"Remote work risks driving down rents, according to a new report."
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A simple headline — “Remote work risks driving down rents” — compresses a complex and mixed set of findings: academic work and central-bank research find remote work raised housing demand and rental growth in many places, not depressed it, while other evidence shows commercial rents and some urban cores weakened as work shifted away from offices (and return-to-office momentum complicates the picture) [1] [2] [3]. The claim can be true in narrow geographies or asset types, but the broader empirical literature summarized by the Federal Reserve and NBER points toward remote work increasing, not lowering, residential rents overall through the pandemic-era boom [1] [2].
1. What the “new report” likely means — and what the available literature actually finds
When researchers measure “exposure to remote work” they typically find it raised demand for housing and produced house-price and rent increases that move together — the NBER summary reports rental-price growth effects almost identical to house-price growth linked to remote work exposure [1], and the FRBSF literature review and working papers reach similar conclusions that remote-work exposure accounts for a large share of the 2019–2021 price surge [2]. The BLS summary likewise reports that analysis attributing much of the 24% national house-price rise between late 2019 and 2021 to remote work also finds comparable effects on rents [4].
2. Where rents fell, and why a “risk” of falling rents is plausible
At the same time, several studies and industry reports document declines in commercial rents and weaker demand in dense urban cores tied to reduced office use — Louie, Mondragon and Wieland, and other authors present evidence that greater remote-work exposure predicts lower commercial rents, consistent with less office demand [1] [2]. That weakening of downtown economies can feed back to local rental markets (fewer office workers buying lunches, less foot traffic), creating localized downside risk to rents in certain central-city neighborhoods [1] [5].
3. Offsetting forces that pushed rents up, especially outside city cores
But remote work also redistributed demand toward suburbs, exurbs and smaller cities, elevating rents there; industry commentary and surveys find remote workers value more space and in many markets were willing to pay for it, which supported rent growth outside the urban core [6] [7] [8]. Bankrate and other summaries conclude remote work contributed to higher housing prices and rents overall during the pandemic-era migration wave, with suburban rents rising alongside home prices [9] [10]. In short: spatial reallocation, not uniform decline, has been the dominant pattern [11].
4. The tug-of-war: return-to-office trends, heterogeneity, and measurement limits
The net effect going forward is therefore uncertain because two forces pull in opposite directions: persistent remote/hybrid adoption that keeps demand elevated in non-core markets, and return-to-office momentum that shrinks demand for suburban stays or for long-term decoupling from downtowns [3] [12]. Empirical work depends heavily on how “remote work exposure” is measured (ACS, job-posting data, firm RTO policies) and on local housing supply elasticities; recent academic responses emphasize these methodological subtleties and show similar long-run supply elasticities across cities that complicate simple headline claims [13] [2]. The sources provided do not identify a single “new report” that universally predicts falling residential rents nationwide, so sweeping versions of the headline exceed what the cited literature documents [1] [2] [4].
5. What to watch and policy implications
Policymakers, landlords and renters should watch migration flows, office-occupancy measures, and local housing supply constraints: if remote work falters and office demand partially recovers, some suburban and secondary-market rent growth could cool; conversely, sustained high remote adoption combined with constrained housing supply could keep rents elevated broadly [3] [2] [1]. Investors and city planners should treat both outcomes as plausible and avoid one-size-fits-all strategies — the evidence in the Federal Reserve and NBER summaries shows location- and asset-specific effects, not a single national downward trajectory for residential rents [2] [1].