[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)