There's a lot of optionality between city with roommates and no space to setup a desk and middle of nowhere. Point is, it's not mutually exclusive like it is when you work in the office and thus have to reside near the office.

Choosing to live in a city for reasons other than officing there is a choice. Given the choice and the preference for city life, would they choose a lower cost city where they could afford more space?

> ...when you work in the office and thus have to reside near the office.

I don't think most people pick their residence based on their work location. My company's office is in the downtown of a major metro, and yet the majority of my coworkers are located far from the city core, often 30+ minutes commute by car -- and two colleagues who commute 90 minutes each way on the extreme end.

There are much stronger factors influencing people's choice of residency, such as familiarity, proximity to friends and family, recreational opportunities, nightlife, etc.

Which, to my mind, answers your question:

> Given the choice and the preference for city life, would they choose a lower cost city where they could afford more space?

I would venture to guess that for the vast majority of people, the answer is no. Few people are willing to uproot their life for a bit more space.

These likely aren’t the same people in this stat. Once you’re rooted, you’re rooted, but these people aren’t rooted. You’re also supporting the lower costs solutions exist aspect of my argument. Sure they require a commute but they exist.