[HN Gopher] NYC skyscrapers sit vacant
___________________________________________________________________
NYC skyscrapers sit vacant
Author : mirthlessend
Score : 81 points
Date : 2023-05-18 14:56 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| mtalantikite wrote:
| I've been working remote from NYC since 2008, and for a chunk of
| that time I had rented a cheap, no-frills loft space in Brooklyn
| with some friends. I had space to have a soldering setup, another
| area for a shared work bench, storage for tools, bookshelves for
| CS/math books, space for some couches, a sink, etc. I think we
| paid around $400/month each to split amongst the 5 of us. It was
| a lot of space.
|
| Finding that now in NYC is pretty difficult without paying a ton,
| even with all this unused commercial space. Co-working spaces
| have all these amenities I don't want and charge $1200-2000/month
| for a closet you can kind of fit a few small desks in. A lot of
| these buildings are holding out to get one or two big corporate
| leases. I'd totally rent a small space in Manhattan if the price
| was right, just to have the option to head into the city when I
| want to get out of the house, but I don't think anyone is trying
| to cater to a bunch of hacker/artist types anymore. Until then
| I'll just work from home.
| gen220 wrote:
| Those places still exist out in bushwick / east williamsburg.
| If you hang out with the right people, or go to the right
| facebook groups you'll find them.
|
| The living or working arrangements are often illegal, so they
| aren't visible in the "above-ground" market (Zillow,
| Streeteasy, IRL ads, etc.), but they're still there.
| robotburrito wrote:
| A few friends of mine are also trying to do something similar
| here in SF. We want somewhere else to work other than our
| cramped apartments, but don't necessarily want to go into a
| real office.
| dpratt wrote:
| Nobody predicted this except pretty much everybody who thought
| about what the long-term effects of COVID would be on commercial
| real estate around mid-2020 or so.
| brightball wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| Within about a day of "two weeks to flatten the curve" a large
| amount of people predicted exactly what was about to happen to
| the entire country because they understood economics. If you
| pointed any these things out, routine accusations of wanting
| people to die were thrown your way.
|
| It was a weird time.
| jsight wrote:
| IDK, it seems like only a subset of people could have predicted
| it. People who think remote work isn't good wouldn't have
| predicted it. People who thought it was good might think it was
| just accelerating the inevitable.
|
| I'd guess there are still a lot of people who think returning
| to office life is inevitable. There's certainly a big push for
| it from a certain subgroup now.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| Covid did nothing to cause this. Our response to covid caused
| all of it.
| [deleted]
| fknorangesite wrote:
| Do you feel that this level of pedantry improves the
| discussion?
| riwsky wrote:
| guns don't kill real estate markets, _real estate markets_
| kill real estate markets
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| Something similar to this would have happened without COVID. SF
| was in massive oversupply, London is in massive oversupply, all
| these cities had massive growth in supply fuelled by debt (CRE
| is probably one of the biggest benefactors of low rates,
| Blackstone Real Estate was basically finished in 2008, they
| were doing huge deals at the top of the market...move-forward
| ten years, fastest growth area of the business, the guy who led
| the division in 2008 is now second in line to run the firm).
|
| COVID definitely took the edge off but you are seeing the same
| thing in residential (particularly people moving into single-
| family) and it isn't of the same magnitude.
|
| This isn't unusual (NY had a similar downturn in the late 80s,
| you don't even need to go back far) but it was multiple things
| at once. COVID is a very easy get out for people who did
| extremely stupid things with other people's money.
| [deleted]
| freitzkriesler2 wrote:
| The solution to this problem is converting those office buildings
| into apartments. This would save a lot of downtowns. However,
| city zoning rules and real estate investors absolutely do not
| want this because it lowers the cost of their housing. If you
| look into why this isn't happening there are some ridicuous rules
| requiring all units to be able to open out to the outside. I'm of
| the belief that affordable units are affordable because they
| don't have amenities like an outward facing window. In places
| like NYC, people want places to sleep that are affordable. Oh
| well, these are all self inflicted wounds which will lead to an
| inevitable collapse in CRE.
| aynyc wrote:
| As someone who knows nothing about commercial real estate
| business but lived in NYC for a long time. Why can't they convert
| to residential? Is the cost of conversation so prohibitive that
| it is a non-starter?
| rco8786 wrote:
| > Why can't they convert to residential?
|
| They can, and will, but it is not an easy process (yet).
|
| I would guess that within 1-3 years we see major cities
| changing their codes and zoning processes specifically to fast
| track commercial -> residential conversions.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Is the cost of conversation so prohibitive that it is a non-
| starter?_
|
| Having asked the same question of developers, it's a
| combination of cost and code. Many office buildings are old,
| with tiny windows surrounded by load-bearing walls. They're
| also laid out with an office, not home, in mind. (Think:
| plumbing.) This combination means extensive renovation,
| retrofitting and-if you find a previously-unseen problem-
| rebuilding.
|
| That said, it's New York City. My first two apartments were
| illegally subdivided and subletted, the first having no window.
| There are people who will happily take an apartment with a tiny
| (or non-existent) window in exchange for cheaper rent. We just
| need to update the code to remove aesthetic requirements while
| ensuring that doesn't mean skimping on safety.
| milsorgen wrote:
| We're already deep in a mental health crisis, particularly
| among the city folk, I don't think ignoring the aesthetic
| experience of where one lives is a wise idea. People aren't
| widgets even if they themselves don't realize that.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _I don 't think ignoring the aesthetic experience of
| where one lives is a wise idea_
|
| Nobody says to ignore it. Just not to make specific
| expressions of it a red line.
|
| Windows are a great example. New Yorkers get emotional
| about windows. Guess what: nobody is egressing from the
| 57th story of a burning building via the window. Yet go to
| a community board meeting and every numpty who Ctrl + F'd
| the fire code will pull up photos from 1911 to argue for
| windows an aircraft carrier can fit through.
|
| You know what you can provide the residents of a building
| with tiny, tiny windows? A rooftop garden. Modern heating
| and fresh, filtered air. Potted plants in the hallways,
| community spaces, warmer lighting _et cetera_.
| aynyc wrote:
| I used to worked by FIDI, most the apartments there are old
| converted office buildings. Visited a lot of friends and
| coworkers in those buildings, I felt fine inside. But I
| supposed midtown buildings are a bit different in terms of
| girth versus old brick and stone buildings.
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| NY has already begun changing the code to facilitate
| conversions.
| cmonagle wrote:
| > Many office buildings are old, with tiny windows surrounded
| by load-bearing walls.
|
| Just a nit-pick: older buildings with windows and load-
| bearing walls are actually better candidates for residential
| conversion than newer buildings with glass curtain walls and
| structural columns. [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023
| /03/11/upshot/office...]
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _older buildings with windows and load-bearing walls are
| actually better candidates for residential conversion than
| newer buildings with glass curtain walls and structural
| columns_
|
| Structurally, yes. Politically, community boards will claim
| they're hellscapes and then trot out studies on the health
| benefits of open air and sunlight and whatnot.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Aesthetic requirements aren't the big issue, things like
| plumbing are. Office buildings don't need to distribute water
| infrastructure the way residential buildings do.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _things like plumbing are_
|
| There are apartment buildings in Hell's Kitchen with
| communal toilets and showers for each floor. There is still
| running water to each apartment, but I'm not sure that
| _has_ to be a requirement. (My college dorm didn 't have
| running water.)
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| I think on average we can do better than literally hell.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _think on average we can do better than literally hell_
|
| Sure. But not with the existing CRE stock. Not for cheap.
|
| My prediction is code won't be compromised. We'll raze
| the buildings and construct new housing. It will never be
| as cheap as the alternative could have been, or, more
| pointedly, than what tens if not hundreds of thousands of
| New Yorkers endure. But it's an easier sell on the
| lectern.
| AJ007 wrote:
| In the US they force people to live in the tents after
| demolishing the slums and call it progress.
| hgsgm wrote:
| Then they demolish the tents.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > There are apartment buildings in Hell's Kitchen with
| communal toilets and showers for each floor. There is
| still running water to each apartment, but I'm not sure
| that has to be a requirement. (My college dorm didn't
| have running water.)
|
| You're talking about prewar walk-ups that have been
| converted to de facto SROs. Also, those are mostly
| downtown, not in Hell's Kitchen. They're cheap and mostly
| occupied by young people who can't afford anything else,
| because they're incredibly undesirable ways to live,
| limiting their market rental price. Some number are also
| rent-stabilized and occupied by longtime residents, for
| the same reasons.
|
| There is no way that you can seriously argue that doing
| this for newly-constructed skyscrapers would result in
| units that can be sold at the price that the building
| owners are demanding. There's a reason no new
| construction uses this model _except_ for dedicated
| affordable housing (to the extent that 's even built
| anymore). People simply do not want to live like that,
| and the market reflects that.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _cheap and mostly occupied by young people who can 't
| afford anything else, because they're incredibly
| undesirable ways to live, limiting their market rental
| price_
|
| Yup, do this. "Young people who can't afford anything
| else" in New York are a population comparable with that
| of Atlanta [1].
|
| > _no way that you can seriously argue that doing this
| for newly-constructed skyscrapers would result in units
| that can be sold at the price that the building owners
| are demanding_
|
| The buildings' owners are screwed. Their leverage
| constrains them. The question is whether the structures
| have positive value. Retrofitting to current code leaves
| most with negative value, _i.e._ it 's cheaper to
| abandon. The question I was answering is if it's possible
| to economically convert these to housing for _somebody_.
| Under current code, the answer is no.
|
| [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/911456/new-york-
| populati... _20 to 24_
|
| [a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_c
| ities_b...
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > Yup, do this. "Young people who can't afford anything
| else" in New York are a population comparable with that
| of Atlanta [1].
|
| You can't just link to the age distribution and cite the
| number of "20-24 year olds in NYC" as evidence that there
| are half a million people in NYC who can't afford to live
| in anything other than an SRO.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| I'm saying there are half a million New Yorkers aged 20
| to 24. Is your argument really that there isn't a market
| for a cheap, minimal build in New York?
| hedora wrote:
| High rises are designed to have reconfigurable floorplans.
| So, very few internal walls are going to be load bearing.
| In the absolute worst case (low fixed ceilings that prevent
| drop ceilings), you can always go for the industrial look +
| expose upstairs' plumbing to downstairs, and/or add fixed
| internal walls for vertical plumbing runs.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > We just need to update the code to remove aesthetic
| requirements while ensuring that doesn't mean skimping on
| safety.
|
| There are very few "aesthetic requirements" that prevent an
| office building from being converted to residential. Most of
| issues with building code - including the window issue - are
| in fact motivated by safety concerns.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Most of issues with building code - including the window
| issue - are in fact motivated by safety concerns_
|
| Office buildings are fireproofed in ways residential units
| are not. One can also replace windows with proximity to a
| fireproof stairwell without compromising safety.
|
| I'm winging this. The point is there are places we can make
| tradeoffs. They're just not the kind Manhattan voters like.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > Office buildings are fireproofed in ways residential
| units are not. One can also replace windows with
| proximity to a fireproof stairwell without compromising
| safety.
|
| You can't, really.
|
| The way that emergency exits are laid out in office
| buildings is different from the way that they're laid out
| in residential buildings, and that's done because the
| safety needs of residential buildings are different from
| the typical safety needs of office buildings. It would be
| more expensive to build office buildings with those
| requirements from the get-go, so few dedicated office
| have them (particularly the larger skyscrapers that we're
| talking about).
|
| You can either retrofit the core of the building (very
| expensive) or you can redesign the unit size and shape to
| conform to the existing building core (less expensive,
| but results in layouts that cannot be sold at the price
| the building owners require - the exact problem discussed
| in the article).
|
| > The point is there are places we can make tradeoffs.
| They're just not the kind Manhattan voters like.
|
| To make that claim, you'd have to point to actual
| tradeoffs that could be made without significantly
| compromising safety, and which aren't being done because
| "Manhattan voters" have rejected them.
|
| And as someone who probably has a much better
| understanding of NYC commercial and residential building
| codes than the typical HN reader, I'm really only aware
| of one, and even that is only really being advocated for
| smaller and mid-size buildings, not the tall skyscrapers
| discussed in this article.
|
| > I'm winging this.
|
| Yes, I can see that.
| hedora wrote:
| > _at the price the building owners require_
|
| Supply and demand will fix this. Real estate speculators
| will eventually realize they've already lost the money
| they put into the building, then sell it at a loss (or at
| bankruptcy). Then, the residential conversions will
| happen, producing a supply of large, irregularly shaped
| manhattan condos that will certainly sell.
|
| Capitalism does have its advantages.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > Supply and demand will fix this. Real estate
| speculators will eventually realize they've already lost
| the money they put into the building, then sell it at a
| loss (or at bankruptcy). Then, the residential
| conversions will happen, producing a supply of large,
| irregularly shaped manhattan condos that will certainly
| sell. > > Capitalism does have its advantages.
|
| The inherent land value is so astronomical and the cost
| of retrofitting is so high that, at virtually any price,
| most developers would decide it's more economical to raze
| the building and start over, designing a residential
| building from scratch with cookie-cutter units that can
| be sold for maximum profit.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _that 's done because the safety needs of residential
| buildings are different from the typical safety needs of
| office buildings_
|
| You're acting like residential retrofits have never been
| done. They have. These are workable problems.
|
| As others point out, the killer is plumbing. Not fire
| escape.
|
| > _only really being advocated for smaller and mid-size
| buildings, not the tall skyscrapers discussed in this
| article_
|
| Most of New York City's CRE tax revenue comes from mid-
| sized offices. Not from skyscrapers. Everything I'm
| suggesting is aimed at, and has been proposed for, those.
|
| > _I 'm really only aware of one_
|
| There are many more. I'm winging the solutions. Not the
| capacity for them, which has been and is being studied by
| architects, engineers and psychologists.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > You're acting like residential retrofits have never
| been done. They have. These are workable problems.
|
| I didn't say residential retrofitting can't be done. I
| said that they can't be done while still demanding the
| resale value (read: net profit) that the building owners
| are demanding.
|
| > Most of New York City's CRE tax revenue comes from mid-
| sized offices. Not from skyscrapers.
|
| This comment thread is on an article titled "NYC
| Skyscrapers Sit Vacant, Exposing Risk City Never
| Predicted". So we're talking about things that apply to
| skyscrapers.
|
| > As others point out, the killer is plumbing. Not fire
| escape.
|
| There are multiple issues. I addressed fire escape only
| because _you_ brought it up, not because it 's the only
| issue.
|
| Again, this whole thread is in response to your claim
| that the limiting factor is "aesthetic requirements" in
| the building code that are _not_ motivated by safety
| concerns. So far, you haven 't pointed out any.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _" aesthetic requirements" in the building code that
| are not motivated by safety concerns. So far, you haven't
| pointed out any._
|
| Yes, I have [1]. Communal water, toilets and showers.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35989481
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > Yes, I have [1]. Communal water, toilets and showers.
|
| No, because that's non-prohibitive under current building
| code. Contrary to popular misconception, it's permissible
| to have communal facilities; it's just not economically
| viable, in part because it's extremely undesirable to
| live in.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Again, because of the other fixed costs of development.
| When those units come on the market there is ample
| demand. That doesn't work if you have to price in years
| of community board and planning meetings.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Windows aren't for aesthetic reasons. They are required in
| bedrooms by most codes for fire egress purposes.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Windows aren 't for aesthetic reasons. They are required
| in bedrooms by most codes for fire egress purposes_
|
| Commented on this elsewhere [1], but egress into a
| fireproofed stairwell is a safety-neutral compromise. It's
| against code, however.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35989503
| TuringNYC wrote:
| Egress is also insane for high-rises, but it is still
| code.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Egress is also insane for high-rises, but it is still
| code_
|
| That's the point. It's vestigial code that could be
| loosened to promote housing supply.
| [deleted]
| yuppie_scum wrote:
| Pretty hard to egress from the window of the 30th floor of
| a skyscraper anyway innit
| willcipriano wrote:
| Have you ever pondered what the big ladders on firetrucks
| are for?
| [deleted]
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Have you ever pondered what the big ladders on
| firetrucks are for_
|
| The tallest ladders in the FDNY's inventory go up to
| 100'. (They were testing a 300' rig, but I don't know if
| it was deployed.) They aren't designed to recover people
| from burning skyscrapers.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Most buildings in NY are less than ten stories tall. You
| don't have to exit from the floor you live on.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _You don 't have to exit from the floor you live on_
|
| Which means you don't need a window in every apartment--
| those people can't use theirs for egress.
| diversionfactor wrote:
| Let me know how that works from the 43rd floor.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > They're also laid out with an office, not home, in mind.
| (Think: plumbing.)
|
| Plumbing is easy, pressurized pipes and pumps can deal with
| that just fine. The real challenge is air conditioning:
| showers create lots of humid, warm air - introduce that into
| your building's HVAC and you'll get issues with rust and mold
| - and cooking isn't much better, people generally don't want
| to smell the curry that someone at the other end of the
| building is cooking. Or they don't want to hear their
| neighbors having sex through the air vents.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Many things can be converted to office space. Old hotels for
| instance - they have common bathrooms, small rooms, lots of
| doors. Pretty compatible with offices.
|
| The opposite is harder. Adding bathrooms, combining rooms,
| adding kitchens and drains and individual utilities costs maybe
| more than the building is worth.
| jasonjei wrote:
| I've heard to do plumbing work to convert office to residential
| would be so ridiculously expensive it would be easier in some
| cases to tear the building down and start anew
| un1xl0ser wrote:
| I can see this in progress. Needs windows, but we also need
| more residential, so happy to see it.
|
| https://nypost.com/2023/04/24/longtime-nyc-home-of-the-
| daily...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _plumbing work to convert office to residential would be so
| ridiculously expensive_
|
| If you require plumbing to every apartment. Dorm-style lay-
| out would sidestep this problem.
| Bellyache5 wrote:
| Who would want to live in a dorm?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Who would want to live in a dorm?_
|
| Younger me. Lots of people. If you don't work from home
| it's just a crash pad. Saving a few hundred bucks a month
| is a good bargain for having to walk a few feet to pee.
| nprateem wrote:
| The tories wouldn't mind asylum seekers living in them
| [deleted]
| mperham wrote:
| People who are on the street or living in their car
| today.
|
| We have a desperate need for affordable housing all over
| this country. SROs and hostel-style residences are
| perfectly reasonable as a step to keep people stable and
| off the streets.
| yellowstuff wrote:
| Basically. There are a ton of logistical problems, but a major
| one is that the big office buildings in Midtown have a lot of
| interior space with no windows, and apartments need windows.
|
| A recent study in NYC found:
|
| "Most conversion projects would only become financially
| feasible if buildings could be acquired at significant
| discounts, in many cases at prices that valued the structures
| as having negative value."
|
| https://cbcny.org/research/potential-office-residential-conv...
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Seems like they could make decent mixed use spaces - with
| some of the space being converted into retail / malls, some
| of it being used for on-shoring / light industry, and the
| rest remaining office space.
|
| Another solution for cities with astronomical land prices
| (like NYC) is to look into moving some of their city
| buildings into sky scrapers, and then selling their buildings
| & land to be re-developed.
|
| Like why can't the police "building" just be 30 floors in a
| sky scraper? Why can't a hospital just be a bunch of floors
| in a sky scraper? Why can't a high school just be a bunch of
| floors in a sky scraper? Etc...
| hedora wrote:
| Negative value isn't really possible in this scenario. I'll
| buy a floor of one of these buildings for $1, and promise to
| pay for its upkeep.
|
| I'm sure I can find someone willing to rent a 10,000+s.f.
| downtown manhattan apartment for more than the cost of
| maintenance (and the property tax on the $1 the floor of the
| building is apparently worth).
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| If the trend in office usage keeps going, it's not long
| before these white elephants in the middle of cities will be
| considered of "negative value". Empty monoliths in very
| valuable lots, that you have to spend money to make useful?
| Sounds like negative value to me.
| nyc_data_geek1 wrote:
| It's not, they're just dragginf their feet hoping they can
| pressure the workforce to stuff the genie back in the bottle.
| It ain't happening.
|
| Financial district has a number of converted office buildings,
| which are now residential. If anything, that area is now more
| vibrant and cool, certainly not an apocalyptic thing.
| jamies wrote:
| Plumbing is a big one. Most commercial floors only have a few
| hookups and drains. Each apartment typically has at least 6.
|
| Building layout is another. You could only reasonably put
| apartments on the outside with windows. There would be a lot of
| wasted space in the core of the building.
|
| It's all possible, but the question becomes is it desirable to
| live there? Will the rents justify the cost to convert? I doubt
| it...
| noughtme wrote:
| Floor plate size. Offices are very deep and the elevators are
| far from the windows. Condo towers are small so that natural
| light can penetrate. You can't just convert an office tower to
| condos. Also, office towers don't have the plumbing to put in a
| shower and drain for every 500 sqft.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| In Columbus, Chase is doing just that. Converting 23 of the 25
| floors into 253 residential units.
|
| https://columbusunderground.com/office-to-residential-conver...
| ortusdux wrote:
| This explains the RTW push.
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| Every time I've heard someone say "we need to go back to
| offices", I wonder how much money they have in commercial real
| estate. Businesses always want to cut costs (shareholder
| returns and whatnot), and office space is a large cost that has
| proven to be largely unneeded. But an executive telling the
| public at large to go back to offices is overreach.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Commercial rent isn't collapsing like I'd expect under this
| pressure. Seems like folks are holding out for something.
| sbierwagen wrote:
| "Extend and pretend." In some cases, lowering rent would mean
| defaulting on your bonds. Might as well wait for those bonds to
| roll over naturally rather than get sued by your bondholders.
| ghusto wrote:
| I love going to the office, but recognise I'm in the minority (at
| least in our industry). What's always puzzled me regardless, is
| the insistence of all going to the same city.
|
| Alright, offices, sure, but why do we need them all in London?
| Are businesses _visiting_ each other? What was the rationale?
| paxys wrote:
| People were historically drawn to urban centers because it was
| just easier to live that way vs making do on your own in the
| middle of nowhere.
|
| Business saw a large number of people collected together and
| went, well, might as well set up shop here.
|
| Now we have come all the way around where people want to move
| away, and businesses are going nope, you stay right here,
| because we need you to survive.
| sbierwagen wrote:
| Aggregation effects. You're more likely to switch to a
| different employer if it doesn't mean moving. Startups will put
| up an office near a larger company to poach their employees.
| Etc etc. This is how you get an industry crowded into a single
| city even if they're not actually transporting physical items
| around.
| betaby wrote:
| Bailout are coming in 1,2,3...
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| Ok, I will be the first to say that I hate offices: the culture,
| the aesthetic, the rituals and customs. But I'm not necessarily
| sure that--especially for young people--work from home is the
| best option. Someone who is married, has kids, has a whole social
| world in their neighborhood, that person would enjoy and promote
| work from home, but that person is usually in a higher power
| position. A young person just starting out or at least earlier on
| in their career doesn't really have the opportunity to make
| friends, meet people (romantically), or otherwise make social
| connections while working from home.
| eldavido wrote:
| I think this is right. I'm married with kids and have little
| desire to go to an office. It was indeed different when I Was
| younger -- I didn't cook at home as much so enjoyed office
| lunches with coworkers, I lived in a smaller apartment which
| was easier to find closer to work, etc.
|
| It occurs that shows including "Call my agent", "The Newsroom",
| and to some extent "Madam Secretary" depict the better version
| of office life (particularly for young people) pretty well.
| actionablefiber wrote:
| > A young person just starting out or at least earlier on in
| their career doesn't really have the opportunity to make
| friends, meet people (romantically), or otherwise make social
| connections while working from home.
|
| Sure they do - if they live in a city. I am a young person who
| started my first FTE job last year and am WFH. I have an
| incredibly bountiful friend group that comes from hobbyist
| meetups, social bike rides and dating apps.
| km3r wrote:
| I think we as a society would benefit from evolving the "third
| place". A place that is neither work nor home where you can
| socialize. Like it or not, lot of people want remote work, so
| the best path forward is to adapt.
| progrus wrote:
| This is traditionally called "the pub" in the UK or "the bar"
| in the US.
|
| Maybe it's time for society to work on that drinking habit,
| eh?
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| That used to be called church.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Probably what we will end up with is school from home, work
| from home, everything from home. Socialisation will move
| entirely online where you meet up on VR Chat or whatever is
| popular at the time. Many people will almost never leave
| their house.
| paxys wrote:
| Human civilization existed without office culture for many
| millennia, and we managed to socialize and reproduce just fine.
| Even in modern times a very tiny percentage of people in the
| world are white collar office workers, and the rest somehow
| don't have any of the problems you mention. Heck I'm willing to
| wager that people who don't have these kinds of office jobs do
| _better_ socially and romantically.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| It's often frowned upon to make romantic arrangements with
| workmates. But the rest, sure. I guess some new social
| construct will be needed. Like in the old days - balls,
| cotillions, clubs?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > A young person just starting out or at least earlier on in
| their career doesn't really have the opportunity to make
| friends, meet people (romantically), or otherwise make social
| connections while working from home.
|
| Oh, we Europeans have no problem with that. The difference we
| have is that we have employee protection laws that put a hard
| cap on working hours to 48h a week on average over a year (with
| some rare exceptions, usually for crews of offshore rigs,
| boats, public health/safety, military and private security) -
| and that this stuff gets audited, especially on complaints. And
| when the government looks at a company, they audit _everything_
| , not just the person who complained...
| vitehozonage wrote:
| My job dictating my friends, romantic attachments and other
| social connections is incredibly disgusting and dystopian to
| me. Meaningful social activity has only occurred outside the
| workplace, to me. Being forced to commute to an office
| decreases the chance for that by stealing even more free time,
| and it pushes many people to move away from their
| friends/family to entirely different cities or countries!
| jcelerier wrote:
| > My job dictating my friends, romantic attachments and other
| social connections is incredibly disgusting and dystopian to
| me. Meaningful social activity has only occurred outside the
| workplace, to me.
|
| last stats I found is that 43% of marriage come from the
| workplace so it's most certainly not something to discount
| that easily
| pcurve wrote:
| "Asking rents in Manhattan offices averaged $75.13 per square
| foot"
|
| I rented a nice office on 25th / Broadway near Madison Square
| Park back in early 2000s for a few years and it was about $45 per
| square foot. All utility included.
|
| I'm surprised the average isn't higher.
| daxfohl wrote:
| Are things any different in, say, Dubai?
| PKop wrote:
| https://archive.ph/Hm9vk
| voicedYoda wrote:
| Bloomberg is writing these articles about every big city. These
| old buildings are the workforce of yesteryear, but so much money
| is invested in these monoliths, and the audience Bloomberg writes
| at wants to know about their money, thus we get articles
| lamenting the fact that these big, expensive buildings are
| vacant, and if we can't force workers back into them, there will
| be catastrophic repercussions
| kobalsky wrote:
| NYC is weird.
|
| Been there a few times and it always gave me the impression
| it's one of those fake cities in Disney.
|
| A sea of people on the streets but some buildings seem like 90%
| empty.
|
| Some shops are highly suspect too. My wife wanted a selfie
| stick and we got one in an electronics shop in 7th avenue, a
| couple of blocks from Times Square, big store but completely
| empty.
|
| We went in, browsed, bought one selfie stick for few bucks (not
| expensive) and left, no other shoppers in sight. Later that day
| we went to exchange it because the button didn't work, same
| ordeal.
|
| I'm not an economist, but I pretty sure that a business in that
| location with that rent cannot be profitable without a
| continuous stream of shoppers, no way.
|
| The whole city seems like a money laundering operation.
| vdnkh wrote:
| > Goes to time square
|
| > The whole city seems like a money laundering operation
|
| Classic
| skciva wrote:
| As someone who lives in NYC, there are a lot of "sides" to
| it. What you're describing definitely exists, but to
| generalize the whole city as a laundering operation would be
| akin to generalizing a large tech org based on your
| experience with one small team.
| tedunangst wrote:
| Approximately what percentage of the whole city do you
| believe you've seen?
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| Maybe people will start living in them and real estate costs
| will go down. Truly catastrophic for the readers of Bloomberg.
| JohnFen wrote:
| There are real logistical and engineering difficulties in
| making those buildings suitable for habitation. In many
| cases, it would be less expensive to tear them down and build
| a new building for that purpose.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| What are some of the difficulties? Are there compromises
| that would allow them to be ok residential use at some
| tradeoff (like fewer units per floor)?
|
| For buildings that are partially built, can they still be
| converted or is it too late?
| JohnFen wrote:
| I'm no mechanical engineer, but as I understand it, the
| biggest issue is plumbing-related. If you want every unit
| to have water and a drain, that's a huge retrofit right
| there that can be extremely difficult.
|
| There are other factors, too, but the plumbing seems to
| be the biggest hurdle.
|
| For the most part, there are no insurmountable
| engineering issues. It's just a question of cost.
| etblg wrote:
| The NYTimes had a good article on this, along with some
| examples of buildings that have actually undergone the
| conversion:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/11/upshot/off
| ice... https://archive.is/gQiQW
|
| Floor plans are awkward if you had to segment them in to
| apartments, having each apartment meet code for
| residential spaces turns in to a puzzle in ensuring
| things like light entry. Math that made sense for office
| buildings doesn't translate as easily to residential, so
| you're paying for more elevators (made for an office
| building) than you need, you have less floor space you
| can rent out because you need it for amenities, you have
| to do extensive renovations to make it suitable for
| living, and then have to hope the commercial real estate
| market doesn't surge in demand after you've done it.
|
| It's apparently doable, but not easy, and has a
| significant downside if there isn't enough demand to meet
| your new luxury apartment building, and the risk that
| commercial real estate bounces back after you've done it.
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| Looking into the past, I think it's more likely that the
| development would be analogous to what happened to old
| industrial zones in developed cities, such as SoHo in
| Manhattan. People started moving into old, derelict
| industrial buldings, and eventually the style became so
| trendy that it's now one of the most expensive
| neighborhoods of the city. If the downtown office building
| truly stops being a thing, I could see something similar
| happening.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| On the other hand, you could use them to solve finding a
| home for the homeless. Sure, they have windowless rooms and
| less bathrooms than is ideal but surely that's better than
| living under a bridge.
| reidjs wrote:
| That's not a bad idea
| Aunche wrote:
| What do people get from making up narratives like this?
| Bloomberg literally writes thousands of articles a day. This
| topic is just one of the few that HN happens to care about.
|
| The main audience of Bloomberg aren't executives who need
| validate their comercial real estate purchases. They're
| analysts who just want to be informed about the current
| economic landscape.
|
| Do you expect that someone will read this will think "welp,
| better start commuting to the office because I don't want my
| city's budget to be cut!"
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Time to retrofit into housing!
| michaelteter wrote:
| Neckties were an essential business requirement for ages. At some
| point, people had had enough of the mostly pointless ritual and
| began rejecting the norm. Even still, stodgy companies required
| it with the argument that it was necessary for being considered
| professional.
|
| Startups certainly saw differently, although admittedly many
| startups are not remotely professional (no pun intended).
|
| Now we have remote work vs office work. In an information age
| where physical items passed around from worker to worker are a
| thing of the past in most industries, the need to spend $$$ for a
| high profile location is going the way of the necktie.
|
| Many workers have tasted the freedom of no commute, or at least a
| pleasant walk/bike commute to a nearby coworking space. They
| don't want to go back, and like myself they will reject any job
| which has a firm requirement for such. Companies are torn between
| the old-school management notion that worker will only work while
| being observed and the realization that they can save a ton of
| money by not having a big fancy office.
|
| The day of the office is passing. There will always be offices,
| but they will be, like food trucks, existing where and when they
| are useful. The real estate world better clue into this.
|
| And beyond the office topic there is the residential topic. As
| prices for city apartments increase dramatically, people lose
| interest in living in those cities. Better to live someplace
| pleasant and less expensive, and then spend the saved money on
| trips to many different nice places.
| mrangle wrote:
| That's an inspirational narrative. However, offices aren't
| significantly vacant due to remote work. Advancing the
| narrative that this is the reason will in-part hide economic
| decline, and will help allow important people to escape the
| political consequences of the worst economic decline in ninety
| years.
| actionablefiber wrote:
| > As prices for city apartments increase dramatically, people
| lose interest in living in those cities.
|
| I would argue that the prices reflect at least an incredibly
| persistent demand to live in those cities.
|
| Just for different reasons than before. For instance, since the
| pandemic many cities have invested heavily in bike
| infrastructure and pedestrianization. E-bikes have become
| extremely popular. And as the post-COVID reopening has
| progressed, people have been organizing local hobbyist meetups,
| many of them having acquired those hobbies during the depths of
| the pandemic.
|
| There is a huge lifestyle appeal to living in cities, and it
| will not go away anytime soon. Cities need to recognize that
| both the massive increase in residential demand and the massive
| plunge in commercial demand are incredible opportunities to
| differentiate themselves by converting their dead-after-6pm
| business districts into thriving, walkable mixed-use hubs.
| funnymony wrote:
| Mega yacht costs bazilions.
|
| Yes, lot of people would not reject idea of having it, but at
| the same time actual demand (i.e. actual number of people who
| would think price is worth it, is quite lower compared to
| spagetti which is much cheaper but has many more buyers)
|
| All in all. high price does not necessarily mean huge demand.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Great! Then we don't have to fill the city with offices and
| we can have places for humans instead of employees.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Many workers have tasted the freedom of no commute, or at
| least a pleasant walk/bike commute to a nearby coworking space.
|
| Yes, although I say it a different way. Working in offices has
| always been fairly terrible, and had been growing increasingly
| terrible over the last decade or two. People put up with it in
| part because they had no option.
|
| But once they worked outside of those spaces and realized what
| hell they were, of course they resist returning.
|
| So it's not just about discovering new "freedom", it's about
| discovering that a major thing that makes life suck doesn't
| have to be a thing at all.
| bsder wrote:
| > Working in offices has always been fairly terrible, and had
| been growing increasingly terrible over the last decade or
| two.
|
| Offices _don 't have to be terrible_. IBM, GE, Bell, etc.
| knew how to put together offices that didn't suck.
| Occasionally the architects got out of hand and produced some
| monstrosity, but the offices were mostly fine.
|
| It's only the whole dumbass "open office plan" bullshit that
| made everything suck. Given that's the "standard", is it any
| wonder everybody wants to work from home?
| startupsfail wrote:
| It was not dumbass. It was an attempt to cut the spendings
| on the workspaces for the employees and increase the
| profits for shareholders.
| drewcoo wrote:
| > It's only the whole dumbass "open office plan" bullshit
| that made everything suck.
|
| Certainly that's at least part of the GP's "growing
| increasingly terrible over the last decade or two."
| muglug wrote:
| Neckties are a great example.
|
| They're a good rejoinder to Musk's recent farcical argument
| that since most blue-collar workers cannot work remotely, it's
| immoral for white-collar workers to resist Return-To-Office
| mandates [1]. Some jobs still require neckties, but that does
| not mean we should all be obliged to wear them too.
|
| I personally enjoy commuting -- a 35-minute journey in a big
| city via public transport. It gets me to an office full of
| friendly faces who also enjoy the commute. The people who
| prefer remote stay home. It's a happy medium.
|
| RTO mandates in US cities with poor/non-existent public
| transport options are bad ideas all around.
|
| [1] https://www.mediaite.com/tv/elon-musk-calls-remote-work-
| bull...
| pb7 wrote:
| > They're a good rejoinder to Musk's recent farcical argument
| that since most blue-collar workers cannot work remotely,
| it's immoral for white-collar workers to resist Return-To-
| Office mandates.
|
| One of the dumbest things he's ever said (and that's saying
| something). Most people can't fly private either but it
| doesn't seem to stop him.
| specialist wrote:
| Paraphrasing: Your well being is a violation of my rights.
|
| Whereas a humanist might consider how to make blue-collar
| work less terrile.
| eldavido wrote:
| Narrowing down a bit, I think it's the "downtown business
| district" that's on the way out -- and the accompanying high
| office rents, long commutes, etc.
|
| My home is a place of rest and family, not work. Work happens
| at a dedicated location five minutes from home, on foot.
|
| I think we'll see more of this in the future--mixed
| neighborhoods with a lot of residential space next to offices.
| What I think we won't see as much of, are huge office blocks
| very far from residential areas, where the majority of the
| workforce commutes an hour+ every day, each way, to work.
| majormajor wrote:
| Central business districts were created by trains which let
| people move to suburbs; then hung around for a while due to
| concentration of office effects even as many commuters moved
| to cars. Interesting tho think about what transit looks like
| in a world without them. Public transit would need to move
| more away from the hub/spoke model, which possibly dooms new
| rail construction in existing car-centric cities; busses
| already go much more point to point with a lot more route
| options, but if you have less commuters, do those fail to
| maintain their current timetables as well?
| eldavido wrote:
| I've been reading that this change (hub and spoke to
| decentralized) was already a big effect of COVID.
|
| I like trains, but an alternative could be electric buses,
| with Uber Pool-like dynamic routing. I'm not sure how the
| speed would compare, but, it gets pretty wild when you
| consider what's possible with mobile phones, AVs, and
| electric vehicles.
|
| I for one, am excited by this.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Then why do cities built around cars - that never had
| trains - still have central business districts? i.e. the
| entire south & west of the US, pretty much.
| majormajor wrote:
| To get the same concentration-of-offices effects in new
| developments, like I mentioned. But take a look at the
| size of those central business districts compared to
| older cities; look at the population of LA vs Chicago or
| Boston vs the size of their downtowns. (And LA is one
| that _did_ have some streetcars for a while - Phoenix
| would be an even more extreme example of a big metro area
| with a truly pretty small central business district.)
| There was a lot less pull outside of certain industries -
| new industries like tech largely avoided ever going
| downtown much in the first place, preferring big suburban
| office parks.
|
| So if you don't even need the suburban office parks
| anymore, do things sprawl out even more in places like
| Austin or Dallas that are surrounded by empty land (vs
| somewhere like the Bay Area which is hitting geographical
| barriers)?
| bombcar wrote:
| There's also a "status" thing for people and for companies -
| companies are not immune to "fake it until you make it" and
| many pour _billions_ into status-buildings that are perhaps not
| technically necessary.
|
| And those things can change, suddenly having a huge tower in
| downtown NY becomes a sign of a out-of-date "old" company;
| perhaps the new hotness will be something like a small company
| "town" in the outskirts somewhere.
| akomtu wrote:
| Skyscrapers are those neckties of the corporations.
| ragingrobot wrote:
| > the new hotness will be something like a small company
| "town" in the outskirts somewhere.
|
| So the "new hotness" will be kind of like the old days where
| you worked for Pullman, and with those wages you earned, you:
| paid rent to Pullman, bought your goods at the Pullman
| general store, and so on in effect giving much of your
| earnings back to the company.
| jksmith wrote:
| Yeah, living in these legacy markets has become clunky, and the
| markets can't be changed. If I found out that I no longer
| needed to swallow rocks to digest my food, why would I ever go
| back to doing so?
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| I don't totally believe that remote work is going to go
| completely away . I think that personally for me never going
| into the office wasn't really a great experience. It made me
| much more sedimentary (which in tech is almost a work hazard)
| but that was my fault . I do like being hybrid (but also the
| team I was a part of basically stopped existing) so while I
| think it could be a combination of working from home and the
| team imploding made me lonely.
|
| I rather have the option to going to work and I think companies
| should still offer a solution for that if they are able to. I
| do like traveling into the city so maybe I just like neckties.
|
| I am definitely against all of this rhetoric about how remote
| work is horrible and the laptop crowd isn't doing good work
| when we don't really give people enough time for childcare or
| elder care which I think is a much bigger problem that
| motivates people to work remotely. Also real estate markets are
| way overvalued.
| kerkeslager wrote:
| > I don't totally believe that remote work is going to go
| completely away . I think that personally for me never going
| into the office wasn't really a great experience. It made me
| much more sedimentary (which in tech is almost a work hazard)
| but that was my fault . I do like being hybrid (but also the
| team I was a part of basically stopped existing) so while I
| think it could be a combination of working from home and the
| team imploding made me lonely.
|
| I think a lot of people ran into these problems, but there
| are solutions. Work doesn't have to be your only source of
| community, and in fact, it can be problematic when it is,
| because then your community only lasts as long as your job.
| On the one hand you might lose your job, and on the other
| hand you might not quit when you should. Having connections
| outside work is pretty key to having work/life balance IMO.
| 972811 wrote:
| love when commenters are just immediately dismissive of
| other people's preferences.
|
| I feel the same as OP. I have a very healthy social life
| outside of work but full time remote work at home feels
| isolating and repetitive. My mind does not like the lack of
| separation between home and work and I've tried every trick
| in the book. This is also true for most other activities in
| my life (e.g. I don't like exercising at home vs. a gym).
|
| I don't want to force people to the office, but it gets
| tiring hearing other people assuming I haven't tried their
| "solutions"
| prepend wrote:
| > I rather have the option to going to work and I think
| companies should still offer a solution for that if they are
| able to.
|
| I love being in the office. I hate the hour commute. And I
| hate doubling or tripling my housing price. I prefer
| showering at 745 and connecting and being productive at 8
| over showering at 645 and driving into work to be productive
| at 8 (while being in zoom meetings all day anyway).
|
| I like records too. They are so cool with nice artwork. And I
| like record stores. But I listen to music 99% of the time
| digitally.
|
| The office is the same way. It's not that it isn't nice. It's
| that the cost of using it over better alternatives is
| madness, especially at scale.
|
| Imagine all the pollution saved from people driving to work.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Company I work at has taken to running most large meetings in
| person, booking out a large meeting room for half the day,
| and then often structuring social events around the day as
| well, often with paid for drinks and food.
|
| I feel like these in person get togethers are far more
| interactive and productive than a day of calls where most
| people go camera off and fall asleep 30 mins in. Actually
| doing work remote works mostly fine, but god I hate group
| calls, the latency, the bad audio, etc.
| lisasays wrote:
| A hollow analogy, unfortunately.
|
| Unlike neckties (which are entirely about appearance and
| perceived norms) -- there are very considerable intrinsic
| benefits to having people onsite. They just don't outweigh the
| very considerable negatives, many are coming to find. So it's
| fundamentally an argument about tangible tradeoffs -- not
| social norms.
|
| An entirely different argument, in fact.
| michaelteter wrote:
| > hollow
|
| I think "hollow" is a bit heavy for the judgment, but I agree
| they are not the same in terms of tangibility (although I'll
| bet if I dig enough I could find some practical use for
| neckties (in the office, at least)).
|
| However, like neckties, many companies do the office thing
| because that's what you're supposed to do. "Everybody knows
| this." Some (many?) offices exist without a tangible benefit.
| lisasays wrote:
| Right -- the RTO debate is also _partially_ about perceived
| norms and "Everybody knows this". But only partially;
| let's say about 30 percent.
|
| Neckties however -- are 100 percent in that category.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-18 23:00 UTC)