit for a moment without feeling guilty. These small things surprisingly have a significant impact on quality of life.

Therefore, it is understandable that working from home — WFH — is increasingly viewed as a solution. It is considered to reduce congestion, lower living costs, and even help the environment. But perhaps we need to look at it from a different angle.

Why does working from home feel like a lifesaver for urban life? The possibly uncomfortable answer is that cities have so far developed too quickly without being truly designed for the people living in them.

Data from the Central Statistics Agency shows that more than 60 per cent of Indonesia’s population now lives in urban areas. Urbanisation will continue to increase in the next two decades. Cities are an economic magnet. People come because jobs are there.

However, jobs are not always followed by decent living spaces. Affordable housing is increasingly distant from economic centres. Many families end up living on the outskirts or in peri-urban areas. From there, the long daily journey begins.

In major metropolises, a round trip of two to three hours is no longer an extraordinary story. It becomes routine. In this context, WFH indeed feels like liberation. It eliminates the journey that has long been considered normal, though actually irrational.

But that great benefit can also be read as an indicator of failure. A well-designed city should not force its residents to “eliminate the journey” to make life feel reasonable. The distance between home and work should still be humane. Public transport should be reliable enough to be the primary choice. When WFH has a dramatic impact, it means there was previously dramatic inefficiency as well.

To see its potential impact further, imagine a simple simulation. If around 30 per cent of formal workers in Jakarta work from home two to three days a week, the daily commuter volume would certainly decrease. Congestion could ease slightly. Fuel consumption would reduce. Even air quality might improve on certain days.

However, this behavioural change will also affect how people choose where to live. Without the obligation to be present at the office every day, some workers will feel no need to live near the expensive city centre. They move further away — seeking larger homes, lower prices, or more comfortable environments.

This decision is rational individually. But if it happens en masse, the city will expand. New settlements grow on the fringes. The government must expand infrastructure: roads, electricity networks, clean water, schools, health facilities. Public transport becomes harder to reach dispersed areas. Reliance on private vehicles increases. In the long term, emissions that temporarily decrease due to WFH could rise again.

Ironically, the benefits of WFH today could accelerate the urban sprawl pattern that makes cities more expensive to manage in the future. The impact is also felt on the urban economic structure. Business district activities depend on daily mobility. When the flow of workers decreases, small businesses around offices lose customers. Eateries become quiet. Local transport loses passengers. The daily economy becomes more fragile.

This is important because urban poverty in Indonesia is not insignificant. The percentage is indeed lower than in villages, but the number is large — millions of people live in conditions vulnerable to small changes in economic activity.

In other words, WFH can help some groups survive the pressure of living costs, but at the same time shift that pressure to other groups. It reduces the burden of mobility, but does not automatically make the city more inclusive. At this point, WFH should be viewed not as the main solution, but as a mirror. A mirror that shows that so far many city residents have adapted to a system that is actually inefficient.

Future cities cannot rely solely on work flexibility. They need more fundamental changes. Affordable housing must be available near work centres. Public transport must be truly reliable. Economic activities need to be more dispersed so that mobility does not always pile up in the same direction every morning. If these changes occur, working from home will still be useful — but no longer as a saviour. It will just be one option in a healthier urban life.

And perhaps that is the sign of a city starting to truly mature. When life feels humane even without having to distance oneself from it.