Remote Work Didn't Lower House Prices, It Just Moved Them

Everyone predicted the same thing in 2020. If people could work from anywhere, city property prices would crash. Turns out? That's not what happened. Not in the UK. Not in Vietnam. Not anywhere the data shows.

Here's what actually occurred.

The Demand Didn't Disappear It Relocated

Remote work didn't reduce how much people could pay for housing. It just changed where they wanted to pay it.

High earners kept their London or New York salaries. They just started spending them in Cornwall, Lisbon, or Da Nang instead. That's not a housing affordability solution. It's a geographical wealth transfer.

Looking at The Office of National Statistics (ONS) data from 2019 to 2024, London price growth slowed to around 2-3% annually. But commuter towns like Sevenoaks, Bath, and York? They saw 8-12% annual increases. The money didn't vanish. It moved an hour down the train line.

And because the UK has some of the strictest planning laws in the developed world (hello, green belt), supply couldn't adjust. So prices in these "escape destinations" just kept rising. Remote work made more places expensive, not fewer.

Vietnam Shows the Same Pattern, Just Faster

Now look at Vietnam, where property markets in Da Nang and Hoi An tell an even starker story.

Before 2020, a beachfront apartment in Da Nang might rent for $400/month. By 2023, similar properties were hitting $1,200-1,500. Not because local wages tripled, but because remote workers from higher-income countries moved in.

The economics are brutal. A software developer earning $80,000 in USD can outbid ten local professionals without blinking. And unlike the UK, where foreign ownership is relatively limited, Vietnam's property market is more open to this pressure.

Rental yields in "digital nomad hubs" jumped. Locals got priced out. Sound familiar?

Tourism Made Everything Worse

Here's the bit that's genuinely concerning. Remote work didn't just move housing demand. It merged it with tourism.

Short-term rentals exploded. Property owners realized they could earn more from Airbnb than long-term tenants. Entire neighborhoods in both UK seaside towns and Vietnamese coastal cities shifted from residential to tourist accommodation.

That's a double hit. Remote workers raise baseline prices, then short-term rentals remove supply entirely.

What This Actually Means

Remote work was sold as liberation. Work from anywhere, live affordably. But the data tells a different story.

It didn't democratize housing. It just gave people with high incomes more places to spend them, while locals in previously affordable areas watched their rent double.

The UK spread the pressure across more cities. Vietnam concentrated it in lifestyle destinations. But neither country saw prices fall.

The political implications are just starting to surface. Coastal town councils in the UK restricting second homes, Vietnamese cities quietly tightening rental regulations. When housing becomes unaffordable for locals, policy eventually responds.

What I'm reading "Order Without Design" by Alain Bertaud, World Bank urban development reports on housing supply elasticity.

What are you seeing where you live?