Boston mayor announces residential conversion program for office buildings(bostonplans.org)
bostonplans.org
Boston mayor announces residential conversion program for office buildings
https://www.bostonplans.org/news-calendar/news-updates/2023/07/10/mayor-wu-announces-residential-conversion-program
398 comments
This looks like the episode of OddLots you're talking about:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-07/what-it-a...
They talk about converting 180 Water St by adding an internal atrium; it's also one of the conversions illustrated in the recent NYT article about the difficulties of office-to-residential conversions:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/11/upshot/office...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-07/what-it-a...
They talk about converting 180 Water St by adding an internal atrium; it's also one of the conversions illustrated in the recent NYT article about the difficulties of office-to-residential conversions:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/11/upshot/office...
NYT article - gift link https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/11/upshot/office...
(The interactive nature doesn't quite get captured by archive correctly)
(The interactive nature doesn't quite get captured by archive correctly)
Thank you. You are right, that version is a lot better.
The NYT article does a really good job explaining the difference between converting a prewar and a modern building.
Also, TIL about loss factor:
> As offices, these buildings can also rent 100 percent (or even more) of their total square footage, according to the quirky math of commercial real estate.
https://therealdeal.com/magazine/new-york-february-2014/lies...
Also, TIL about loss factor:
> As offices, these buildings can also rent 100 percent (or even more) of their total square footage, according to the quirky math of commercial real estate.
https://therealdeal.com/magazine/new-york-february-2014/lies...
A well-known UK startup, renting an old building just outside of London, is (or was, as of a few years ago) paying square footage cost for an entire floor that doesn't exist. The previous occupants - a government department - had the floor removed to make for higher, grander internal ceiling heights.
Sounds a bit quirky but makes some sense as a reckoning if 'footage' assumes a standard height.
- [1] Bloomberg Article https://archive.is/eTpi5
- [2] NYT Article https://archive.is/fUtnl
Related article from the prior day:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-06/why-conve...
The main advantage of living in a converted factory (there are a lot of these in the rust belt) is that you end up with an absolutely enormous space made out of cool materials.
I was finding it hard to imagine that there are inner-city office buildings (high rises) that have floors so large that they couldn't be cut into, say 1/4'ths, with four residences on each floor, and each unit having 50% windows along its perimeter.
People build McMansions that are > 10K square feet, so for a building footprint to be too big for this (i.e., so big that buyers would balk at the size), then you'd need a high-rise with ~40K sq ft floors before this became a problem.
A standard city block in Manhattan is apparently 237,000 square feet, so if you had a building that took up a whole block, there'd be a big problem.
Now I'm wondering how many office buildings there are in a typical city block.
I was finding it hard to imagine that there are inner-city office buildings (high rises) that have floors so large that they couldn't be cut into, say 1/4'ths, with four residences on each floor, and each unit having 50% windows along its perimeter.
People build McMansions that are > 10K square feet, so for a building footprint to be too big for this (i.e., so big that buyers would balk at the size), then you'd need a high-rise with ~40K sq ft floors before this became a problem.
A standard city block in Manhattan is apparently 237,000 square feet, so if you had a building that took up a whole block, there'd be a big problem.
Now I'm wondering how many office buildings there are in a typical city block.
Due to fire code, to divide a high-rise into 4 corner units, you need to take up almost ~50% of the space for elevators, stairs and hallways.
So you'd probably end up with close to 5k square foot condos - which isn't too ridiculous.
You'd probably do 4 corner units and 4 non-corner units for a total of eight, and end up with each being between 2000 and 2500.
The problem is, they'd be ridiculously expensive for a number of reasons. And when you're paying that much money, you probably don't want to live in a building that wasn't even designed to be lived in...
So you'd probably end up with close to 5k square foot condos - which isn't too ridiculous.
You'd probably do 4 corner units and 4 non-corner units for a total of eight, and end up with each being between 2000 and 2500.
The problem is, they'd be ridiculously expensive for a number of reasons. And when you're paying that much money, you probably don't want to live in a building that wasn't even designed to be lived in...
Given the Boston market this will still help everyone. My household is making north of 300k and was still having trouble bidding on home where there were dead cockroaches visible during the showing.
It feels wrong to build luxury housing when regular folk are suffering but if you build luxury housing to the point that the rich stop bidding on regular housing, or even better there’s so much luxury housing that everyone can get a good living space, it’s a net improvement for all of society
It feels wrong to build luxury housing when regular folk are suffering but if you build luxury housing to the point that the rich stop bidding on regular housing, or even better there’s so much luxury housing that everyone can get a good living space, it’s a net improvement for all of society
>My household is making north of 300k and was still having trouble bidding on home where there were dead cockroaches visible during the showing.
What size of place are you looking for? My partner and I bought in Boston in 2019 while making a fraction of that income.
What size of place are you looking for? My partner and I bought in Boston in 2019 while making a fraction of that income.
Somerville around Sullivan square. Was paying 3200 a month all in on a 1200 sq ft townhouse. Looked at a few of the homes around our street and they were selling for 700k-1million and off market in a few days after posting. This was all a few months before covid.
We found some places we could afford but they either made our commute fairly long(>1 hour each way), would stretch our budget to have zero tolerance for emergencies, or both
We found some places we could afford but they either made our commute fairly long(>1 hour each way), would stretch our budget to have zero tolerance for emergencies, or both
This describes my brothers situation pretty much.
People also have a lot of received wisdom of how they were brought up in the burbs and just assume you HAVE TO buy.
There's plenty of markets where prices/rent are upside down and you might as well rent indefinitely.
People forget you are either renting housing or renting money to "own" housing. If you are disciplined enough to save the difference, renting can be better in some markets. Mostly its HCOL coastal cities where people are accepting ridiculously low rental yield because they are banking on price appreciation.
If you don't know if you want to be in X location for the next 5.. probably more like 10 years, there's not always a solid reason to buy.
People also have a lot of received wisdom of how they were brought up in the burbs and just assume you HAVE TO buy.
There's plenty of markets where prices/rent are upside down and you might as well rent indefinitely.
People forget you are either renting housing or renting money to "own" housing. If you are disciplined enough to save the difference, renting can be better in some markets. Mostly its HCOL coastal cities where people are accepting ridiculously low rental yield because they are banking on price appreciation.
If you don't know if you want to be in X location for the next 5.. probably more like 10 years, there's not always a solid reason to buy.
That was where we ended up on the math. We liked the idea of owning our own home and building equity in it, but the cost was too high and like you said, we couldn’t conclude we’d be in the area in even 2 years. Covid hitting a few months after we started looking also definitely helped solidify that opinion and things might have turned out differently if we didn’t have a worldwide plague causing me and my wife tons of uncertainty in the future
you'd be surprised how much the market has moved
my brother & his wife are expecting a kid and were looking at houses within 30min of Boston
the last place they lost a bidding war on was $600K.. for a 3bed/1bath 1000 sq foot.. well outside the city, went for 20% over ask.. crazy stuff
the last place they lost a bidding war on was $600K.. for a 3bed/1bath 1000 sq foot.. well outside the city, went for 20% over ask.. crazy stuff
It's not clear that you can meaningfully effect availability of "regular" housing by building any reasonable number of luxury homes. Slightly reducing the cost of luxury apartments may attract more buyers from outside the city, average the rate of vacancy may increase without the price going down much. They can be purchased by the rich to be used as unlicensed hotels aka airbnb. They can be ought up as "investments" and not effectively rented out effectively enough as long as you don't build so much you literally flood the market.
Even if the price of expensive apartments does go down a little because more people are able to afford "luxury" you don't necessarily have to let the little guy in on the savings you can as an industry collude to keep the price as high as the market can bear without literally becoming homeless. You don't even have to actually collude in an illegal fashion if your interests are actually sufficiently aligned that you all act in lockstep without overt coordination. Any real savings can be virtually entirely absorbed by the owner class.
Even if the price of expensive apartments does go down a little because more people are able to afford "luxury" you don't necessarily have to let the little guy in on the savings you can as an industry collude to keep the price as high as the market can bear without literally becoming homeless. You don't even have to actually collude in an illegal fashion if your interests are actually sufficiently aligned that you all act in lockstep without overt coordination. Any real savings can be virtually entirely absorbed by the owner class.
> They can be purchased by the rich to be used as unlicensed hotels aka airbnb. They can be ought up as "investments" and not effectively rented out effectively enough as long as you don't build so much you literally flood the market.
There's a natural floor to this though. For example, if Boston built 3 housing units for every human being on the planet, there would hardly be any problem even if every person wanted to live in Boston and own multiple units. This is obviously absurd, but hints at the greater point. There's a point along the supply/demand curve where prices will end up falling, no matter how much external demand or AirBnb rentals come into the area.
The argument I think you're making is that there's no way to build enough housing units in a reasonable amount of time to meaningfully affect non-upper-end housing. There's not much controversy about that in practice (though weirdly enough there is a lot online.) California (and many Californian cities sweeten these deals) specifically offers developers many benefits for varying percentages of affordable housing mixes in their units. Boston also seems to have income-restricted housing as well. Most pro-housing policymakers agree that housing isn't just a build-build-build game but that incentives need to be offered to ensure affordable units are built along with upper end luxury housing.
There's a natural floor to this though. For example, if Boston built 3 housing units for every human being on the planet, there would hardly be any problem even if every person wanted to live in Boston and own multiple units. This is obviously absurd, but hints at the greater point. There's a point along the supply/demand curve where prices will end up falling, no matter how much external demand or AirBnb rentals come into the area.
The argument I think you're making is that there's no way to build enough housing units in a reasonable amount of time to meaningfully affect non-upper-end housing. There's not much controversy about that in practice (though weirdly enough there is a lot online.) California (and many Californian cities sweeten these deals) specifically offers developers many benefits for varying percentages of affordable housing mixes in their units. Boston also seems to have income-restricted housing as well. Most pro-housing policymakers agree that housing isn't just a build-build-build game but that incentives need to be offered to ensure affordable units are built along with upper end luxury housing.
We really just need to build in the Boston area. I’m politically pretty close to full on communist but all the policies I’ve seen around creating affordable housing are failures from my analysis.
Rent control changes who gets a home from a decision of whose wealthiest to whose luckiest which isn’t any morally or functionally better. Subsidizing or requiring developers to have “affordable” units in developments either offloads the cost to the other purchasers which will increase the average unit price in the area, which will cause people who used to be able to afford a home to slide down into too poor to afford one. All that’s doing is just moving around who gets to lose when it comes to this scarce resource.
The only answer to a scarce resource with high demand is to produce more of it. Unfortunately Boston, like most US cities, is full of nimbyism. It’s exacerbated by the fact that existing homeowners tend to have more political power just by virtue of the fact that they are more tied to the location and have a vested interest in voting in the area, vs renters who are more likely to up and move instead of invest time in local politics.
I also harp on the luxury housing building quite a bit. Emotionally it hurts to see only luxury housing being built when there is a housing crunch hurting the poor or middle class. The pragmatic bit however is that developers are always going to be incentivized to build luxury housing since it nets them the most profit. These building eventually turn into non luxury housing as the building age and the owners decide to not repair the unit to spec, or standards change and what is considered high end today isn’t in 20 years. We should stop fighting the natural incentives here with developers and lean into them to just build build build, imo.
The policy decisions that I think require actual thought are more along the lines of zoning and standards. Policies that require parking spots for every unit even when they are next to subway stations for instance hurt density a lot. Zoning being in the hands of towns who can act in a parasitic manner is also something that needs to be addressed, with my preference being something more along the lines of Japan’s zoning policies
Rent control changes who gets a home from a decision of whose wealthiest to whose luckiest which isn’t any morally or functionally better. Subsidizing or requiring developers to have “affordable” units in developments either offloads the cost to the other purchasers which will increase the average unit price in the area, which will cause people who used to be able to afford a home to slide down into too poor to afford one. All that’s doing is just moving around who gets to lose when it comes to this scarce resource.
The only answer to a scarce resource with high demand is to produce more of it. Unfortunately Boston, like most US cities, is full of nimbyism. It’s exacerbated by the fact that existing homeowners tend to have more political power just by virtue of the fact that they are more tied to the location and have a vested interest in voting in the area, vs renters who are more likely to up and move instead of invest time in local politics.
I also harp on the luxury housing building quite a bit. Emotionally it hurts to see only luxury housing being built when there is a housing crunch hurting the poor or middle class. The pragmatic bit however is that developers are always going to be incentivized to build luxury housing since it nets them the most profit. These building eventually turn into non luxury housing as the building age and the owners decide to not repair the unit to spec, or standards change and what is considered high end today isn’t in 20 years. We should stop fighting the natural incentives here with developers and lean into them to just build build build, imo.
The policy decisions that I think require actual thought are more along the lines of zoning and standards. Policies that require parking spots for every unit even when they are next to subway stations for instance hurt density a lot. Zoning being in the hands of towns who can act in a parasitic manner is also something that needs to be addressed, with my preference being something more along the lines of Japan’s zoning policies
Yup its all about making it easier to build, easier to build more density.. and build anything else you need to support that - schools, transit, parks, etc.
Everything becomes luxury housing when theres a shortage and it gets bid up by dollars. And the existing government housing has not covered itself in glory such that we should look to that as a solution (paging NYCHA).
This stuck-in-amber Euro-ficiation of US HCOL urban coastal areas is not going to work in the longterm, especially as we continue to have growing population unlike many of the quaint European cities people like to visit.
Everything becomes luxury housing when theres a shortage and it gets bid up by dollars. And the existing government housing has not covered itself in glory such that we should look to that as a solution (paging NYCHA).
This stuck-in-amber Euro-ficiation of US HCOL urban coastal areas is not going to work in the longterm, especially as we continue to have growing population unlike many of the quaint European cities people like to visit.
> not clear that you can meaningfully effect availability of "regular" housing by building any reasonable number of luxury homes
Most of New York's affordable housing is former luxury townhouses subdivided. You saw similar subdividing in Phoenix post crash. Every time people study this, they find building housing–any housing–eases prices. Yet every time a debate about building housing in high-cost areas comes up, someone comes out with this and throws a wrench in the gears. (The marginal property in a high-cost area will always be luxury. That's what high cost means.)
Anecdote: I've negotiated down my rent in New York based on new luxury developments nearby. I tallied up the cost of their amenities, saw how much I spend, compared the floor plans and showed my work to the landlord. Two units had already left, and I knew one had sized up to the luxury. Based on the math, it made sense–$200 for far more square footage. Landlord delayed but eventually agreed and reduced my rent to keep me.
Most of New York's affordable housing is former luxury townhouses subdivided. You saw similar subdividing in Phoenix post crash. Every time people study this, they find building housing–any housing–eases prices. Yet every time a debate about building housing in high-cost areas comes up, someone comes out with this and throws a wrench in the gears. (The marginal property in a high-cost area will always be luxury. That's what high cost means.)
Anecdote: I've negotiated down my rent in New York based on new luxury developments nearby. I tallied up the cost of their amenities, saw how much I spend, compared the floor plans and showed my work to the landlord. Two units had already left, and I knew one had sized up to the luxury. Based on the math, it made sense–$200 for far more square footage. Landlord delayed but eventually agreed and reduced my rent to keep me.
Agree - it's the 'Trickle-down Effect' except with property instead of wealth.
No, it's just basic supply and demand.
A definition of demand: Demand is an economic concept that relates to a consumer's desire to purchase goods and services and willingness to pay a specific price for them.
The poor do not have the willingness to pay a whole category of prices, as they are unable to finance it. Creating luxury accommodation can increase supply, but as the decrease in price does not necessarily put the older accommodation within reach, the owners of captial can choose to retain it.
The poor do not have the willingness to pay a whole category of prices, as they are unable to finance it. Creating luxury accommodation can increase supply, but as the decrease in price does not necessarily put the older accommodation within reach, the owners of captial can choose to retain it.
If there are 10 houses available and there are 12 families looking to buy then the they will bid up and the 10 wealthiest families win. If you build 2 luxury homes, it doesn’t matter if poor families 11 and 12 can’t afford them, because 1 and 2 can, which makes them not bid on normal house 1, 2, …, n lowering all housing prices.
Poor people don't buy accommodations they rent them in your example where demands exceeds supply owners of accommodations can jack up prices to whatever the poor people can pay without living on a street corner hoovering up any benefit obtained in your example.
why do you assume a wealthy family will only buy one house, or could be outbid by a poor family?
What will the wealthy family do with their 3 houses? If they rent them out that’s still good for the poor family (indeed perhaps they couldn’t afford to buy anyway).
on the other hand, if they don't rent them out they can let them appreciate in value, wait for more wealthy families to show up.
Are things made better or worse by building the 11th & 12th houses when there are 12 families in need of houses?
Made better, in that case with those numbers.
Given rental vacancy rates of ~5.8% in the USA in 2022 it is more akin to a hypothetical of building a 12th and 13th house, while an 11th already lies unoccupied.
I am not sure in this more realistic case that building improves matters, unless an unhoused family can gain access to one.
Given rental vacancy rates of ~5.8% in the USA in 2022 it is more akin to a hypothetical of building a 12th and 13th house, while an 11th already lies unoccupied.
I am not sure in this more realistic case that building improves matters, unless an unhoused family can gain access to one.
Undesirable areas are full of cheap mansions, slowly decaying because no one wants to live in a place with no jobs.
Housing is not that special, when there is a lot of it, it gets cheap.
Housing is not that special, when there is a lot of it, it gets cheap.
Nobody with enough capital to buy/rent them wants to live there.
For every "basic supply and demand" there is a "markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"
>The problem is, they'd be ridiculously expensive for a number of reasons. And when you're paying that much money, you probably don't want to live in a building that wasn't even designed to be lived in...
<owners of $5 million Tribeca lofts have entered the chat>
<owners of $5 million Tribeca lofts have entered the chat>
Exactly, I live in a former noodle factory... many such cases.
As for expensive-ness, IDK. You’d THINK “the longer it sits, the cheaper it gets.”
I know of several big, high-rise office buildings that are 75% empty since the pandemic. We’re talking a few years now!
But then again, greed is real. My current office building is getting more and more empty by the day. And they refused to budge on the rent for my company even so.
I know of several big, high-rise office buildings that are 75% empty since the pandemic. We’re talking a few years now!
But then again, greed is real. My current office building is getting more and more empty by the day. And they refused to budge on the rent for my company even so.
I doubt that people in the market for a downtown apartment share the same priorities for selecting a home as people who would buy a McMansion. I also don’t think you can equate 10,000 sq ft over multiple floors with the same area on a single floor. I don’t know how that space would be designed in any practical manner that wouldn’t turn it into a labyrinth. I guess if someone wants a ballroom or a basketball court in their apartment?
Rural areas are replete with relatively average 2k sq ft houses with 10k sq ft+ “workshops” or “barns” - which often are just big areas that never actually did any farming, but are used for storing toys or hobbies.
> 10,000 sq ft over multiple floors with the same area on a single floor
My neighbor's house is, IIRC, 11,000 sq-ft all on a single floor. Just a lot of very big rooms.
My neighbor's house is, IIRC, 11,000 sq-ft all on a single floor. Just a lot of very big rooms.
Very few whole block buildings in NYC. The street block length is ~250', with about 50' cross street & sidewalk. Avenue to avenue is closer to 1,000. A big building is usually 100×125. Even the Empire State Building isn't a full block.
Area of Site: 79,288 square feet (7,240m) or about two acres. East to west, 424 feet (129m), north to south, 187 feet (56.9m). Height: The base of building rises five floors above the street. The entrance is four floors high.
Area of Site: 79,288 square feet (7,240m) or about two acres. East to west, 424 feet (129m), north to south, 187 feet (56.9m). Height: The base of building rises five floors above the street. The entrance is four floors high.
At 10k square feet you can safely drop the Mc.
High-rises are not good for residential purposes. They are seriously isolating.
Versus what?
Shorter buildings, multi-family homes, etc. I worked for someone (with plenty of money) who had a house in a nearby small city but wanted a place in Boston. He lived in one of the luxury high-rises for a time but he really didn't care for it. I forget if he used the "isolating" word but he definitely said he felt apart from the little people scurrying around on the streets below. He ended up buying a condo in one of the old brownstones in the city.
Concrete and exposed metal are hardly what most of us think of as "cool materials". The notion of living in an abandoned factory is just dismal. Tear them down and start over.
Haven't you seen all those hip buildings with high ceilings and exposed brick? They used to be factories and warehouses. Many of them are from a time of much sturdier construction. If the alternative is balloon-frame Mc-residential, then you want to renovate the old brick mill.
Those buildings look like crap. Hardly the kind of place where I would want to live or work if I had any choice.
Tastes do indeed vary. Part of the reason I took my last job was because the building used to be a 19th century factory and there was so much cool looking exposed brick and timbers. The atmosphere was so different from the cubicle hell of the last job that I actually felt energized going into the office every morning.
Of course, more money didn't hurt either ;-)
Of course, more money didn't hurt either ;-)
Weird. I mean, when you criticized concrete I could see that as a complaint about brutalism, and I'd have agreed.
But if you're talking about buildings from the 19th or the first half of the 20th century, normally there's something good about them, IMO.
"De gustibus non est disputandum", of course.
Now I'm wondering what the better alternative is, though. Naturally good things can be done in many styles (there are also good modern contemporary and minimalist buildings).
I just am not a huge fan of this mixture of balloon framing, sheet rock, and cladding, that you see a lot of. It's probably better than brick or masonry for earthquakes, but apart from that it just seems flimsy. Or, consider your typical strip mall or big box store. What's to recommend them? It'd be a shame to knock something down if that's what's going to get built in its place.
But if you're talking about buildings from the 19th or the first half of the 20th century, normally there's something good about them, IMO.
"De gustibus non est disputandum", of course.
Now I'm wondering what the better alternative is, though. Naturally good things can be done in many styles (there are also good modern contemporary and minimalist buildings).
I just am not a huge fan of this mixture of balloon framing, sheet rock, and cladding, that you see a lot of. It's probably better than brick or masonry for earthquakes, but apart from that it just seems flimsy. Or, consider your typical strip mall or big box store. What's to recommend them? It'd be a shame to knock something down if that's what's going to get built in its place.
I guess tastes vary. The old brick factory buildings converted to residential can look really cool. Our city office is also an old factory building. I'll take it over our suburban office park building anytime.
Many people have different opinions about it. If sheetrock or a log cabin is your thing, great.
It's against narrative, but this is one of the ways SF's downtown is actually extremely well positioned, assuming the trend of office conversions actually takes off.
SF floorplates are usually tiny due to historic biases of our Planning Commission (the dog whistle used to be 'we don't want a skyline of cereal boxes').
In fact, looking at the data [0] most of SF's residential tower floorplates are bigger than SF's office floorplates.
[0]https://data.sfgov.org/Housing-and-Buildings/Map-of-Tall-Bui...
SF floorplates are usually tiny due to historic biases of our Planning Commission (the dog whistle used to be 'we don't want a skyline of cereal boxes').
In fact, looking at the data [0] most of SF's residential tower floorplates are bigger than SF's office floorplates.
[0]https://data.sfgov.org/Housing-and-Buildings/Map-of-Tall-Bui...
> (the dog whistle used to be 'we don't want a skyline of cereal boxes')
Out of curiosity, what was the actual reason behind the dog whistle? "Segregate black people by... having smaller floorplates"? That doesn't make much sense to me.
Out of curiosity, what was the actual reason behind the dog whistle? "Segregate black people by... having smaller floorplates"? That doesn't make much sense to me.
Anti-development.
One way SF planners made it hard/less economical to build towers was to force the higher floors to be smaller than lower floors (Transamerica pyramid being the near-satirical example).
That has contributed significantly to SF's inability to build enough housing for the people that live there.
Also a dog-whistle is any statement that sounds palatable to the mainstream, but has an underlying meaning to a politically motivated group. It doesn't only apply to today's American right.
One way SF planners made it hard/less economical to build towers was to force the higher floors to be smaller than lower floors (Transamerica pyramid being the near-satirical example).
That has contributed significantly to SF's inability to build enough housing for the people that live there.
Also a dog-whistle is any statement that sounds palatable to the mainstream, but has an underlying meaning to a politically motivated group. It doesn't only apply to today's American right.
Yeah, I'm not getting it either. The "cereal boxes" in New York and Chicago are full of offices, which are full of -- well, it's not all rich people, but a lot of them are rich.
In addition, as climate change affects more and more places, I think SF will be the winner. It maintains a naturally air conditioned 65 degrees all summer long during a decade that has seen even Portland Oregon go into the high triple digits.
Don't sleep on San Francisco.
Don't sleep on San Francisco.
I don’t think you are using “high triple digits” correctly.
Were we living in the same city? There were multiple heatwaves in the time I lived there, one so severe that Noe Valley got to 107.
And this isn’t to mention the wildfires or inevitable water issues.
And this isn’t to mention the wildfires or inevitable water issues.
Apparently not because these are the hottest days in sf history:
1. September 1, 2017 – 106 degrees T-2. June 14, 2000 – 103 degrees T-2. July 17, 1988 – 103 degrees T-4. September 2, 2017 – 102 degrees T-4. October 5, 1987 – 102 degrees T-6. September 14, 1971 – 101 degrees T-6. May 30, 2001 – 101 degrees T-6. June 14, 1961 – 101 degrees T-6. September 16, 1913 – 101 degrees T-6. September 8, 1904 – 101 degrees T-11. October 4, 1987 – 100 degrees T-11. September 8, 1984 – 100 degrees
9 of the next 10 days in Dallas would be on that list. 3 days from last year in Seattle would be in the top 5 days on that list.
We are comparable to the extremes of a coastal eastern city, with significantly lower temperatures between the peaks. There’s not many places in the US that have never seen 106.
As for water, 80%+ of it in California is used for food that is exported elsewhere.
Strawberries in December in New York are much more at risk than humans in CA.
As for fires, nowhere in the world is safe from that, as this summer is proving.
1. September 1, 2017 – 106 degrees T-2. June 14, 2000 – 103 degrees T-2. July 17, 1988 – 103 degrees T-4. September 2, 2017 – 102 degrees T-4. October 5, 1987 – 102 degrees T-6. September 14, 1971 – 101 degrees T-6. May 30, 2001 – 101 degrees T-6. June 14, 1961 – 101 degrees T-6. September 16, 1913 – 101 degrees T-6. September 8, 1904 – 101 degrees T-11. October 4, 1987 – 100 degrees T-11. September 8, 1984 – 100 degrees
9 of the next 10 days in Dallas would be on that list. 3 days from last year in Seattle would be in the top 5 days on that list.
We are comparable to the extremes of a coastal eastern city, with significantly lower temperatures between the peaks. There’s not many places in the US that have never seen 106.
As for water, 80%+ of it in California is used for food that is exported elsewhere.
Strawberries in December in New York are much more at risk than humans in CA.
As for fires, nowhere in the world is safe from that, as this summer is proving.
I wonder if some interior spaces could be preserved for commercial, some reallocated for retail, some set aside for tenant mixed use areas.
I don't get why one area can only ever be for one kind of use.
I don't get why one area can only ever be for one kind of use.
If you really want to know, I can't recommend the book "Seeing like a state" enough.
TL;DR: For government officials who are charged with supervising regulations over tens of thousands of areas, it's already more than complicated enough if each of those areas has a single use designation. If you allow all of those to have multiple designations, it becomes too complex for humans to administer and so they don't allow multiple designations.
TL;DR: For government officials who are charged with supervising regulations over tens of thousands of areas, it's already more than complicated enough if each of those areas has a single use designation. If you allow all of those to have multiple designations, it becomes too complex for humans to administer and so they don't allow multiple designations.
There are so many cities (I'd say it's the majority in the world), with mixed use zoning which work wonderfully. Lower floors are offices or businesses and upper floors are apartments. Why is this so difficult?
part of the reason this is so bad in the USA is indeed what OP named, the concept of 'legibility', as explained in 'seeing like a state'.
In the case of the USA, though, another 'lens' on the legibility is that overall the people making the laws were neurotically concerned with keeping black people away from white people and enforcing segregation.
'separating uses' was a good way to also 'separate users', and a little barely-that-creative law-writing lets someone keep black people quite removed from the white people.
I found a document from 1922 that is upstream of all american zoning codes - it's what got ratified in Euclid v. Ambler circa 1926.
It's explicit goal was:
"To maintain harmonious relations between the races, care has been given to ensure adequate separation between the two, with room to grow without encroaching on the other"
The race-based zoning designations are gold:
"R1 - white, R2 - colored, R3 - undecided"
Here's a deep link straight to that portion of the document: https://josh.works/full-copy-of-1922-atlanta-zone-plan#race-...
Oh, it also says:
"The ordinary two or three story store and dwelling building is not a desirable type of construction from a public stand point. The regulations as applied will tend to reduce the number of flats that would otherwise be located over stores."
So - there it is. The goal of American zoning was, in part, to eliminate 'the ordinary two or three story store and dwelling building'.
In the case of the USA, though, another 'lens' on the legibility is that overall the people making the laws were neurotically concerned with keeping black people away from white people and enforcing segregation.
'separating uses' was a good way to also 'separate users', and a little barely-that-creative law-writing lets someone keep black people quite removed from the white people.
I found a document from 1922 that is upstream of all american zoning codes - it's what got ratified in Euclid v. Ambler circa 1926.
It's explicit goal was:
"To maintain harmonious relations between the races, care has been given to ensure adequate separation between the two, with room to grow without encroaching on the other"
The race-based zoning designations are gold:
"R1 - white, R2 - colored, R3 - undecided"
Here's a deep link straight to that portion of the document: https://josh.works/full-copy-of-1922-atlanta-zone-plan#race-...
Oh, it also says:
"The ordinary two or three story store and dwelling building is not a desirable type of construction from a public stand point. The regulations as applied will tend to reduce the number of flats that would otherwise be located over stores."
So - there it is. The goal of American zoning was, in part, to eliminate 'the ordinary two or three story store and dwelling building'.
So many awful things in America are the legacy of slavery and racism, and now it's all coming together to make the country an unlivable mess.
A little hyperbolic there my friend.
I agree. Life is possible in America. Just not particularly pleasant.
"Unlivable" isn't normally used in the literal sense. A nasty, unheated, rat-infested apartment, for instance, can be said to be "unlivable", though it really is possible to live there if you're desperate enough.
Do you think that’s what the majority of Americans experience?
I swear, it's impossible to please people. People are complaining that mixed use zoning on Taraval street in SF is wasting space because the street-level floors are wasted and they should be converted into apartments (many business have shuttered and ground floors remain empty in some mixed use buildings).
It would be terrible loss to convert those business spaces into residential. One or two could be changed, as retail needs change over time, but removing possible retail and third space from near people's homes means less walkable neighborhoods.
Where I live, we have short term reuse laws that allow retail spaces to be used for residential, social, or other uses on a fixed basis. Typically a few years. The idea being to review the reassignment when the local needs change.
We get a lot of kindergartens that use these spaces, but also pharmacies, social clubs, and offices. Easy to move in and out.
Where I live, we have short term reuse laws that allow retail spaces to be used for residential, social, or other uses on a fixed basis. Typically a few years. The idea being to review the reassignment when the local needs change.
We get a lot of kindergartens that use these spaces, but also pharmacies, social clubs, and offices. Easy to move in and out.
Why do the ground floors have to be designated by the government as retail or residential? Is it impossible to say it can be either, as long as the requirements for whichever one (e.g. ventilation, fire safety) are met?
People are complaining about mixed use zoning? Geez, there's already a fair amount of mixed use along Taraval anyways. A real common narrative was that the folks in the Parkside don't want to turn their neighborhood into Manhattan (lol). The other one was the staunchly anti-transit narrative pushed by the guy that owns Great Wall Hardware on 28th, Albert Chow. That guy publicly fought tooth and nail against putting boarding islands up along Taraval (the Examiner got some choice quotes).
Anyways, it's been a hot moment since I've paid attention, but years ago the guy that owned the hardware store on 44th Ave tried to convert into a mixed use building. I don't remember a lot of objection, but then the real estate market tanked and he went out of business. The apartments got built at least…
Anyways, it's been a hot moment since I've paid attention, but years ago the guy that owned the hardware store on 44th Ave tried to convert into a mixed use building. I don't remember a lot of objection, but then the real estate market tanked and he went out of business. The apartments got built at least…
I checked and it turned out that “people” are a pretty heterogeneous group and regularly different groups want different things.
It's a shame we don't have any sorts of things good at processing large amounts of detailed rules, and the ability to provide actionable insight based on input. I'd call them... computers!
Mixed use zoning is already common throughout the world.
I don't understand these comments that act like they live on a different planet.
I don't understand these comments that act like they live on a different planet.
Many buildings have retail on the ground floor. This isn’t much different.
The uses need to be kept separate. Separate but equal.
Why not put edge datacentres in the middle? They could provide heating to perimeter apartments in cold climates and just imagine the ping!
Very few humans live in places that need heat all year round.
The heat could be used for water heating as well.
Typically switching from office to residential they will remove one elevator per bank and use the empty shaft for pipe/wiring riser
For buildings where they can't cut the whole center of the building... maybe cutting more (but smaller) holes part way between the outside and the center would work. Then do vertical gardens up those shafts.
The issue is emergency egress. You need those shafts to be able to support external staircases with many dozens of people rushing down simultaneously in the event of a fire.
Do you? Most newer buildings go without external staircases (typically have two+ internals firewalled apart from each other)
> Do you?
No, the window requirement is another housing suppression tactic. In New York, it is common for apartments to be illegally subdivided. It's how a lot of people live because it's affordable. I've done it. It's fine.
Stairwells are necessary. But nobody on the 60th story of a high rise is egressing externally, FDNY's ladders don't even go that high. If you're only home at night, the window is a luxury. As evidenced by, when people are given a choice between more cash and a window, many choosing the cash.
No, the window requirement is another housing suppression tactic. In New York, it is common for apartments to be illegally subdivided. It's how a lot of people live because it's affordable. I've done it. It's fine.
Stairwells are necessary. But nobody on the 60th story of a high rise is egressing externally, FDNY's ladders don't even go that high. If you're only home at night, the window is a luxury. As evidenced by, when people are given a choice between more cash and a window, many choosing the cash.
I believe there are two different requirements for residential: 1 is egress (fire regulations), and the other is natural light requirements for each room.
You're not going to egress out of a 60th floor window...
No, the natural light requirement is not a fire regulation. It's not about egress.
Maybe I'd think differently if I actually saw the footprint of a large office building, but I'm thinking...
My house has a basement and a garage, which are not approved as living space, and don't have proper windows or egress. Would it solve the problem to let the interior portions of buildings be designated as storage and utility space?
I'd love to have more space for bikes and musical instruments. ;-)
My house has a basement and a garage, which are not approved as living space, and don't have proper windows or egress. Would it solve the problem to let the interior portions of buildings be designated as storage and utility space?
I'd love to have more space for bikes and musical instruments. ;-)
They get to make two rows of apartments instead of one if they cut off the interior of the building. So better space usage = more $.
Of course this is only necessary because someone at some point decided it is ok for modern post-war offices to no longer have natural lighting and ventilation. Why would office workers ever need to see the sun?
According to the article, the pre-war buildings are easy to convert.
According to the article, the pre-war buildings are easy to convert.
It's not about "someone deciding that it is ok for modern post-war offices to no longer have natural lighting and ventilation".
It's that the open floor model gained popularity; and the building technique evolved. This allowed huge windows to cast light for everyone in one go, since people were not putting opaque wall everywhere which were restricting whatever light that came through "their" part of the building to reach anyone else. "My window" became "our window". Similarly HVAC system evolved to maintain equal temperature in the whole building; there was no longer a need to bring individual heating/cooling system in every single cell since carefully placing some element would let natural convection do the work.
Removing these walls allowed building to be built and heated/cooled with comparatively less material; something that was positive both economically and - dare I say it - ecologically. Converting these shared spaces into private requires to "undo" all these optimisations and will carry a significant cost. Just like converting a bus into several car is not easy because although the seats are there; you are going to need many engines.
It's that the open floor model gained popularity; and the building technique evolved. This allowed huge windows to cast light for everyone in one go, since people were not putting opaque wall everywhere which were restricting whatever light that came through "their" part of the building to reach anyone else. "My window" became "our window". Similarly HVAC system evolved to maintain equal temperature in the whole building; there was no longer a need to bring individual heating/cooling system in every single cell since carefully placing some element would let natural convection do the work.
Removing these walls allowed building to be built and heated/cooled with comparatively less material; something that was positive both economically and - dare I say it - ecologically. Converting these shared spaces into private requires to "undo" all these optimisations and will carry a significant cost. Just like converting a bus into several car is not easy because although the seats are there; you are going to need many engines.
> Just like converting a bus into several car is not easy because although the seats are there; you are going to need many engines.
This is a great analogy.
This is a great analogy.
Undesirable apartments sound like code for low income/affordable housing to me...
Add a few light pipes out to the outside walls and you can even get a bit of outside light inside!
Add a few light pipes out to the outside walls and you can even get a bit of outside light inside!
Yes my point is that cutting the donut hole in is necessary to make them legal & desirable.
And my point is that desirable doesn't matter much if the goal is to get people housed. Yeah, you'll get less rent for the inner apartments, but that's how you make affordable housing - you make things cheaply and make sacrifices along the way to do so. Unless you don't want to live with the "poors"...
Legality is also highly related to "keeping them separated"
Legality is also highly related to "keeping them separated"
The problem is that the rest of the conversion, namely bathrooms and kitchens per unit and the required pipes, are also not cheap, to the point where if you wanted to rent out a lot of cheap units it would be easier to knock the building down and start anew.
> it would be easier to knock the building down and start anew.
Idk where this meme started but it’s very far from reality. We as a species have only ever voluntarily demolished like 30 or so building above 35 stories because it’s insanely expensive to do so (most buildings were knocked down to make significantly larger ones in their place).
In no world is it ever cheaper to tear down a high rise and start over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_voluntarily_de...
Idk where this meme started but it’s very far from reality. We as a species have only ever voluntarily demolished like 30 or so building above 35 stories because it’s insanely expensive to do so (most buildings were knocked down to make significantly larger ones in their place).
In no world is it ever cheaper to tear down a high rise and start over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_voluntarily_de...
My company used to work with a German startup that was based in Lübeck, one of the oldest towns in Germany[0].
They were in Old Town, which is on an island.
The building they originally occupied was over a thousand years old. They then modernized to one that was only eight hundred or so years old, then, eventually, they moved to the mainland, into new construction.
Sort of gives new meaning to “reuse.”
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lübeck
They were in Old Town, which is on an island.
The building they originally occupied was over a thousand years old. They then modernized to one that was only eight hundred or so years old, then, eventually, they moved to the mainland, into new construction.
Sort of gives new meaning to “reuse.”
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lübeck
> We as a species have only ever voluntarily demolished like 30 or so building above 35 stories because it’s insanely expensive to do so
The designed lifetime of yer typical neopostmodernist glass box office tower is about 25 years. Many of them are 50 years old at this point. They get torn down and replaced all the time.
The designed lifetime of yer typical neopostmodernist glass box office tower is about 25 years. Many of them are 50 years old at this point. They get torn down and replaced all the time.
> The designed lifetime of yer typical neopostmodernist glass box office tower is about 25 years. Many of them are 50 years old at this point. They get torn down and replaced all the time.
I mean, can you provide a list of all these 1973 high rises that are being torn down (and the commentary that they were built to be torn down in 1998)?
I’d be really interested to see that, because any steel building frame should be more durable than that, so I’m curious what these buildings are made out of.
I mean, can you provide a list of all these 1973 high rises that are being torn down (and the commentary that they were built to be torn down in 1998)?
I’d be really interested to see that, because any steel building frame should be more durable than that, so I’m curious what these buildings are made out of.
These days buildings are most likely cantilevered from one or more concrete cores rather than steel frame.
Rebar is a bit trickier than just plain steel.
Also, the thing is that any type of conversion most likely triggers building code updates rather than being grandfathered in, at which point for a building 50+ years old there’s probably either lead or asbestos.
Rebar is a bit trickier than just plain steel.
Also, the thing is that any type of conversion most likely triggers building code updates rather than being grandfathered in, at which point for a building 50+ years old there’s probably either lead or asbestos.
I think you are confusing wood frame homes with concrete, steel and glass.
One is far more durable than the other.
One is far more durable than the other.
We don’t usually demolish them because
* the office market has never imploded like this before and it’s fairly easy to fill buildings like these up
* until recently, most tall buildings that were old enough to demolish were also probably subject to landmark status
* the office market has never imploded like this before and it’s fairly easy to fill buildings like these up
* until recently, most tall buildings that were old enough to demolish were also probably subject to landmark status
There's an argument there for SRO conversions, but we've shunned those for a generation.
The end of SROs is a strong contributor towards increases in homelessness.
SROs aren't great, but its basically the same as my college dorms.
They are definitely better than being homeless or in a communal shelter as well.
The end of SROs is a strong contributor towards increases in homelessness.
SROs aren't great, but its basically the same as my college dorms.
They are definitely better than being homeless or in a communal shelter as well.
I dunno I think legal regulations on what is safe housing are pretty good, actually.
For example, in the absence of good legal housing, many poor (mostly immigrant) people in NYC live in illegal basement apartments. Every time there's a flash flood warning with a storm in the city, 5x/year, some of them die in their homes.
Ideally, poor people would also be able to live in legal apartments, provided we could actually build more.. and you know, die less!
For example, in the absence of good legal housing, many poor (mostly immigrant) people in NYC live in illegal basement apartments. Every time there's a flash flood warning with a storm in the city, 5x/year, some of them die in their homes.
Ideally, poor people would also be able to live in legal apartments, provided we could actually build more.. and you know, die less!
Having fewer or no windows in a modern hi-rise apartment is probably significantly safer than the basement of a 19th century brownstone. Heck, it's probably safer than the brownstone in general.
Not every regulation is about safety. And not every safety regulation achieves additional safety in practice
Not every regulation is about safety. And not every safety regulation achieves additional safety in practice
Windows don't make you safe in a high rise. Especially ones in a donut hole in a structure - no way to escape through those!!
I dunno man, I think people can strawman every which way on housing its kind of tiring.
"We should build windowless homes so poor people can afford them"
"You can't put poor people in homes you dont want yourself"
"Your desire to not build windowless homes is because you dont want to live next to poor people"
"I think we should build more housing"
"You just want rich people to have more homes"
on and on
FDNY can ladder rescue up to about the 10th floor. They've rope rescued someone as high as the 20th floor recently. https://nypost.com/2022/11/05/fdny-battling-high-rise-blaze-...
So windows are good, actually.
"We should build windowless homes so poor people can afford them"
"You can't put poor people in homes you dont want yourself"
"Your desire to not build windowless homes is because you dont want to live next to poor people"
"I think we should build more housing"
"You just want rich people to have more homes"
on and on
FDNY can ladder rescue up to about the 10th floor. They've rope rescued someone as high as the 20th floor recently. https://nypost.com/2022/11/05/fdny-battling-high-rise-blaze-...
So windows are good, actually.
But that's a strawman when you can literally cut a hole down a skyscraper and be legal. There's literally no way for FDNY to get a ladder into that hole to rescue someone.
To throw out more strawmen...
"I want marble countertops, everyone should have marble countertops"
"I want a curbless shower, everyone should have curbless showers"
At some point, required amenities and features are preventing people from being housed and causing way more people to literally die because they're not housed vs. the alternative of shitty but safe housing. I'd argue that windows in a high-rise with sprinklers is one of those features.
To throw out more strawmen...
"I want marble countertops, everyone should have marble countertops"
"I want a curbless shower, everyone should have curbless showers"
At some point, required amenities and features are preventing people from being housed and causing way more people to literally die because they're not housed vs. the alternative of shitty but safe housing. I'd argue that windows in a high-rise with sprinklers is one of those features.
(charlie Munger has entered the chat)
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/10/29/business/ucsb-munger-hall...
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/10/29/business/ucsb-munger-hall...
Seems like you can trivially get around HVAC issue by just having individual units like in hotels or split units like many parts of the world (new builts and retrofits) and pare back existing HVAC / ducts for hallways/common space which are hooked up anyways. There's ways to do it cheap, but these not retrofitting nice office towers to be cheap units.
> This is necessary because many office floorplans are huge with modern HVAC and when converted into residential you end up with either undesirable or illegal apartments due to lack of windows/egress/etc.
Couldn't you just wall off the middle? I mean, you do get another set of windows on the inner courtyard, but it seems expensive to perform such major surgery on a building.
Couldn't you just wall off the middle? I mean, you do get another set of windows on the inner courtyard, but it seems expensive to perform such major surgery on a building.
If you don't use the center of the building, then you only have room for one "ring" of residential units, whose windows face the exterior of the building. If you cut a donut hole down the center of the building, now you have room for two rings of units. Furthermore, in places like NYC, developers are allowed to "bank" the floorspace that comprised the donut hole and add new construction on top of the building so that overall square footage remains the same.
> Furthermore, in places like NYC, developers are allowed to "bank" the floorspace that comprised the donut hole and add new construction on top of the building so that overall square footage remains the same.
Oh, yah, that's cool. You probably have a lot of systems surrounding the building (and ingress/egress) designed for that total volume.
Oh, yah, that's cool. You probably have a lot of systems surrounding the building (and ingress/egress) designed for that total volume.
They have limits on building square footage but not height? Or is that a weird loophole in a height restriction?
I think there are limits on both. Floor area ratio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_area_ratio) is how it is coded into regulations. The lot size and the height restrictions create a bounding box that the building needs to fit within.
Common in NYC to do that to say you have the tallest building by height even if you were only approved to build X floors (your service floors don’t count) — from the couple videos I’ve watched about it over the years (see 432 Park Ave).
Depending on local laws.. windowless apartments are illegal. windowless bedrooms are illegal. etc.
It's legal, in most cases, to omit an egress window in bedrooms in high-rise buildings—but only because the building includes fire-safety features (for example, sprinklers, fire alarm systems, and egress stairways)
https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/bedrooms-withou...
https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/bedrooms-withou...
No it is not legal in NYC.
There's been a whole discussion of the code though as modern mid/high rises have - concrete, "fireproof" (in terms of adjacent unit to unit) construction - sprinkler systems - internal hallway leading to 2 stairways
All of which are lacking in wood frame homes which make up a higher amount of home fire deaths. So there has been an argument that you could build housing much cheaper if you could rely on the concrete & sprinklers, and could lighten the rules around multiple stairs / windows / etc.
An interesting debate, with of course, tradeoffs.
There's been a whole discussion of the code though as modern mid/high rises have - concrete, "fireproof" (in terms of adjacent unit to unit) construction - sprinkler systems - internal hallway leading to 2 stairways
All of which are lacking in wood frame homes which make up a higher amount of home fire deaths. So there has been an argument that you could build housing much cheaper if you could rely on the concrete & sprinklers, and could lighten the rules around multiple stairs / windows / etc.
An interesting debate, with of course, tradeoffs.
Two different rules
Bedrooms have egress requirements
Apartments have window requirements (eg natural light)
Bedrooms have egress requirements
Apartments have window requirements (eg natural light)
Nah a whole bunch of jurisdictions made it so that with appropriate firewalls and other features there need be zero egress aside from the singular entrance/exit door.
Windows can be unopenable etc.,
It's literally because of hi rises and the issues with it being pointless to jump from 10+ stories (you'll also suffer less, as the smoke will make you pass out long before you're actually being burned).
Windows can be unopenable etc.,
It's literally because of hi rises and the issues with it being pointless to jump from 10+ stories (you'll also suffer less, as the smoke will make you pass out long before you're actually being burned).
Yes, both rules vary by jurisdiction. I was just saying many places have both.
I think they’re suggesting just having dead space in the middle.
Because that would convert space really badly. If you're making 10'x10' rooms out of a 100'x100' space, it's 74% dead space. If a floor is more than 10,000 sq feet, maybe 40,000 sq feet, it goes up to to 90%.
I mean, numbers are made up, but the point holds.
I mean, numbers are made up, but the point holds.
I’d be interested to see people get really creative with it. Throw a gym in on one floor. Cinema room on another. Storage units in a few more. Probably difficult to structurally support a pool on a floor not already designed for one but sure, let’s throw one in there too. A kids playroom is maybe a little depressing with no natural light but it could work. Hell: keep the middle commercial space and put a grocery store in.
Obviously once you’re talking about true high rises you’re going to run out of possibilities and I know the maths is still very rough. But it’s an interesting thought exercise to think about just how many amenities you could pack into a building.
Obviously once you’re talking about true high rises you’re going to run out of possibilities and I know the maths is still very rough. But it’s an interesting thought exercise to think about just how many amenities you could pack into a building.
Another use for interior rooms could be meeting/ conference rooms/ teleconference/ coworking spaces. Some premium apartment landlords currently have these in their clubhouses, usually reservable by the hour, residents usually get so many free credits a month.
Is this a thing, in planned conversions? If the pricing varied by day and time, or was dynamic, it could work very well. With secure lockers adjacent. (Would that require mixed-use zoning?)
A teleconference room (/remote classroom) by day could be time-multiplexed into a cinema room off-peak (with some compromise in seating plans), leasing company just needs to handle cleaning deposits and video surveillance at start and end to check users keep it clean.
Is this a thing, in planned conversions? If the pricing varied by day and time, or was dynamic, it could work very well. With secure lockers adjacent. (Would that require mixed-use zoning?)
A teleconference room (/remote classroom) by day could be time-multiplexed into a cinema room off-peak (with some compromise in seating plans), leasing company just needs to handle cleaning deposits and video surveillance at start and end to check users keep it clean.
20 Exchange in NYC is like that. Each chunk of floors gets a nearby amenities pod, with singletons for the really expensive stuff. Still, I think you’d have to get a screaming deal on the building in order to be able to make that economical.
Sound like what inevitably happens to my Sims games, just start filling in those gaps
Dance floor #3? Make it happen!
Dance floor #3? Make it happen!
Funnily this is kind of possible. Tokyo has at least one dance club located in a residential high-rise, just padded enough that the sound doesn't carry into the apartments around it. It's been a while though and I can't find the name now - please post a link if anyone remembers where it was.
Liquid room?
I know your numbers are made up but presumably an apartment is much deeper than 10'. You'd want to make it as narrow and deep as practical. 20x45'? 25x36'?
I get that you get (almost) twice as many apartments (presuming you don't build up higher), but you also get a massive and complicated one time cost. It surprises me that it could ever be worth it.
I get that you get (almost) twice as many apartments (presuming you don't build up higher), but you also get a massive and complicated one time cost. It surprises me that it could ever be worth it.
I call this the Chicago layout -many apartments are long and narrow. I have assumed it was to ensure access to two fire escapes. To hazard a guess, I have seen some that might only be 15’ wide, supporting a 10x10 room with a hallway to access it.
Chicago lots are long and narrow. Typical Chicago residential lot is 25x100 or so. Street in front, alley in the back, garage if you have one is a separate building fronting the alley. Many houses are built as "two flats" or "three flats" i.e. two or three houses stacked on top of each other.
This is really common in and around Boston too. The architectural style is from the area and we cal them three deckers (in Boston) or triple deckers (everywhere else). Lot size is probably similar, and they’re still highly valued (if kept up) to this day because of their construction and other benefits. I live in one now and others around me go for 750k+
https://www.dotnews.com/columns/2014/glorious-three-decker
https://www.dotnews.com/columns/2014/glorious-three-decker
I was a bit surprised by this, but, yea, pulled up random part of chicago and it's basically exasctly as described.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chicago,+IL/@41.7332309,-8...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chicago,+IL/@41.7332309,-8...
You could make the rooms bigger. Also surely they aren’t always squares which is the worst case.
Why not make storage spaces?
Donuted buildings will forever remind me of the Ponte Tower building.
(1) https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/02/th...
(1) https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/02/th...
The South African Building That Came to Symbolize the Apocalypse
https://archive.today/qfZ91
https://archive.today/qfZ91
In Hong Kong, pre-handover, I stayed in a windowless hotel room.
I love to sleep in darkness. Stayed at an Airbnb with a windowless bedroom. Best sleep I ever had.
Those still exist in Hong Kong today. And many other places in the world, for that matter. Even apartments without windows aren't that uncommon. In subdivided floors they're cheaper than the street facing ones, but some people prefer them anyway because there is less noise from the road.
I stayed in one in london last year. It was great until noisy people came back at 2am
2 great sleep killers: light and noise. "Windowless" only fixes one.
Well, we're calling them "donut holes", but they're actually rectangles. :P
Don't be such a square!
But you effectively get another set of apartments that have interior windows. Sure they’re not gonna have a great view but they’re still rentable apartments
Depending on what you do with the interior, they can actually be great apartments.
Much quieter than street facing, put a nice little courtyard in the center.. etc.
It definitely needs to be designed properly.
I once worked in an office where all the windows face a plain interior courtyard. It was terrible as nothing ever moved and you could only see the ground, more windows, and the sky.
I once worked in an office where all the windows face a plain interior courtyard. It was terrible as nothing ever moved and you could only see the ground, more windows, and the sky.
Many apartments in Europe are designed this way. The interior courtyard in most of them just contains trash cans and residents' bicycles or mopeds. They're not especially interesting views. But people don't generally move to cities for exciting views out their window, the other benefits outweigh it.
I would have thought it would make perfect storage space.
turn it into storage space I'd say
We could also just relax the window requirements for conversions.
this is how you end up with mass mortality events
In a high rise, are the windows really helping with egress? I'd think access to multiple stairwells is what'd be key for safety.
What do you mean? What does lack of windows have to do with anything?
Aren't we all subject to death though ?
If it's in your power to prevent people from dying tragically in a burning building- you wouldn't?
Basic economics: The optimal number of people who die tragically in a burning building is not zero. Every person trades off some amount of safety for cost, that’s just part of living. It’s possible that this particular tradeoff isn’t worth it, but human life isn’t infinitely sacred. I assume if it were in your power, you also would rather let some people burn to death than ban wooden houses, for example. This, well, inflammatory emotive rhetoric really doesn’t lead to good discussion, or good policy for that matter.
Preferably not all at the same time
It doesn’t have to be tragic…
mmm… donuts…
There's a very good NYT article with great visualizations on the process of and obstacles to converting office buildings to residential: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/11/upshot/office...
Thanks, this was interesting! If anyone is blocked by the paywall use this:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/11/upshot/office...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/11/upshot/office...
I find it interesting people converted factories and workshops and such into housing (lofts etc) but developing places built for humans is somehow harder. I feel like most of this is FUD for redevelopment subsidies by developers. A good friend is a Gehry apprenticed professor of architecture that specialized in sky scrapers, residential and commercial, and he thinks it’s technically not a challenge. They are built with drop ceilings and modularity built in mind so segmenting into smaller spaces with plumbing and other amenities isn’t a challenge. Most offer floor to ceiling windows around a core of elevator banks so the “no windows” thing is on the surface absurd.
> A good friend is a Gehry apprenticed professor of architecture that specialized in sky scrapers, residential and commercial, and he thinks it’s technically not a challenge.
It's not a technical challenge, it's an economic challenge. For the large floorplate postwar buildings, the cost of the conversion usually doesn't make sense unless the rents or prices the units can fetch is very high, often higher than local wages can support.
> Most offer floor to ceiling windows around a core of elevator banks so the “no windows” thing is on the surface absurd.
A floor to ceiling window isn't operable. Many of those would have to be replaced with Windows that are operable.
It's not a technical challenge, it's an economic challenge. For the large floorplate postwar buildings, the cost of the conversion usually doesn't make sense unless the rents or prices the units can fetch is very high, often higher than local wages can support.
> Most offer floor to ceiling windows around a core of elevator banks so the “no windows” thing is on the surface absurd.
A floor to ceiling window isn't operable. Many of those would have to be replaced with Windows that are operable.
I've been thinking about the office building in which I worked pre-pandemic. It's actually not that wide and could be converted into a residential tower without cutting any holes in it (we had about 5 metres worth of desks, then 3 metres of walking space around the building core housing the elevators, fire escapes and conference rooms), but the ceiling height would be an obstacle. A typical flat is 2.7m tall, 3m is a premium height. The office had ceilings that were at least 3.5m tall to absorb the noise of the open space.
These projects are so interesting from an architectural/engineering standpoint, but then they hit you with the "rethink the rules that say how much green space an apartment needs or where its windows must be." I highly doubt the best long-term policy for a city's residents involves even less greenspace and natural light.
I highly doubt the best long-term policy for a city's residents is to have a housing shortage and for many to live on the street because of natural light concerns.
Homelessness and affordable housing aren't really related in this case. These people can afford and get housing if they wanted to, just not in their preferred area. But it's not like they're gonna just throw their hands in the air and decide to be homeless because they couldn't find a place exactly where they wanted. They'll just move somewhere else they can afford.
Thanks for sharing this!
WSJ recently had a good video on challenge of converting office building into condo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTKjwWlhcLM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTKjwWlhcLM
Its a delicate balance with these things. Residential brings life to the monotonous business areas and helps to improve housing supply (often not by an awful lot) but on the other hand, once you lose office sites they are generally gone forever (because of multiple ownership you can almost never convert from residential back to office) and even though the office market is taking a big hit from working from home / remote, the broader trend of the past 100 years is more and more jobs being concentrated into fewer and fewer office district that have to be larger and larger in critical mass.
Sydney, Australia is a good example. They introduced residential floorspace bonuses 10-20 years ago which have changed the city for the better. Pre-covid they wanted to shut this lever off as it almost flipped the other way where they were running out of land for offices to keep up with demand. Now its a bit of a lull on how to respond to the new environment though.
Sydney, Australia is a good example. They introduced residential floorspace bonuses 10-20 years ago which have changed the city for the better. Pre-covid they wanted to shut this lever off as it almost flipped the other way where they were running out of land for offices to keep up with demand. Now its a bit of a lull on how to respond to the new environment though.
I never understood the need to concentrate all the offices in the single focal point of the city. And currently with WFH it seems to make even more sense to distribute office spaces in local "co-working" spaces and in the end mix residential with work making it intertwined (zoning in the USA, from what I understand, is weird as hack…)
I think it's a hold-over from the age of factories and paper offices, when people had to be in one place to do the work. White collar work can now be mostly distributed, but light and heavy industry still needs groups of people working on site. Very different locations though, you don't see much manufacturing happening downtown.
I trace my American heritage to the Midwest and have plenty of industrial electricians, iron workers, farmers, etc in the family line. Traveling around the big Midwestern cities, there’s a part of me that longs for the old industrial downtown. Loud with machines, busy on the streets with laborers, dirty and dynamic. Now? It’s mostly cars, a few pedestrians, and a bunch of people who barely leave their desks (me included). Plenty of reasons why the times now are better, but there is some kind of a loss there.
For professions or companies where in-person collaboration is still needed, bigger concentration of business helps focus infrastructure investment into areas where it is most impactful. For instance, it's easier to make a subway line go through an area with lots of offices than it would be to have multiple separate lines passing through satellite hubs.
This stuff is mostly not centrally planned. People are free to open up offices wherever zoning allows (which is generally a lot more places than the few ultra-concentrated areas like downtown Manhattan), yet they tend to concentrate. Perhaps highly concentrating workers and businesses creates the best conditions for free movement of workers between businesses, allowing the best companies to more easily find the best workers.
It's true that these aren't centrally planned, but good infrastructure provides a feedback loop. People want to work at an office that's easy to commute to, so offices open near good transit. The extra offices require more transit, so more investment goes to the same area. Repeat ad infinitum.
Fair point if WFH is and remains the primary means of working.
On the other hand, if we believe the offices have value, as in people working together in one place has value, having offices in centralized locations because it is more of a known quantity for commuting.
Once you settle down roots, you don't want to have to upend your life if you lose your job or just want to find another job. And from the perspective of the company, you have more of a talent pool because you can recruit from all the other companies in the area with the benefit of not asking someone to move or change their routines.
I am in the camp of believing there being some benefit to people coming together to work on projects. Maybe not 5 days a week, but even if it is hybrid or occasional, there is still benefit for me to be central. I have worked 5 different jobs within 2 mile of each other and have never had to reconsider locations or commutes. I also benefit from being able to get lunch/drinks with old coworkers, attend impromptu 'meetups' and still make it home for dinner with my family because I can walk everywhere.
From a city planning point of view, there is a network effect to cities. Businesses move to cities because that is where there are services. Services are built because there is economy of scale to density.
Decentralized office locations means less density which means public transportation makes less sense, and dense services make less sense. Then you end up with Los Angeles (and Orange County). Which has lots of scattered office parks with little to nothing to do around them and that are only accessible by cars.
This is all a very American point of view. If instead we looked at European cities that were not built around cars and have good trains even for small hamlets, then absolutely, decentralized offices would make sense to me. It would satisfy my main concern of reliable transportation and ease of finding new jobs/networking.
So with many US city planning problems, the issue is our car centric culture.
On the other hand, if we believe the offices have value, as in people working together in one place has value, having offices in centralized locations because it is more of a known quantity for commuting.
Once you settle down roots, you don't want to have to upend your life if you lose your job or just want to find another job. And from the perspective of the company, you have more of a talent pool because you can recruit from all the other companies in the area with the benefit of not asking someone to move or change their routines.
I am in the camp of believing there being some benefit to people coming together to work on projects. Maybe not 5 days a week, but even if it is hybrid or occasional, there is still benefit for me to be central. I have worked 5 different jobs within 2 mile of each other and have never had to reconsider locations or commutes. I also benefit from being able to get lunch/drinks with old coworkers, attend impromptu 'meetups' and still make it home for dinner with my family because I can walk everywhere.
From a city planning point of view, there is a network effect to cities. Businesses move to cities because that is where there are services. Services are built because there is economy of scale to density.
Decentralized office locations means less density which means public transportation makes less sense, and dense services make less sense. Then you end up with Los Angeles (and Orange County). Which has lots of scattered office parks with little to nothing to do around them and that are only accessible by cars.
This is all a very American point of view. If instead we looked at European cities that were not built around cars and have good trains even for small hamlets, then absolutely, decentralized offices would make sense to me. It would satisfy my main concern of reliable transportation and ease of finding new jobs/networking.
So with many US city planning problems, the issue is our car centric culture.
> This is all a very American point of view. If instead we looked at European cities that were not built around cars and have good trains even for small hamlets, then absolutely, decentralized offices would make sense to me.
I think you're looking at Europe too much through rose-tinted glasses here. There might be more "hamlets" with "good trains" than in the US, but they're still not the norm, and compared to city centres those decentralised office and light industry business parks are mostly still a pain to get to on public transport, unless you happen to live in the right direction (which is where your "Once you settle down roots, you don't want to have to upend your life if you lose your job or just want to find another job." problem comes in).
I think you're looking at Europe too much through rose-tinted glasses here. There might be more "hamlets" with "good trains" than in the US, but they're still not the norm, and compared to city centres those decentralised office and light industry business parks are mostly still a pain to get to on public transport, unless you happen to live in the right direction (which is where your "Once you settle down roots, you don't want to have to upend your life if you lose your job or just want to find another job." problem comes in).
Because at one point, we designed, built and sold stuff and so you would need everything local. Now that most of that is offshored and most jobs are paper pushing, it's really not needed.
In Taiwan, we have a very large number of SMB which operates out of someone's apartment. If an apartment unit is up to office building code, then the apartment unit can be certified for a business license. Sometimes constructions are done to combine 2 or 3 apartment units into one bigger office.
So office sites may not be gone forever but could be converted for small businesses. (if Chicago laws allow it)
So office sites may not be gone forever but could be converted for small businesses. (if Chicago laws allow it)
> even though the office market is taking a big hit from working from home / remote, the broader trend of the past 100 years is more and more jobs being concentrated into fewer and fewer office district that have to be larger and larger in critical mass.
Well, the question is whether we hit an inflection point which changed the future drastically and invalidated data based on prior trends or not. So, does remote work just alleviate how quickly office space needs were growing (and if so is it to the point that new office space could be built), or does it actually reverse the trend to a degree?
Well, the question is whether we hit an inflection point which changed the future drastically and invalidated data based on prior trends or not. So, does remote work just alleviate how quickly office space needs were growing (and if so is it to the point that new office space could be built), or does it actually reverse the trend to a degree?
It's not strictly work from home. Lots of business located near each other in city centers for business purposes that are being replaced by digital services. Video conferencing and other collaborative tools have decreased the need for many business to be in close physical proximity to each other.
> Residential brings life to the monotonous business areas and helps to improve housing supply (often not by an awful lot) but on the other hand, once you lose office sites they are generally gone forever
I am not a town planner, but this makes little sense to me.
Can you not have mixed use?
I am not a town planner, but this makes little sense to me.
Can you not have mixed use?
There's a range of factors for why not endless mixed use. A few of the big ones:
The clustering nature of businesses wanting to be close to each other. Most commercial areas are limited in expansion and a big 'critical mass' helps to drive the success of all the businesses.
Office workers dont like to look out at residential uses (hanging laundry etc.).
On the economic side its important to note that office-only zoning is effectively a government subsidy to encourage business. If they have to compete with residential some businesses will die and others will struggle.
There's also issues with sudden change. If you convert zoning from office only to mixed use quickly expect 10 years or so of no new office buildings leading to flight of the best businesses seeking premium accommodation and office buildings start to run down and other building also seeing a lack of investment as their owners eye tearing them down soon.
If the market swings back towards office over time it will be harder to respond to. As I say also its easy to convert office to residential but almost impossible to convert back.
The clustering nature of businesses wanting to be close to each other. Most commercial areas are limited in expansion and a big 'critical mass' helps to drive the success of all the businesses.
Office workers dont like to look out at residential uses (hanging laundry etc.).
On the economic side its important to note that office-only zoning is effectively a government subsidy to encourage business. If they have to compete with residential some businesses will die and others will struggle.
There's also issues with sudden change. If you convert zoning from office only to mixed use quickly expect 10 years or so of no new office buildings leading to flight of the best businesses seeking premium accommodation and office buildings start to run down and other building also seeing a lack of investment as their owners eye tearing them down soon.
If the market swings back towards office over time it will be harder to respond to. As I say also its easy to convert office to residential but almost impossible to convert back.
> If the market swings back towards office over time it will be harder to respond to. As I say also its easy to convert office to residential but almost impossible to convert back.
Additional complexities of a return to office mandate that some management blowhards want seems like a win for office to residential conversions in my opinion.
Additional complexities of a return to office mandate that some management blowhards want seems like a win for office to residential conversions in my opinion.
[deleted]
Oh no not office suites being gone forever.
Don’t worry they’ll rebuild. They always rebuild.
Don’t worry they’ll rebuild. They always rebuild.
Ironically, now you can work from home at your old work office. They wanted us back in the office, they got it.
Funny story. I recently stayed in an AirBnb that was literally my old office but turned into micro-apartments. Woke up sweating that I'd be late for standup.
This is a poor use of time and resources. A much better - and likely cheaper solution in the long run - is to relax Boston’s onerous zoning laws that forbid the construction of most new apartments.
The construction of plentiful new apartments near and in the urban core has the added benefit of increasing demand for existing urban office space. It also increases the city tax base and the subsequent short work commutes is good for the environment and quality of life.
The construction of plentiful new apartments near and in the urban core has the added benefit of increasing demand for existing urban office space. It also increases the city tax base and the subsequent short work commutes is good for the environment and quality of life.
Nimby's have an easier time fighting new construction than conversions. I don't see this as a poor use of time if it can introduce hundreds of unit to a scarce and expensive market.
Also, the last sentence of the article:
> The Mayor also committed to update Boston’s zoning code to create thousands of additional housing units in Boston’s squares and corridors and reform the Article 80 process to increase speed and predictability for development.
Also, the last sentence of the article:
> The Mayor also committed to update Boston’s zoning code to create thousands of additional housing units in Boston’s squares and corridors and reform the Article 80 process to increase speed and predictability for development.
I think this is fantastic. Boston desperately needs more housing. Let's get some increased funding for the T as well while we are at it.
I will probably get sniped by someone who actually knows what they're talking about (please correct me if I'm wrong :D), but my impression of the T issues is less a funding issue, and more a competency/corruption issue. We're building above-ground rail at underground rail prices for one example problem.
I toured a piece of property at the border of Charlestown and Somerville near a big T stop. There was an empty lot next to the tracks that was owned by the MBTA on paper. But de facto, the neighbor and was clearly using the entire massive lot as an extended back yard (they even had a garden shed and paved parking on the MBTA owned lot).
Looked up the property records. Either a HIGHLY coincidental name clash, or there's a recently retired T exec who has been using MBTA land as an extended back yard and off-street parking area.
That's the moment I gave up on Boston and the T, tbh. It's a small thing that doesn't really matter, but so ridiculously brazen and public and personal. If that sort of thing is what happens out in the open, can you imagine how many tens/hundreds of millions of taxpayer money is being funneled between friends and cousins via MBTA?
Looked up the property records. Either a HIGHLY coincidental name clash, or there's a recently retired T exec who has been using MBTA land as an extended back yard and off-street parking area.
That's the moment I gave up on Boston and the T, tbh. It's a small thing that doesn't really matter, but so ridiculously brazen and public and personal. If that sort of thing is what happens out in the open, can you imagine how many tens/hundreds of millions of taxpayer money is being funneled between friends and cousins via MBTA?
If you are talking about a triangle shaped lot on the corner, which is across the street from the lichmere stop of the green line...
That lot was the lichmere stop of the green line until about two years ago. And was the lichmere stop for decades. Once torn down it was used as a gravel pile and support area for MBTA work. Recently that corner had the traffic pattern altered a bit with a new light and cross street.
You gotta remember, in America city infrastructure takes time.
Lot in question: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4HSueRhVb8TPZNoZ7
That lot was the lichmere stop of the green line until about two years ago. And was the lichmere stop for decades. Once torn down it was used as a gravel pile and support area for MBTA work. Recently that corner had the traffic pattern altered a bit with a new light and cross street.
You gotta remember, in America city infrastructure takes time.
Lot in question: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4HSueRhVb8TPZNoZ7
e: the above is just my perception, I don't actually know if there's a land use agreement etc happening, but it certainly has exactly the sort of sketchy appearance at least for me.
Perkins St. gang represent!
It's certainly a mix of both, but the T has been underfunding maintenance and repair work in favor of the big capital projects that are demanded of it. That is a funding issue, even if there are many more issues to add to that.
You’re not wrong. Public sector unions in MA are corrupt. It’s an unfortunate side effect of MA’s one party rule. Unions have the Democratic party in their hip pocket and no politician dare cross them.
Boston housing/rent is extraordinarily expensive. It's up there with SF, Manhattan, certain areas are even more expensive them. It's absolutely ridiculous. My girlfriend is from NYC and we both love the city, and visit it frequently. To our great astonishment Boston is oftentimes more expensive than NYC while being a fraction of the size. American big cities really can be enigmatic.
Property tax represents 72% of Boston's municipal revenue[0], and this initiative provides a property tax reduction of up to 75% for up to 29 years, so unfortunately this initiative will not help with T funding.
[0]https://data.boston.gov/dataset/revenue-budget
[0]https://data.boston.gov/dataset/revenue-budget
If it allows more people to move into the city and start working, that’s more income taxes that can go towards funding the T. Much of the T’s is at the state level anyway.
Although a lot of the the people who come into the city occasionally to work have no interest in actually living in the city.
Since the MBTA is a state agency primarily funded by sales tax, Boston’s budget is highly irrelevant to its funding.
https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2023-06/FY24%20Item...
https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2023-06/FY24%20Item...
I like to think that in a representative democracy, money finds its way to projects that the public find important
What is T ? google isnt helping.
MBTA -- Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. The public transit agency in Boston. Their logo is an iconic black "T" so that's what everyone here calls the subway.
The T is the nickname for Boston's MBTA (Train/bus)....The logo is a big "T".
Boston people call public transportation "T". It's an abbreviation of "MBTA" which stands for "Massachusetts Bay Transport Authority".
My first job out of university, was a dotcom company called ZEFER. They had an amazing 2 floors of loft building in the old Boston leather working district on Beach St.
I hadn’t been back to Boston in years until this past October, and stayed in a hotel near by.
One evening I walked past the office, which are now high end condos.
I’m sure they were crazy expensive. I loved that part of town, and walking around I saw lots of empty commercial space available. How wonderful it will be to have it teeming with life. That part of the city is glorious, and I’m sure many people will enjoy living there, hopefully at reasonable prices.
I hadn’t been back to Boston in years until this past October, and stayed in a hotel near by.
One evening I walked past the office, which are now high end condos.
I’m sure they were crazy expensive. I loved that part of town, and walking around I saw lots of empty commercial space available. How wonderful it will be to have it teeming with life. That part of the city is glorious, and I’m sure many people will enjoy living there, hopefully at reasonable prices.
I'm confused. Why is this program necessary? If building owners are sitting on vacant space because the demand for office space has dropped, while the demand for housing continues to rise, aren't they already incentivized to convert to residential space just based on the market conditions? Not sure why the city has to subsidize the property owners.
Most office buildings are not architecturally feasible to convert to residential. In fact, because of zoning laws, many/most can't even be converted.
Would you live in an apartment 15 feet wide and 50 feet deep? No. That's why most office buildings dont work
You have to redo all the mechanical, plumbing, electric, and then entirely refinish the building. Its literally cheaper to build new than deal with the nightmare that is to convert an office.
I work in CRE - every single office to multi deal i have seen the developer has war stories. And the units are 40-100% more expensive in cost than other apartments.
Office buildings are like an infectious disease. You could let them die. But if you have an urban infill city environment and more and more office properties become ghost buildings, then that disease will spread. All of the restaurants and other businesses nearby that rely on the foot traffic from office folk, they will die. You will see more riff raff. More homeless. More crime.
Many office assets need to go to 0 in asset value before the private market is willing to take the risk of those conversions.
Remember, loans are close to 10% for construction. And equity returns are higher.
Would you live in an apartment 15 feet wide and 50 feet deep? No. That's why most office buildings dont work
You have to redo all the mechanical, plumbing, electric, and then entirely refinish the building. Its literally cheaper to build new than deal with the nightmare that is to convert an office.
I work in CRE - every single office to multi deal i have seen the developer has war stories. And the units are 40-100% more expensive in cost than other apartments.
Office buildings are like an infectious disease. You could let them die. But if you have an urban infill city environment and more and more office properties become ghost buildings, then that disease will spread. All of the restaurants and other businesses nearby that rely on the foot traffic from office folk, they will die. You will see more riff raff. More homeless. More crime.
Many office assets need to go to 0 in asset value before the private market is willing to take the risk of those conversions.
Remember, loans are close to 10% for construction. And equity returns are higher.
Would you want to live here? Conversion is a great theory, but it definitely needs some guard rails.
https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/viral-bay-area-zillow-l...
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9703586,-122.5195036,3a,75y,...
https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/viral-bay-area-zillow-l...
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9703586,-122.5195036,3a,75y,...
> Would you live in an apartment 15 feet wide and 50 feet deep?
Yes, if that's the alternative to being enslaved for life. How can people still not understand that there is a massive part of the population who need to be able to purchase their living space to not have to rent for life or take on life-long debt that they can't afford. How can people not understand this? Yes, it's better for a young worker to be able to purchase a shit apartment that is a converted office building and start building his or her future, than pay rent for years and years and have nothing to show for it.
This is a true "let them eat cake" situation. Imagine if we didn't allow people to eat because we didn't think the food was good enough. That's what's happening with housing.
Yes, if that's the alternative to being enslaved for life. How can people still not understand that there is a massive part of the population who need to be able to purchase their living space to not have to rent for life or take on life-long debt that they can't afford. How can people not understand this? Yes, it's better for a young worker to be able to purchase a shit apartment that is a converted office building and start building his or her future, than pay rent for years and years and have nothing to show for it.
This is a true "let them eat cake" situation. Imagine if we didn't allow people to eat because we didn't think the food was good enough. That's what's happening with housing.
I definitely agree about this ownership vs rental dynamic and my first property was a long and narrow townhouse with 1 wall of windows and a couple of tiny ones on the other side (probably closer to more 25 x 75). My concern with these conversion proposals is that they will only be for rent and not ownership and that they will be priced the same as everything else…too damn high.
New high priced housing brings down the price of older places.
It’s probably cheaper just to allow new construction. Boston has plenty of underdeveloped land that could be converted to multistory residential, but the city’s zoning laws forbid most new residential construction.
> Would you live in an apartment 15 feet wide and 50 feet deep?
In a nice part of Boston? Under 500K? Over 1K sqft? With some nice building community amenities? Hell. Yes.
In a nice part of Boston? Under 500K? Over 1K sqft? With some nice building community amenities? Hell. Yes.
>Would you live in an apartment 15 feet wide and 50 feet deep?
For laughs, I just measured the width of my home's hallways and rooms. I don't see why 15x50 feet apartment isn't doable especially for a bachelor/new couple starting out. Assume an apartment with a 3 foot wide, 50 foot length hallway, subtract another 2 feet width for walls/piping/whatever, and then you can hang 5 rooms that are 10x10 feet from the hallway. Enough for a living room/common area/kitchen/2 bedrooms. Might get a bit cramped but very usable.
I assume I'm missing something here since this doesn't seem to be too bad.
For laughs, I just measured the width of my home's hallways and rooms. I don't see why 15x50 feet apartment isn't doable especially for a bachelor/new couple starting out. Assume an apartment with a 3 foot wide, 50 foot length hallway, subtract another 2 feet width for walls/piping/whatever, and then you can hang 5 rooms that are 10x10 feet from the hallway. Enough for a living room/common area/kitchen/2 bedrooms. Might get a bit cramped but very usable.
I assume I'm missing something here since this doesn't seem to be too bad.
All of your windows are on one of the 15 ft walls. You would need to have the lights on all day in many of the rooms, no opening a window for fresh air, limited escape options in case of emergency. Perhaps some of these concerns should be weighed against the reality of housing shortage and homelessness, but ample windows throughout is the standard for residential today. That’s why modern office tower conversion involves cutting the center out for a light shaft.
> Would you live in an apartment 15 feet wide and 50 feet deep? No. That's why most office buildings dont work
Yes. I lived in this with my SO for 9 years. And I lived with 200 other families like this on small plots of land.
Its called a "Mobile Home".
Yes. I lived in this with my SO for 9 years. And I lived with 200 other families like this on small plots of land.
Its called a "Mobile Home".
> Would you live in an apartment 15 feet wide and 50 feet deep?
Isn't this basically a railroad?
Isn't this basically a railroad?
I've read that one of the biggest problems is that while the demand for office space has dropped, the cost to convert to residential is so high that building owners can't break even on a reasonable timeline so they have little incentive to convert. I'm not an expert at all, but I think that in addition to building out the new floor plans you pretty much have to redo all the plumbing and electrical and I believe in many places the rules for emergency exits are different between the two building types. I think in some cases it would actually just be cheaper to tear the entire building down and build a new one from the ground up.
I think many owners have the mindset that if they're going to lose money either way they'll stick with the devil they know and hope for a miracle rebound. It sounds like this program is offering tax incentives to help offset those conversion costs to make it much easier for building owners to break even after a conversion.
I think many owners have the mindset that if they're going to lose money either way they'll stick with the devil they know and hope for a miracle rebound. It sounds like this program is offering tax incentives to help offset those conversion costs to make it much easier for building owners to break even after a conversion.
Office space rents for more per SQ ft than residential, so landlords have incentive to keep it vacant in the hopes that markets come back.
I work in CRE - anyone reading this completely disregard this silly comment. it is laughably stupid
under 3$ sq ft for residential in LA (talking about apartments)
https://www.apartments.com/blog/what-is-the-average-rent-in-...
around 4$ sq ft for commerical in LA
https://www.colliers.com/en/research/los-angeles/2022-q2-dow...
CRE is WAY higher in the top tier areas of SF, for the obvious reason that historically high startup capital outpaces all other residential price pressures.
This differs in other localities.
https://www.apartments.com/blog/what-is-the-average-rent-in-...
around 4$ sq ft for commerical in LA
https://www.colliers.com/en/research/los-angeles/2022-q2-dow...
CRE is WAY higher in the top tier areas of SF, for the obvious reason that historically high startup capital outpaces all other residential price pressures.
This differs in other localities.
> Couple that with the fact that office rents are higher per square foot than residential rents are, and you see why developers aren’t champing at the bit to get new projects underway. Van Nieuwerburgh gave me an example from San Francisco, where Juul’s old headquarters—down the block from Twitter’s improvised dormitory—is for sale for $150 million. That’s a lot less than the $397 million the embattled nicotine vape company paid for it in 2019. But at $400 a square foot to buy and another $400 a square foot to renovate, he said, the conversion would still produce a building with rents too high even for San Francisco. In other words, offices may be down, but they’ll have to fall a lot further before adaptive reuse becomes a bargain.
https://slate.com/business/2022/12/office-housing-conversion...
https://slate.com/business/2022/12/office-housing-conversion...
In other news: internet rando calls other internet rando an idiot! Fails to recognize irony! More at 11pm.
not exactly a thoughtful and interesting commentary, regardless of correctness.
I'll take correctness over thoughtful or interesting. Maybe I don't fit in here.
Oh, I like correctness too. Are you correct? I don't know; you just said something rude and didn't back up your assertion.
As far as fitting in here, have you read the guidelines? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>In Comments
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
>Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
As far as fitting in here, have you read the guidelines? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>In Comments
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
>Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Yes, I've read them. You should probably calm down and maybe take a break from social media.
What exactly made you think the other person isn't calm? Their comment seems calm to me.
>you just said something rude and didn't back up your assertion.
This is a combative tone and suggests they need to calm down. Moreover, they're violating the very rules that they just posted:
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
This is a combative tone and suggests they need to calm down. Moreover, they're violating the very rules that they just posted:
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
I don't sense any combative tone - the statement was describing the state of things in a truthful manner.
I find your tone ("they need to calm down", "take a break from social media") much more condescending and passive-aggressive. Maybe you are projecting your own feelings onto others? Therefore, maybe the advice you're giving to them is actually advice you want to give to yourself?
Note that this is merely an observation - I have no way of knowing as I don't have access to your mind, and I don't care either way, so feel free to label my comment as combative, too, if you wish.
I find your tone ("they need to calm down", "take a break from social media") much more condescending and passive-aggressive. Maybe you are projecting your own feelings onto others? Therefore, maybe the advice you're giving to them is actually advice you want to give to yourself?
Note that this is merely an observation - I have no way of knowing as I don't have access to your mind, and I don't care either way, so feel free to label my comment as combative, too, if you wish.
You might still be upset from our previous exchange in another thread about Hanlon's razor, so you found another comment of mine to try and pile on ("Oh no, that's not true, I just decided to participate in this 4-day-old conversation!")
I caught ya. Have a good day!
I caught ya. Have a good day!
I don't recall any of our previous conversations, and 4 days is not a very long time on HN front page.
Please try to see communication as sharing more than a battle. It doesn't matter who's right, what matters is to share knowledge and help each other converge to something resembling the truth. Life is much more beautiful from that perspective. Have a good day, too, but sincerely, not in a snarky way.
Please try to see communication as sharing more than a battle. It doesn't matter who's right, what matters is to share knowledge and help each other converge to something resembling the truth. Life is much more beautiful from that perspective. Have a good day, too, but sincerely, not in a snarky way.
Unfortunate but true. This is just another echo chamber
Because they're wildly over-leveraged because they were squeezing out every last drop of capital. Landlords are economic parasites who provide very little value to the larger economy. Kinda hoping cities just start eminent domaining the properties, there will never be a better time.
We need more creative thinking like this, not just in Boston, but in any city where there's a glut of office space. (In North America, that includes NYC, San Francisco, Toronto, Winnipeg ...)
The devil, of course, will be in the details. But incentives like this can really help get things moving in the right direction.
The devil, of course, will be in the details. But incentives like this can really help get things moving in the right direction.
Speaking of "incentives" I wonder how much of this is city gov - via the mayor saying: Those of you who can and aren't making your residential stock available...well, we're going to leap frog you.
Certainly, if there are entities that are going to win from this, there are entities that are going to lose if they don't act.
Certainly, if there are entities that are going to win from this, there are entities that are going to lose if they don't act.
This could actually work in a city like Boston (almost uniquely in the US). Most of those low/midrise older buildings downtown were likely residential to begin with.
> almost uniquely in the US
Any east coast city should have an easier time of it, because the main determining factor for retrofitting office buildings into residential is the distance between the center of the building and the exterior, in order to make sure there's enough windows in each unit. Any office building built before the advent of the electric light should be just fine, so there's plenty of opportunity in places like Philadelphia.
Any east coast city should have an easier time of it, because the main determining factor for retrofitting office buildings into residential is the distance between the center of the building and the exterior, in order to make sure there's enough windows in each unit. Any office building built before the advent of the electric light should be just fine, so there's plenty of opportunity in places like Philadelphia.
I do not know if Boston is unique in this regard, but there was a lot of company housing in the region.
Where I worked in Longwood (Boston), the offices surrounding me were massive, historic buildings with plaques commemorating their origin. They were originally built for housing nurses and doctors who worked in the area's hospitals (there is a concentration of hospitals in Longwood).
So in this case, these were built and used as housing before a later conversion to office space.
These are currently utilized hospital buildings. IMO, they are unlikely to be converted back to residential at this time.
Where I worked in Longwood (Boston), the offices surrounding me were massive, historic buildings with plaques commemorating their origin. They were originally built for housing nurses and doctors who worked in the area's hospitals (there is a concentration of hospitals in Longwood).
So in this case, these were built and used as housing before a later conversion to office space.
These are currently utilized hospital buildings. IMO, they are unlikely to be converted back to residential at this time.
Downtown LA had a bunch of (textile?) factories and warehouses back in the day that got repurposed as residential lofts. They're quirky and somewhat charming big buildings to live in, but you can tell they weren't really meant for humans to live in to begin with. I'm thinking of all of the SB lofts.
For example if you're on the first few floors and you don't have an outside-facing window, your only source of light might be a 20 story light well. At best it always looks like dusk in your apartment, but most often it's pitch black without having your lights always on.
Some of those repurposed building are quite livable, others not as much.
For example if you're on the first few floors and you don't have an outside-facing window, your only source of light might be a 20 story light well. At best it always looks like dusk in your apartment, but most often it's pitch black without having your lights always on.
Some of those repurposed building are quite livable, others not as much.
There's also no green space nearby and skid row is only a few blocks away.
You get used to the constant background sketchiness of it after enough time, but the lack of an easily accessible green space is a bummer. There's Elysian, but it's a decent walk.
> a rate reduction by up to 75% of the standard tax rate for residential for up to 29 years could provide a strong incentive to encourage conversion. This would be implemented through a public-private partnership that will enable the BPDA, the City, and the proponent to enter into a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement
This is actually a pretty nice rebate (similar to the one Ed Lee and Willie Brown proposed for Mid-Market redevelopment and Mission Bay's development respectively). I'd love for SF to use similar terms, but I doubt it's politically feasible anymore.
This is actually a pretty nice rebate (similar to the one Ed Lee and Willie Brown proposed for Mid-Market redevelopment and Mission Bay's development respectively). I'd love for SF to use similar terms, but I doubt it's politically feasible anymore.
Is this as good as I'm imagining? Almost feels like any office developer would be looking at their offices and thinking about it, even if they're currently rented.
Property taxes are a big expense, but not as big as the debt on the construction costs. And you end up with massive additional construction costs for fewer square feet to lease.
So you only can do this if your bank decides to agree to take a haircut... which only happens if the bank is convinced you have no other options.
Reducing the property tax provides a sweetener that you and the bank can share to make it slightly more palatable.
So you only can do this if your bank decides to agree to take a haircut... which only happens if the bank is convinced you have no other options.
Reducing the property tax provides a sweetener that you and the bank can share to make it slightly more palatable.
I could imagine edge scenarios (not sure how common) where office buildings that happen to have residential friendly layouts do this first. Perhaps if that happened it would both raise demand for non-residential space (more people living nearby) and lower supply of commercial prop avail.
> Perhaps if that happened it would both raise demand for non-residential space (more people living nearby) and lower supply of commercial prop avail.
Yup, that's what economics does: the firms with the lowest cost to converting, do so. And it's a nice follow-on effect that more residential hopefully increases commercial demand.
This is mostly a factor where you have a big inventory of older commercial buildings. Advances in HVAC (and before that, lighting) have let you build bigger floors that are less desirable for residential use.
Yup, that's what economics does: the firms with the lowest cost to converting, do so. And it's a nice follow-on effect that more residential hopefully increases commercial demand.
This is mostly a factor where you have a big inventory of older commercial buildings. Advances in HVAC (and before that, lighting) have let you build bigger floors that are less desirable for residential use.
This is a very nice rebate... maybe too nice? It's hard to say, but other cities might learn a lot from this experiment.
Yes. Left wing politicians need to remember a rising tide lifts all boats.
We need to stop treating things like zero sum games and that we need to take things away or redistribute finite goods.
Subsidizing things like education, housing, and healthcare.. without corresponding encouraging increases in SUPPLY.. just gives more dollars to the demand side to chase the same stuff.
Yes, typically the market responds, but in highly regulated markets the government needs to make sure they are encouraging rather than discouraging supply.
For example in NYC, an office-to-residential dev was talking about how depending on the neighborhood, there are basically cutoff dates of what construction year is eligible for conversion. In midtown it's something like 1960 whereas downtown it is the 70s or so. That is - nothing built after that date can be converted. And the dates are fixed, not changed in years, have to be renegotiated in zoning law periodically.
There's no fixed reason for this other than setting arbitrary numbers to limit the amount of conversions to residential.. that is.. reduce the ability to build housing!
When asked why, the developer basically said "it's sort of arbitrary but they do it so that a neighborhood doesn't get too much housing when it doesn't have enough schools or markets, etc".
Which is kind of crazy. Build the housing. Build the schools. Just.. build.
Subsidizing things like education, housing, and healthcare.. without corresponding encouraging increases in SUPPLY.. just gives more dollars to the demand side to chase the same stuff.
Yes, typically the market responds, but in highly regulated markets the government needs to make sure they are encouraging rather than discouraging supply.
For example in NYC, an office-to-residential dev was talking about how depending on the neighborhood, there are basically cutoff dates of what construction year is eligible for conversion. In midtown it's something like 1960 whereas downtown it is the 70s or so. That is - nothing built after that date can be converted. And the dates are fixed, not changed in years, have to be renegotiated in zoning law periodically.
There's no fixed reason for this other than setting arbitrary numbers to limit the amount of conversions to residential.. that is.. reduce the ability to build housing!
When asked why, the developer basically said "it's sort of arbitrary but they do it so that a neighborhood doesn't get too much housing when it doesn't have enough schools or markets, etc".
Which is kind of crazy. Build the housing. Build the schools. Just.. build.
Yeah, it's a good thing we have a famously right-wing bastion like Boston to lead the way with good old fashioned conservative policies like more housing and less commercial real estate. /s
Boston is leading the way, from the left.
Try not to be so defensive.
I don't totally understand what drives people to project demand for urban residential when urban office is in decline and is being removed.
Historically people moved to the cities because that's where the work was. What will drive people to cities when that's no longer true?
Granted some people really enjoy "density" but I suspect most people prefer more space / a yard / etc if the lack of commute enables then to spread out.
Historically people moved to the cities because that's where the work was. What will drive people to cities when that's no longer true?
Granted some people really enjoy "density" but I suspect most people prefer more space / a yard / etc if the lack of commute enables then to spread out.
A lot of (especially younger) people project their own urban living preferences--even if the absence of a need to go into an urban office--onto the population as a whole. But a net migration to cities isn't a law of nature. To the current example, there was a net outflow of population from Boston until the late nineties and most of the large computer industry companies were out in the suburbs/exurbs.
Of course, these things are also self-reinforcing cycles. If people move out, housing prices come down but a lot of the amenities that lead many people to live in the city in the first plce may go away as well.
Of course, these things are also self-reinforcing cycles. If people move out, housing prices come down but a lot of the amenities that lead many people to live in the city in the first plce may go away as well.
People aren't "projecting" demand, the demand is being driven by the market. Downtown apartments (in good condition) are expensive because they are in high demand while office space is getting harder and harder to fill.
If you own a bunch of downtown commercial real estate, you don't need to be a business guru to see that you could be making a lot more money if you could rent that space out as apartments.
If you own a bunch of downtown commercial real estate, you don't need to be a business guru to see that you could be making a lot more money if you could rent that space out as apartments.
// Downtown apartments (in good condition) are expensive because they are in high demand
Yup, my question is - do we expect this to hold when downtown is no longer the place to be for work.
Yup, my question is - do we expect this to hold when downtown is no longer the place to be for work.
It’s the place where shit is though, even beyond work.
My wife and I moved out of Boston due to the pricing, but if we could afford it while maintaining our current savings rate we’d move back in a heartbeat even though we both have remote jobs. The density allows for so many choices in food and entertainment that you can’t get in the suburbs or countryside. And that’s without even accounting for the lack of needing a car which is a constant headache in terms of maintenance and logistics that I wish I could just be rid of
My wife and I moved out of Boston due to the pricing, but if we could afford it while maintaining our current savings rate we’d move back in a heartbeat even though we both have remote jobs. The density allows for so many choices in food and entertainment that you can’t get in the suburbs or countryside. And that’s without even accounting for the lack of needing a car which is a constant headache in terms of maintenance and logistics that I wish I could just be rid of
Sure, but it doesn't sound like you have kids (yet) based on how you are describing it. Sorry if that's a wrong assumption.
I totally get how at the period of life before you have kids, the city has advantages but once you have kids that formula flips quite a bit (eg: you care about access to Thai food less, while the backyard starts to matter a lot.)
To put it in the terms of my up-thread post - that still sounds like a relatively smaller total demand vs before (eg, before COVID I suggested buying a larger place so we could have kids in NYC and I would have an easy commute - now I couldn't care less about being there vs my nice burb)
I totally get how at the period of life before you have kids, the city has advantages but once you have kids that formula flips quite a bit (eg: you care about access to Thai food less, while the backyard starts to matter a lot.)
To put it in the terms of my up-thread post - that still sounds like a relatively smaller total demand vs before (eg, before COVID I suggested buying a larger place so we could have kids in NYC and I would have an easy commute - now I couldn't care less about being there vs my nice burb)
I don't have kids. But still appreciate the quiet/space of the exurb and going into town for the theater is still not that big a deal. And I don't really eat out a lot if I'm not traveling. So, yeah, not a lot of interest in living in the city and would probably need a car for weekend activities, etc. anyway (which most of my urban friends have anyway).
I could afford to live in the city if I wanted to but I choose not to.
I could afford to live in the city if I wanted to but I choose not to.
Now you are all set to have a buncha kids :)
I’m late 30s. You’re right about not having kids but that’s because I don’t want any. Even if I did though, I’d be looking at moving to an area with a good school system, and those areas are just as expensive as living in a city with multiple school options, ex: brookline
I hope we don't just settle for substandard housing cobbled together from ADUs and converted office buildings... I would like to see governments stepping up to raise the funds to buy out neighborhoods at a fair price and converting them into efficient, humane urban areas.
You take what you can get, but in my area it seems most new housing is either smashed up against a freeway or a mish-mash of car-dependent ADUs. Future generations deserve better.
You take what you can get, but in my area it seems most new housing is either smashed up against a freeway or a mish-mash of car-dependent ADUs. Future generations deserve better.
Given government regulations are the reason many neighbourhoods turn into the things you dislike, I sincerely doubt giving them yet more responsibility and control would help.
converting office buildings do not preclude designing humane urban areas
Given some other comments that say that "it's better than eternal slavery", I'd hope that it truly doesn't end in another brutalism hell.
Just like many other big cities in the US, downtown Boston definitely has brutalist areas, probably due to being built back when brutalism was a common style -- for example, Boston city hall is in brutalist style [1]. However, the most common architectural style in Boston is red-brick. Even some modern high-risers are built to look in this style.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_City_Hall#/media/File:B...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_City_Hall#/media/File:B...
Did you interpret my comment as suggesting that it does?
Well, converted office buildings was in the same clause as substandard housing…
I did. Was that a misunderstanding on my part ?
I'm trying to say that I hope we do not stop putting significant effort towards housing once we have fulfilled whatever quota we're trying to achieve. If we add units with converted office buildings, ADUs and other quick fixes, we may lose the drive to create dense, humane, pleasurable environments which we will need to coax folks back to efficient living in the urban areas(which must happen absent a serious commitment to carbon-neutral energy).
It's hilarious seeing the grand lapses in efficiency and problems that last decades in the United States. I know for a fact that if there was a persistent vacancy of buildings in China, they would have razed a city and built a new one overnight. America feels slow, tired, and pointlessly ineffective at any problem larger than building a new app for content, and even at that China is doing better now.
Great idea, as a sign of leadership and truly believing in change I hope the Mayor fast tracks the programs scope beyond downtown and into Roslindale.
How is Boston doing nowadays, overall?
As an Masshole, but not a city one, I’ve always kinda admired the job they do in Boston. At least, you don’t get the big dramatic narratives about it crumbling, like California cities, and NYC seems to be a bit boom-bust.
Boston seems to always be doing fine. The Big Dig was a ripoff but that was ages ago, and the T smells like piss but that’s par for the course, right?
As an Masshole, but not a city one, I’ve always kinda admired the job they do in Boston. At least, you don’t get the big dramatic narratives about it crumbling, like California cities, and NYC seems to be a bit boom-bust.
Boston seems to always be doing fine. The Big Dig was a ripoff but that was ages ago, and the T smells like piss but that’s par for the course, right?
I lived in Cambridge/Somerville from 2013 - 2019 and always had the feeling that downtown was only for office workers during business hours. There never seemed to be anything to do after hours as all the workers left downtown at 5pm. If this proposal takes off it would be really nice to see a lively downtown on the evenings and weekends.
I live downtown (Leather District) and work downtown (Post Office Sq.) I think there's really quite a bit of stuff to do. Not NYC stuff to do level, sure, but definitely not a wasteland after dark either.
I do agree, there are some beautiful old office buildings around here that would probably make great residential buildings. That would be even better for the area.
I do agree, there are some beautiful old office buildings around here that would probably make great residential buildings. That would be even better for the area.
Personally I'd live in Cambridge over Boston but, outside of the Financial District (which is pretty dead at night like it is in many cities), there's plenty of activity in the evenings. As another commenter said, it's not Manhattan but I worked downtown for about a year and lots to do.
We're not building enough housing, COL/rent is high to the point where it makes it hard for many smaller businesses to thrive, the MBTA is an embarrassment, we're not laying enough fiber, the roads could use some work, but overall things are stable and fine. I just wish there was more of a standard of excellence all around.
My favorite thing about the MBTA is it's one of the least piss-smelling subway system in the U.S.
I wish it moved like the MTA, though lol. I might be willing to make that tradeoff... maybe.
I wish it moved like the MTA, though lol. I might be willing to make that tradeoff... maybe.
It's fine. The T is as bad as ever, shutting off sections for weeks on end for repairs. Rents are through the roof. But things aren't all bad, it's still a fun city.
Well the T is as terrible as always, but until 2 weeks ago or so the motorcycle and moped parking situation was ok, if you were willing to do that.
But recently they started enforcing that very aggressively and requiring motorcycles to pay the same amount as cars and park in the same spots. Just a wave of orange envelopes on every motorbike I walked by.
Kind of an unfortunate move IMO - one of the things I like about European cities is not having to have 1 person per SUV clogging streets.
But recently they started enforcing that very aggressively and requiring motorcycles to pay the same amount as cars and park in the same spots. Just a wave of orange envelopes on every motorbike I walked by.
Kind of an unfortunate move IMO - one of the things I like about European cities is not having to have 1 person per SUV clogging streets.
Fun fact - The Big Dig can pay for itself if they ever toll on 93 like they do the Mass Pike
The Big Dig does pay for itself. Despite being horrendously overbudget and overdue, it still works, and it's more valuable than what was put into it. It was a poorly managed success.
> It was a poorly managed success.
Task failed successfully
Task failed successfully
Great news -- especially for the investors who own all those office buildings, and the banks that lent money to them.
Their government in Boston has just announced it's about to save them from otherwise certain financial distress.
The polite term they're using to describe such generous government help is "public-private partnership."
Their government in Boston has just announced it's about to save them from otherwise certain financial distress.
The polite term they're using to describe such generous government help is "public-private partnership."
It’s far and away in the best interests of the people who live in these cities for these spaces to be repurposed. Wouldn’t want to cut off our nose to spite our face.
- I wonder how much of this is legit[1]?
- How much of it is the mayor playing politician?
- And how much of it is the mayor trying to inspire others to stop sitting on their residential or potential residential stock?
[1] Other comments are covering the finer - and more difficult - points of converting office building to residential.
- How much of it is the mayor playing politician?
- And how much of it is the mayor trying to inspire others to stop sitting on their residential or potential residential stock?
[1] Other comments are covering the finer - and more difficult - points of converting office building to residential.
When I read this my immediate reaction is this is part of Boston's effort to blunt the impact of the potential incoming commercial real estate crash, which could damage many Boston business as well as Boston's commercial tax base.
I was surprised not to see that mentioned at all in the announcement. Is it unrelated? Is the announcement political spin to encourage those who might otherwise be against bailing out commercial real estate property owners to support it? Am I just wrong and this has nothing to do with the CRE crisis?
I was surprised not to see that mentioned at all in the announcement. Is it unrelated? Is the announcement political spin to encourage those who might otherwise be against bailing out commercial real estate property owners to support it? Am I just wrong and this has nothing to do with the CRE crisis?
I don't think it's related to any crisis in CRE. Rather it's related to an ongoing crisis in housing. Boston is short 30 thousand housing units.
Yes CRE vacancy is high in Boston, but it's still far from being a CRE crisis. The share of biotech and healthcare space is so high within Boston CRE that vacancy rate aren't nearly as bad as in other cities. And lab conversions are increasingly commonplace, so it's not like a residential conversion program was necessary to save CRE.
Yes CRE vacancy is high in Boston, but it's still far from being a CRE crisis. The share of biotech and healthcare space is so high within Boston CRE that vacancy rate aren't nearly as bad as in other cities. And lab conversions are increasingly commonplace, so it's not like a residential conversion program was necessary to save CRE.
If we can replace significant amount of urban office space with residents, we can increase city densities a lot, moving people from less to more densely populated places. This is really really important as population density is basically the driver for all progress. Getting people into cities makes them healthier, happier, richer, less polluting, and longer living. This could be the next big driver of progress for western civilisation...
City management done right. Archaic methods of working that required people on site for jobs where it wasn't necessary are out the door. Would be great if uk’s London took the same path. Life there is atrocious, crime levels, pollution and prices are through the roof. Not to mention overcrowding and dirty public transport. Adjusting for more remote work would be game changing as people could live in the suburbs.
Our new office building in boston (Winthrop Center) is doing something I thought was interesting. It's got residences on the upper floors above the office spaces. I hadn't seen that before.
They're grossly luxurious mind you, but it was still interesting.
They're grossly luxurious mind you, but it was still interesting.
fwiw, there's a building my sister lived in in Pittsburgh, the Penn Garrison, it's downtown, not totally sure what the history behind its development is, or what the window related zoning issues are in Pittsburgh, but it has one-bedroom apartments where the bedroom doesn't have any windows.
If you're interested in what it looks like, at least the promotional version of it, https://www.pmcpropertygroup.com/properties/penn-garrison-lo...
If you put enough soft lighting up, it was perfectly fine
If you're interested in what it looks like, at least the promotional version of it, https://www.pmcpropertygroup.com/properties/penn-garrison-lo...
If you put enough soft lighting up, it was perfectly fine
Why would you want to live downtown though? Previously downtown living was attractive because of the short walk to the office. If you're WFH you might as well live somewhere nice.
I don't understand the extremely vocal hate for cities that comes up constantly on HN.
I love living in the city. I can walk to two different movie theaters, two grocery stores, a huge number of restaurants and stores, and a number of my friends' houses within 15 minutes. I can hop on a bus or the subway and expand that even more. I don't have to waste half a day every weekend mowing a pointless lawn or trimming tree branches, but I have parks, rivers, ponds, etc. easily accessible any time I want to enjoy them.
I grew up in a place where you had to drive 30+ minutes to go anywhere. It was incredibly isolating and I'd never want to go back to that.
It's fine for people to want to live like that, but it's obvious that for many (if not most) people, cities are somewhere nice to live.
I love living in the city. I can walk to two different movie theaters, two grocery stores, a huge number of restaurants and stores, and a number of my friends' houses within 15 minutes. I can hop on a bus or the subway and expand that even more. I don't have to waste half a day every weekend mowing a pointless lawn or trimming tree branches, but I have parks, rivers, ponds, etc. easily accessible any time I want to enjoy them.
I grew up in a place where you had to drive 30+ minutes to go anywhere. It was incredibly isolating and I'd never want to go back to that.
It's fine for people to want to live like that, but it's obvious that for many (if not most) people, cities are somewhere nice to live.
[deleted]
Absolutely. I live in Glasgow and it is a perfect environment for walkability, culture, music and great food. Wouldn't live somewhere rural/suburban if you paid me
I love living in the city too, but I work in the office 5 days a week. If I didn't have an office I would be in a smaller city in a nicer part of the world.
I wonder if in the future people will start designing office buildings with this possibility in mind. "With just a few alterations, this could be condos!"
Maybe just make the middle a datacenter that uses that modern HVAC. Datacenter doesn't need windows.
Is anything lamer than vacant office buildings?
IMO, they should consider banning cars in downtown areas (and adding large parking garages just outside them) while they're at it.
They've banned new parking places in Cambridge. They're not fixing the red line or adding parking outside of the city. They're just not allowing more parking inside.
So I have the option of paying $700 a month to park in town or take a bus that only comes by once every hour and then get jammed on a subway car that might even make it to it's destination.
So I have the option of paying $700 a month to park in town or take a bus that only comes by once every hour and then get jammed on a subway car that might even make it to it's destination.
They will have to fix Boston’s horribly broken subway system first.
When I lived in Boston I used the subway a lot and though it was ok. What makes you say it's broken? Has it gotten worse recently?
Since Fall of 2022, there's been a negative spiral within the MBTA. Primarily due to poor maintenance leading to: service cuts, full shutdown of certain lines, and the highest percentage of slow zones in recent history.
Here's a graph of slow zones:
https://old.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/11qtx82/red_line_sl...
They are returning a good chunk of the system back to regular service this Summer, though.
Edit: the slow zones might not be clear on that graph, but at one point the Red Line end-to-end was around 1-1.5 hours slower. Especially bad for commuters.
Here's a graph of slow zones:
https://old.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/11qtx82/red_line_sl...
They are returning a good chunk of the system back to regular service this Summer, though.
Edit: the slow zones might not be clear on that graph, but at one point the Red Line end-to-end was around 1-1.5 hours slower. Especially bad for commuters.
TransitMatters has a nice graph of the problem: https://dashboard.transitmatters.org/slowzones?startDate=202...
the subway only runs from 5:30 to 1am (so good luck getting to the airport for a morning flight). also it's been on fire and slow and often down for maintenance
Red line and blue line don’t connect. You need to take a bus to “connect” them
Or the green line, or the orange line...
Easier to do if you stop having to maintain tons of roadway and can move that money into mass transit.
Housing should not be privatized
It's a fine idea if good candidates for conversion can be found, but shouldn't they fix up their dilapidated public transit system before inviting more density into their urban core?
Just today, one of their rail cars caught fire at an elevated station, and their broken fire suppression system did nothing but flood the ground floor when the firefighters tried to use it.
Wu's push for more housing density along the city's functioning arteries feels more realistic. Maybe they're realizing that plan could also suck a lot of property taxes out of the urban center.
Just today, one of their rail cars caught fire at an elevated station, and their broken fire suppression system did nothing but flood the ground floor when the firefighters tried to use it.
Wu's push for more housing density along the city's functioning arteries feels more realistic. Maybe they're realizing that plan could also suck a lot of property taxes out of the urban center.
I absolutely agree we need to discuss the topic of their dilapidated public transit system. But shouldn't we first solve the problem of how to deal with Richard Stallman's oversized influence on the FSF?
Until we have a truly well-funded FSF filled with both successful projects and sustainable outreach programs that can reach a more diverse set of participants, I'm afraid that the topic of software freedom will continue to be relegated to the sidelines as some kind of fringe religious zeal.
Until we do that, we'd just be replacing one unethically-proprietary fire suppression system with another unethically-proprietary fire suppression system. And riders will just be commuting back and forth between abodes wired with automation systems which do not respect the wishes of the users within them.
Until we have a truly well-funded FSF filled with both successful projects and sustainable outreach programs that can reach a more diverse set of participants, I'm afraid that the topic of software freedom will continue to be relegated to the sidelines as some kind of fringe religious zeal.
Until we do that, we'd just be replacing one unethically-proprietary fire suppression system with another unethically-proprietary fire suppression system. And riders will just be commuting back and forth between abodes wired with automation systems which do not respect the wishes of the users within them.
I believe that part of the issue is the MBTA is a state level organization not city level. Wu doesn't have the power to fix the T. I agree that adding more load to an already crumbling system doesn't seem like a great idea but empty office buildings create their own problems by leaving "Dead" blocks or areas which can invite crime and decay.
Boston isn't in charge of the MBTA, the state is, and the MBTA is mostly in a poor state because it was saddled with debt from the Big Dig.
There's a new general manager, Phillip Eng, who's actually a transit enthusiast rather than some random bureaucrat... if he can't fix the issues plaguing the MBTA no general manager can. This is a long problem though, they're trying to fix decades of unaddressed maintenance issues.
He may be an enthusiast, but one also needs to be a Lyndon Johnson level of bureaucratic bulldozer, I suspect...
Feels more like a sensible compromise between a bailout for commercial real estate holders and helping the city to continue growing. In theory at least.
The T definitely needs some help. But if you're living downtown, it's a very walkable city fwiw.
The T definitely needs some help. But if you're living downtown, it's a very walkable city fwiw.
If you're going to hold solving the housing crisis hostage to having proper public transit infrastructure, we're never going to solve the housing crisis.
Yeah. I realize there are tax breaks in her bill but in theory getting more people living in these dense areas will raise ridership on the subway a lot and raise taxes as a whole - which would pay for things like repairs which the OP complains about.
No amount of ridership or city tax revenue would make the MBTA solvent. It's a sinking ship that is beyond rescue without massive federal intervention. Nobody in MA wants to say that though, because it's an admission of failure.
why is MBTA's solvency relevant to anything? Nobody expects the DOT, or any of the roads and highways they build and maintain to be solvent, or for the police department, or the firefighters to be a profit center for the city.
But as soon as we start talking about public transit, everyone's counting coppers and wringing their hands about the system's solvency.
But as soon as we start talking about public transit, everyone's counting coppers and wringing their hands about the system's solvency.
It will reduce the strain on transportation infrastructure if more people can live close to where they work, or have "reverse" commutes.
Mayor Wu seems like the best mayor in the US. I saw her take a selfie with Bad Bunny backstage at his concert. She's obviously got her pulse on young blood over old blood. I need to learn more about how she thinks. Anyone have a link?
I think this policy is incomplete without ensuring there is enough competition to ensure that rents stay relatively affordable.
more supply = more competition, no?
It depends. If everything is owned by the same management or equity firm, then no.
Sure less owners is bad for competition, but more supply itself creates competition in a sense.
Let's say theres 100 apartments in the entire town, and they are all owned by the same company. Next let's say they build 50 more apartments and theres now 1000 apartments still all owned by the same company. Given the number of apartments has increased, renters now have more power to negotiate as the owners have more units they need to fill.
This is why Tesla for example is dropping prices as they produce more cars and they have inventory vs when they had 6-12 month backlog & scalpers were flipping used vehicles for more than new in 2021-2022.
When supply is severely constrained, you end up with bidding wars for the finite goods.
Let's say theres 100 apartments in the entire town, and they are all owned by the same company. Next let's say they build 50 more apartments and theres now 1000 apartments still all owned by the same company. Given the number of apartments has increased, renters now have more power to negotiate as the owners have more units they need to fill.
This is why Tesla for example is dropping prices as they produce more cars and they have inventory vs when they had 6-12 month backlog & scalpers were flipping used vehicles for more than new in 2021-2022.
When supply is severely constrained, you end up with bidding wars for the finite goods.
> Let's say theres 100 apartments in the entire town, and they are all owned by the same company. Next let's say they build 50 more apartments and theres now 1000 apartments still all owned by the same company. Given the number of apartments has increased, renters now have more power to negotiate as the owners have more units they need to fill.
Unfortunately, that's not what is happening on the ground. In my town, they've built hundreds of units over the past years and rent has gone up. The building facing mine was newly built and I went there to see if I can score some deal and they did not budge at all. Half the building was kept empty for about a year, until the new generations of tech workers moved to the area to occupy them.
It's a numbers game but not the way you think. It's often more lucrative to lose money in the short term but still keep rent expensive for the future. This is why owners are being sued right now for price fixing by using Realpage. See https://mynorthwest.com/3719431/property-owners-accused-of-p...
Unfortunately, that's not what is happening on the ground. In my town, they've built hundreds of units over the past years and rent has gone up. The building facing mine was newly built and I went there to see if I can score some deal and they did not budge at all. Half the building was kept empty for about a year, until the new generations of tech workers moved to the area to occupy them.
It's a numbers game but not the way you think. It's often more lucrative to lose money in the short term but still keep rent expensive for the future. This is why owners are being sued right now for price fixing by using Realpage. See https://mynorthwest.com/3719431/property-owners-accused-of-p...
I think a lot of people mistake cause & effect.
What if the housing is being built because they expect rent to go up?
If supply went up say 5% and rent went up 10%, what do people think would have happened in the 0% supply increase mirror universe?
People can't just make you spend money.
US has been underbuilding housing, especially in blue coastal cities, for generations. The last 25 years has seen a big move back to these cities where everything is getting bid up. And then the surrounding burbs, commuter built, secondary cities, etc follow suit.
If supply went up say 5% and rent went up 10%, what do people think would have happened in the 0% supply increase mirror universe?
People can't just make you spend money.
US has been underbuilding housing, especially in blue coastal cities, for generations. The last 25 years has seen a big move back to these cities where everything is getting bid up. And then the surrounding burbs, commuter built, secondary cities, etc follow suit.
You're talking hypothetical, I'm talking factual and historical. There's no 'what ifs' here. There was price fixing and the courts are going to decide the magnitude. What you're saying is not false, it actually makes it worse, making already scarce housing even more inaccessible. It's actually quite amazing to see homeless people on the streets, service workers commuting hours/week, first responders not being able to afford living locally and at the same time more than half the newly built apartments empty just to help keep the price up.
> as the owners have more units they need to fill.
Or they can leave the units empty. There's no reason all units must be filled.
Or they can leave the units empty. There's no reason all units must be filled.
The idea that a single firm or even a stable cartel could effectively control prices in a market as large as Boston is just naive.
They can just run a cartel [1].
I don’t understand why anyone thinks things like housing can have any competition when housing is not a commodity but a necessity and the margins are rather thin with little to no space for efficiency and innovation, and private equity can just buy apartments and houses.
> In one neighborhood in Seattle, ProPublica found, 70% of apartments were overseen by just 10 property managers, every single one of which used pricing software sold by RealPage.
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-r...
> In one neighborhood in Seattle, ProPublica found, 70% of apartments were overseen by just 10 property managers, every single one of which used pricing software sold by RealPage.
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-r...
Property managers <> owners.
RE investment is very hands on, and people hiring property managers to deal with it on their behalf. The idea that the top 10 own 70% of the market is not a shock.
You could probably do this "top 10 own 70% of __ market" for literally anything.
You could probably do this "top 10 own 70% of __ market" for literally anything.
I think you skipped the last clause of the sentence you're referencing (and forgot to look at the source). The real point is that one software vendor effectively controls all the pricing.
Notice that you omitted the important part:
> every single one of which used pricing software sold by RealPage.
Which makes this effectively a cartel.
> every single one of which used pricing software sold by RealPage.
Which makes this effectively a cartel.
But if everyone uses the same software for rent or the same model to price housing...
A REIT is the worst. One in my town is demanding a 20% rent increase. And also asking for tax breaks. Half the tenants will have to move and their tax money is going to the company forcing them out. The people in the building are in well paying jobs like IT professions not low income or elderly (but they are also facing the same thing).
I have never seen more supply of apartments make existing rents go down.
I had a friend's rent go up 25% in one year in an area that has seen a huge amount of apartment buildings go up. That's not rational. The companies that own these apartment buildings care about nothing more than more money and know that they'll be able to find someone to pay the exhorbant prices.
I had a friend's rent go up 25% in one year in an area that has seen a huge amount of apartment buildings go up. That's not rational. The companies that own these apartment buildings care about nothing more than more money and know that they'll be able to find someone to pay the exhorbant prices.
"know that they'll be able to find someone to pay"
So, you're saying the demand remains greater than the supply?
So, you're saying the demand remains greater than the supply?
What are you getting at?
That is not necessarily the only conclusion that supports that, but it is one. A lot of urban designers just think that building apartment buildings will help with the demand problem in the same way that people think building highways alleviates congestion, which perhaps surprisingly urban designers know that that doesn't work for highways. And I see no evidence, at least in big metropolitan areas like Boston with a huge amount of attraction, that building supply does anything to ease demand. If anything, it increases it.
I would argue that demand in major cities will never go down. In particular, the greater Boston area has more than 500,000 college students. Many of those graduate and stay and work in the area and many more graduates move into the greater Boston area to work. It's a big area with lots of growing fields with a lot of professional people moving into. Demand is simply not going to go down for apartments, and the demand for housing shows no signs of slowing either.
A bit of my point was that landlords siphon off money from society knowing how important housing is to people and will charge the absolute maximum they can get away with. It's predatory.
That is not necessarily the only conclusion that supports that, but it is one. A lot of urban designers just think that building apartment buildings will help with the demand problem in the same way that people think building highways alleviates congestion, which perhaps surprisingly urban designers know that that doesn't work for highways. And I see no evidence, at least in big metropolitan areas like Boston with a huge amount of attraction, that building supply does anything to ease demand. If anything, it increases it.
I would argue that demand in major cities will never go down. In particular, the greater Boston area has more than 500,000 college students. Many of those graduate and stay and work in the area and many more graduates move into the greater Boston area to work. It's a big area with lots of growing fields with a lot of professional people moving into. Demand is simply not going to go down for apartments, and the demand for housing shows no signs of slowing either.
A bit of my point was that landlords siphon off money from society knowing how important housing is to people and will charge the absolute maximum they can get away with. It's predatory.
You absolutely could build your way out of highway traffic given sufficient lanes. However, given the constraints of land and how density inefficient cars are, you'd have to build double or even triple (etc) decker highways all over the place, which is totally economically infeasible.
Meanwhile, you can build a shitton of lanes out in the exurbs, sure, but then all the cars on your thirty lane highway have to go somewhere when they get into the city and land is a lot more scarce.
Meanwhile, you can build a shitton of lanes out in the exurbs, sure, but then all the cars on your thirty lane highway have to go somewhere when they get into the city and land is a lot more scarce.
[deleted]
What is the alternative to building more housing in a world where demand exceeds supply, we've been underbuilding in blue rich coastal cities for generations, and young people need places to live?
That's because companies only build new housing in booming areas. Plus, it's incredibly rare to get a large amount of housing "at once" in a metropolitan area, such that you could see the effects.
IIRC, there are studies that show that places that built more housing had smaller price increases than economically comparable places that built less housing.
IIRC, there are studies that show that places that built more housing had smaller price increases than economically comparable places that built less housing.
You didn't live in the world where the extra supply of apartments didn't exist. Maybe the rents didn't go down, but you don't know how high they would have gotten.
Positive effects can exist even if they don't singlehandedly flip a decades long trend.
Positive effects can exist even if they don't singlehandedly flip a decades long trend.
Your rent is only going to go down if you move. Your landlord knows you're willing to pay the current rate, they're not incentivized to lower it.
Same in New York City where I live. A major reason is that the demand curve is effectively vertical - people here who would like to buy a home to live in are not competing just with other residents but with a global investor class who want to park capital in NYC property (and expect an appreciation rate that far exceeds inflation).
Supply and demand is the oldest, most obvious economic relationship in existence.
And yet it doesn't correctly model the situation. This isn't rabbits and foxes.
Prices in his area went up, because of gentrification, but it relaxed demand in other parts of the city.
Even if prices in other parts went up, they would have gone up even more if there had been no construction.
Even if prices in other parts went up, they would have gone up even more if there had been no construction.
because supply has almost never outpaced demand in these cities
Under what conditions or reality will supply ever outpace demand in big cities like Boston or New York? I don't think it's physically, realistically, or pragmatically possible.
Well it happened to Commercial RE because of COVID, which was seemingly unthinkable. So now we want to convert some to residential.
What other unthinkable future could lead to a change in net migration out of urban areas rather than into urban areas? Happened ~1950->1990s. Flipped 2000-2020s. Could flip back? Who knows!
What other unthinkable future could lead to a change in net migration out of urban areas rather than into urban areas? Happened ~1950->1990s. Flipped 2000-2020s. Could flip back? Who knows!
Was the situation with retail real estate really unthinkable? Retail had been in decline several years prior to 2020.
it’s not, so short of the economy collapsing more housing won’t reverse pricing it will only slow it… this is expected
One thing he talked about, which I didn't know anyone did, was to actually cut through the ceiling/floorplate of buildings to basically "donut" them.
This is necessary because many office floorplans are huge with modern HVAC and when converted into residential you end up with either undesirable or illegal apartments due to lack of windows/egress/etc.
Apparently they've done it a few times. Of course only some buildings can support this, given the layout of the supports, mechanicals, etc.