Remote work is gutting downtowns(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
Remote work is gutting downtowns
https://www.businessinsider.com/remote-work-gutted-city-downtowns-office-real-estate-apocalypse-2022-12
261 comments
Not sure what you read there but the roughly $500B figure is a real loss in the commercial real-estate sector as leases some off the books. It’s a slow burn.
There’s an additional expense to try to repurpose these building as residential but it’s a massive one that won’t come easily. You can’t just turn modern office buildings into residential building by reworking the interior. Most wouldn’t meet residential codes (like bedrooms needing windows, emergency egress, additional plumbing and waste requirements, parking etc)
Commercial real estate is going to take a massive hit the next 3-4 years and that $435B number is a real estimate in the decline in commercial real-estate value. It comes from this study.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30526/w305...
There’s an additional expense to try to repurpose these building as residential but it’s a massive one that won’t come easily. You can’t just turn modern office buildings into residential building by reworking the interior. Most wouldn’t meet residential codes (like bedrooms needing windows, emergency egress, additional plumbing and waste requirements, parking etc)
Commercial real estate is going to take a massive hit the next 3-4 years and that $435B number is a real estimate in the decline in commercial real-estate value. It comes from this study.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30526/w305...
If ever there was an industry that I feel zero sympathy for when I hear about them taking a loss, it's large scale real-estate, especially the ones who own large urban centres and turned them into grey wastelands of offices, parking, and shopping.
"Commercial real estate is going to take a massive hit the next 3-4 years and that $435B number is a real estimate in the decline in commercial real-estate value."
That doesn't really hurt my feelings that much, outside of the 401(k) and IRA holders who will lose a lot of retirement money. Hopefully the plan admins and financial people involved in those plans will start dumping commercial real estate in favor of something with more legs before that 3-4 years is up.
That doesn't really hurt my feelings that much, outside of the 401(k) and IRA holders who will lose a lot of retirement money. Hopefully the plan admins and financial people involved in those plans will start dumping commercial real estate in favor of something with more legs before that 3-4 years is up.
It's easier to turn office buildings into luxury apartments than into affordable ones -- a single 3000 square foot apartment has more layout flexibility, fewer plumbing & parking requirements, fewer emergency exits than five 600 square foot ones, et cetera.
Advocates aren't going to be happy about 3000 square foot luxury apartments rather than affordable ones...
Advocates aren't going to be happy about 3000 square foot luxury apartments rather than affordable ones...
This is a good point. Downtowns might easily move from drab office parks to unaffordable places for rich people.
[deleted]
Even as higher income people become more geographically distributed, they'll naturally support locavore options, cultural event spaces, an so on, in smaller town centers.
I do wish there were more resources to help places experiencing rapid influx manage growth more intelligently. Towns shouldn't have to endure a big box store phase before investing in livable forms.
I do wish there were more resources to help places experiencing rapid influx manage growth more intelligently. Towns shouldn't have to endure a big box store phase before investing in livable forms.
Well said. I work from home, yet I still live in Washington DC. The downtown gradually becoming more fun and livable is a good thing, despite the pain and financial loss that'll happen over the next decade to get there.
Good. Feel the "hand of the free market" at last throttling the antiquated obese market that is business property.
As automation and communication improves, so should corporate policy restructure and reform into the most efficient system. Dragging people across the country every day and filling the air with burnt dinosaur just because the old people in power can't figure out how to adapt is pathetic.
New management styles are needed that incentivise the timekeeping of results over the timekeeping of presence.
Yeah seriously. Remote work is nothing new. It's been picking up steam, the pandemic just accelerated the shit out of it. The people/investors/whatever that bought these buildings for commercial purposes made a gamble and didn't prepare for the future. That's on them, not remote work. If I go buy a gas-guzzling Porsche today and its price depreciates to nothing because a sudden influx of more efficient and performant electric cars are released, that's on me for making a bad investment and not observing the trends.
This reminds of when I worked for Hollywood Video Corporate (video rental business) in 2010 and the VP was telling us that brick and mortar video rental would eventually beat back streaming media. Every indicator was suggesting a different path and they chose to ignore it. They're gone now, streaming media is here to stay. Remote work is here to stay.
This reminds of when I worked for Hollywood Video Corporate (video rental business) in 2010 and the VP was telling us that brick and mortar video rental would eventually beat back streaming media. Every indicator was suggesting a different path and they chose to ignore it. They're gone now, streaming media is here to stay. Remote work is here to stay.
I remember Hollywood Video! When I was in High School my family and I subscribed to their monthly rental plan, lots of good memories there.
The problem is the tax base shrinks but police budgets never do.
I had a long talk with a Chicago born cab driver when visiting a few years back. He explained to me that Chicago used to be a conventional city where the businesses were downtown and residential was a donut around that. Traffic was congested into downtown in the mornings and out of downtown in the evenings. As the city grew and commutes into downtown from the suburbs worsened, the businesses started moving out of downtown into the suburbs to be closer to their employees. This left downtown with low occupancy. A few people eventually got wise to the situation and started turning a lot of the unused downtown commercial space into residential space. Fast forward to today and the traffic patterns have reversed, with congestion out of downtown in the morning as people commute out towards the ring of businesses and into downtown in the evening where people now live.
I see this same trend happening in Houston where I live now and I suspect it is happening in other large car-centric cities as well.
I see this same trend happening in Houston where I live now and I suspect it is happening in other large car-centric cities as well.
I live in the Chicago area and this is just not true on a large scale at all. The commute into downtown Chicago on a weekday morning is extremely busy (especially pre-COVID), whether by car or rail. The reverse direction is nearly empty. Even as I write this at 9:15am (with rush hour ebbing), you can see this for yourself on Google Maps - the inbound lanes on all the highway arteries are all orange/red, the outbound lanes are all green.
For a long time, my office was always in the suburbs. Out of the 100s of people I knew in the office, I only ever heard of maybe a dozen living in the city and reverse commuting. They were always fresh out of college, and all gave up that lifestyle after a couple years because commuting out to the suburbs each day is challenging and time-consuming (no easy way to get from the rail station to the office, for instance).
Our company decided to move their headquarters into the city "to attract younger talent" a few years before COVID. What actually happened is that over the course of several years, the vast majority of people assigned to the new downtown office slowly stopped coming in at all and now nearly everyone works from home, and COVID of course only accelerated that. The younger people that live in the city are almost always on Zoom when they join meetings so it doesn't seem like they're taking advantage of the office much either now. Also, there were a small number of people who lived in the suburbs but favored city life who moved back into the city when the office moved there. However, anecdotally every single one of them that I know moved back out to the suburbs in 2020/2021 because they all became trapped in their small apartments with nowhere else to go because Chicago shut everything down for an extended period of time. Now that things are open again, no one that I know has moved back, and our office downtown is still a ghost town. On the rare occasion I've gone in, it's not uncommon to be the only person present on an entire floor of the building. I don't know how long the lease is but I have to imagine we'll scale way back on the space when it expires.
For a long time, my office was always in the suburbs. Out of the 100s of people I knew in the office, I only ever heard of maybe a dozen living in the city and reverse commuting. They were always fresh out of college, and all gave up that lifestyle after a couple years because commuting out to the suburbs each day is challenging and time-consuming (no easy way to get from the rail station to the office, for instance).
Our company decided to move their headquarters into the city "to attract younger talent" a few years before COVID. What actually happened is that over the course of several years, the vast majority of people assigned to the new downtown office slowly stopped coming in at all and now nearly everyone works from home, and COVID of course only accelerated that. The younger people that live in the city are almost always on Zoom when they join meetings so it doesn't seem like they're taking advantage of the office much either now. Also, there were a small number of people who lived in the suburbs but favored city life who moved back into the city when the office moved there. However, anecdotally every single one of them that I know moved back out to the suburbs in 2020/2021 because they all became trapped in their small apartments with nowhere else to go because Chicago shut everything down for an extended period of time. Now that things are open again, no one that I know has moved back, and our office downtown is still a ghost town. On the rare occasion I've gone in, it's not uncommon to be the only person present on an entire floor of the building. I don't know how long the lease is but I have to imagine we'll scale way back on the space when it expires.
I wonder what the transit modes look like on a macro scale for those who move downtown. Anecdotally, it seems common for those who move to downtown Chicago to get rid of their car as a spot in a safe area can easily run $300 a month, and with a payment, maintenance, and insurance it really adds up. Being so close to all the major train lines, I myself have switched entirely to public/shared transit.
> Fast forward to today and the traffic patterns have reversed, with congestion out of downtown in the morning as people commute out towards the ring of businesses and into downtown in the evening where people now live.
Not really true in my experience, having been around here for going on 20 years.
If anything, businesses had been (pre-covid) moving suburban campuses to downtown locations over that time.
The commute into the city in the AM, and out at PM is still the worst. Although worse may not look like much of a difference many days if you're not from around here.
Patterns have certainly shifted some after covid, but not enough to flip the commute as described.
Not really true in my experience, having been around here for going on 20 years.
If anything, businesses had been (pre-covid) moving suburban campuses to downtown locations over that time.
The commute into the city in the AM, and out at PM is still the worst. Although worse may not look like much of a difference many days if you're not from around here.
Patterns have certainly shifted some after covid, but not enough to flip the commute as described.
I’m really pleased to get a local rebuttal. The conversation I spoke of happened a little over a decade ago and I’ve been curious ever since if it was a momentary perspective or a longer term trend. Did you see anything around 10 years ago that would agree with my cab driver’s thesis or was he off base then as well?
Sorry I missed this. I think perhaps 30-40 years ago the cabbie would have had a point, but a weak one. If he was around back then he probably watched people and companies leaving the city.
The past 20 years have been the opposite though - suburban campuses relocating downtown, and at least on the North side of the city you saw a ton of urban renewal during that time. While Chicago saw net population loss, it saw a lot of growth elsewhere in the city.
You came across one of the more common "wives tale" tropes cabbies will tell you though. I've probably heard similar a dozen times over the years. You just nod and smile :)
The past 20 years have been the opposite though - suburban campuses relocating downtown, and at least on the North side of the city you saw a ton of urban renewal during that time. While Chicago saw net population loss, it saw a lot of growth elsewhere in the city.
You came across one of the more common "wives tale" tropes cabbies will tell you though. I've probably heard similar a dozen times over the years. You just nod and smile :)
This really just is not true. If anything the opposite is happening. Pre pandemic at least suburban office parks had been closing and moving employees into the city en mass. Downtown certainly hasn’t fully recovered from covid, but commute traffic is back to stand still levels and the train is back to standing room only.
So SF is interesting, I grew up here. In the early days of the internet I always considered the oracle buildings the northern edge of SV. Took a developer job at TechTV in SF in 99 when SOMA was known as “multimedia gulch” and had a reverse commute from Portola Valley to SF. Mid 2000 SV extended into SF as more of the new Unicorns, Twitter and Zynga (who moved into the office space on Townsend where I had worked) were early ones with the rise of Social Media. That shifted the commute patterns both ways and led to the start of the Google bus.
Patterns haven’t seemed to reverse really but it’s still easier these days to commute I the Bay Area then it was pre-pandemic.
Patterns haven’t seemed to reverse really but it’s still easier these days to commute I the Bay Area then it was pre-pandemic.
So, what is the solution? Force everyone back into the pointless office at enormous cost to employees and employers just to keep the status quo for landlords. The bottom line is downtown is a place where people work with information. Since it is possible to work with information anywhere, this place isn't needed (and hasn't been for a long time). Downtown obsolete.
Walkable cities with mixed use development. Change the use of downtown.
change use of the suburbs?
To what?
Walkable cities with mixed use development.
Someplace people want to live, work, and play.
Some of the existing high-rise offices should be repurposed into housing, retail, etc.
Some of the existing high-rise offices should be repurposed into housing, retail, etc.
Mixed-use high-rises are really cool. You can go to the mall, the gym, the pool, see a movie, go to the dentist, or go grocery shopping just by taking the elevator. They almost feel like resorts you can live in.
A place where people live.
I'm not from the US - what is downtown used for today?
In many, probably almost all US cities any downtown areas is used for "business" - i.e. commercial offices. The living pattern is you wake up, drive anywhere from 10-40 miles, 10 minutes to 2 hours, and you park your car in a parking garage and then walk a block to a skyscraper where you go up into an office area.
After World War II the US built highways that destroyed most cities. Take a look at the 1949 image and then the 1981 to get an idea [1]. The root cause of many of America's continued problems, ranging from racism and classism, to oil and car dependency are linked to what we did over the years.
[1] https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/24/7-photos-show-how-det...
After World War II the US built highways that destroyed most cities. Take a look at the 1949 image and then the 1981 to get an idea [1]. The root cause of many of America's continued problems, ranging from racism and classism, to oil and car dependency are linked to what we did over the years.
[1] https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/24/7-photos-show-how-det...
Depends how you define "downtown"...
Most US cities have a central business district that is majority commercial office space, with just enough retail/dining to let workers take lunch breaks. These are the areas that are dying. No workers, so the surrounding retail/dining is failing.
Back in the 50s/60s, white flight was a problem for cities - most of the middle class, white families moved to the suburbs. Most cities didn't have a large tax base that lived inside the city. That started to change over the last 20 years or so. Couple that with off-shoring or moving of heavy industry out of city cores and cities will struggle financially without white-collar/knowledge workers commuting in and spending money.
Western Europe doesn't have the same level of suburban sprawl.
Edit - the white flight I mention is closely related to the inner-city highways mentioned in the sibling comment. Suburban workers needed to get downtown, so (usually minority) neighborhoods were split in two or destroyed to built highways from the outskirts into the CBD.
Most US cities have a central business district that is majority commercial office space, with just enough retail/dining to let workers take lunch breaks. These are the areas that are dying. No workers, so the surrounding retail/dining is failing.
Back in the 50s/60s, white flight was a problem for cities - most of the middle class, white families moved to the suburbs. Most cities didn't have a large tax base that lived inside the city. That started to change over the last 20 years or so. Couple that with off-shoring or moving of heavy industry out of city cores and cities will struggle financially without white-collar/knowledge workers commuting in and spending money.
Western Europe doesn't have the same level of suburban sprawl.
Edit - the white flight I mention is closely related to the inner-city highways mentioned in the sibling comment. Suburban workers needed to get downtown, so (usually minority) neighborhoods were split in two or destroyed to built highways from the outskirts into the CBD.
I grew up in Houston, Texas. As a kid I remember downtown as being 1. Big office buildings with parking garages. 2. Concert halls & auditoriums. 3. City and county facilities. 4. Restaurants catering to the visitors of the above. 5. Sears & Roebuck department store.
Nobody lived downtown, and most of it was dead after working hours. Most of the office buildings had no street-level retail shops at all – there was no reason to go there except to work, or in the case of 2-3 of them, to visit the observation deck on the upper floor. The small area where (2) were concentrated didn't even have much in the way of restaurants or shops open. If you worked there, you drove downtown in the morning, came home in the evening. If you wanted to a concert, play, or ballet, you drove downtown, enjoyed the show, then drove home.
There was, and is, one unique thing about Houston. The tunnels. There is a network of underground walkways and areas connecting many of the buildings. There are some restaurants and shops, and during the lunch hour the area was packed. But you couldn't get to those tunnels without going into one of the office buildings, and they were only open working hours. Most of the stuff in the tunnels opened at 10am and closed at 2pm.
Nobody lived downtown, and most of it was dead after working hours. Most of the office buildings had no street-level retail shops at all – there was no reason to go there except to work, or in the case of 2-3 of them, to visit the observation deck on the upper floor. The small area where (2) were concentrated didn't even have much in the way of restaurants or shops open. If you worked there, you drove downtown in the morning, came home in the evening. If you wanted to a concert, play, or ballet, you drove downtown, enjoyed the show, then drove home.
There was, and is, one unique thing about Houston. The tunnels. There is a network of underground walkways and areas connecting many of the buildings. There are some restaurants and shops, and during the lunch hour the area was packed. But you couldn't get to those tunnels without going into one of the office buildings, and they were only open working hours. Most of the stuff in the tunnels opened at 10am and closed at 2pm.
Predominantly, downtowns will have a financial, medical, and government district.
Government: police, city hall, courthouse, administration for city, county, state, and federal agencies.
Medical: usually a major or university hospital with various outpatient services in nearby.
Financial: banks, banking services, property and financial services.
Typically, just these 3 things were enough to compromise over 50% of commercial downtown properties. We're not even approaching cities that have a major HQ or specialty (manufacturing, tech, media, print).
For a lot of cities once a major tenant moved out, they really only had government and medical as the city's economic engines.
My city I've watched transform from being a violent, crack infest dump to a very desirable, fair weather place to be. And because of the loss of so much commercial business in the 90s they managed to avoid the glut of commercial properties. We pivoted to residential/mixed-use development in 2003 and it's really paying off now.
Our downtown doesn't do anything in particular (except maybe crypto) except be a place for socializing.
Government: police, city hall, courthouse, administration for city, county, state, and federal agencies.
Medical: usually a major or university hospital with various outpatient services in nearby.
Financial: banks, banking services, property and financial services.
Typically, just these 3 things were enough to compromise over 50% of commercial downtown properties. We're not even approaching cities that have a major HQ or specialty (manufacturing, tech, media, print).
For a lot of cities once a major tenant moved out, they really only had government and medical as the city's economic engines.
My city I've watched transform from being a violent, crack infest dump to a very desirable, fair weather place to be. And because of the loss of so much commercial business in the 90s they managed to avoid the glut of commercial properties. We pivoted to residential/mixed-use development in 2003 and it's really paying off now.
Our downtown doesn't do anything in particular (except maybe crypto) except be a place for socializing.
I'm confused (and I'm from the US). People do live in downtown areas, so I'm not sure what the posters are getting at.
Homeless encampments.
Corporate hellscape mostly
Manipulating information (i.e. editing bytes) mostly.
There isn’t a mechanism to “force” anyone. With few exceptions, companies lease their office space. A few companies may try to force employees to sit in a leased office to feed the sunk cost fallacy, but that won’t last. Only the most incompetent management will renew leases to support employees who don’t want to be there in the first place.
The actual solution is large scale conversion of commercial real estate to residential. Some people like being downtown, with population density, ability to walk to lots of restaurants, etc. And converting ~60% of office space to residential will drive costs down, reducing financial motivations to move out of the city.
Property owners are fucked, and will see much lower returns than they expected. Some will go bankrupt. Buildings financed by banks may see foreclosure/auction, and some banks will lose money. That’s what interest is for.
But eventually these buildings will have new owners that bought them at appropriate prices, and new purposes as residences, and downtown will probably be an even better place to live, with a population that doesn’t go home to the suburbs every night.
tl;dr: probably a good thing for downtown; invest in office-to-apartment conversion companies.
The actual solution is large scale conversion of commercial real estate to residential. Some people like being downtown, with population density, ability to walk to lots of restaurants, etc. And converting ~60% of office space to residential will drive costs down, reducing financial motivations to move out of the city.
Property owners are fucked, and will see much lower returns than they expected. Some will go bankrupt. Buildings financed by banks may see foreclosure/auction, and some banks will lose money. That’s what interest is for.
But eventually these buildings will have new owners that bought them at appropriate prices, and new purposes as residences, and downtown will probably be an even better place to live, with a population that doesn’t go home to the suburbs every night.
tl;dr: probably a good thing for downtown; invest in office-to-apartment conversion companies.
Hopefully!
Keep in mind that other alternatives are possible, including “St. Louis and Detroit in the 80s-2000s” style downward spiral into blight.
I have no interest in bailing out billion dollar property holding companies, but we need to do everything possible to encourage positive development. It does seem like many cities get it, the high line in particular seems to have spawned a dozen imitators which is awesome.
Keep in mind that other alternatives are possible, including “St. Louis and Detroit in the 80s-2000s” style downward spiral into blight.
I have no interest in bailing out billion dollar property holding companies, but we need to do everything possible to encourage positive development. It does seem like many cities get it, the high line in particular seems to have spawned a dozen imitators which is awesome.
Large office towers just do not convert to residential very well. It can be done, it can be tolerated, it's just not a very good or competitive product, while also being very expensive to implement. One example, People walk a few blocks from the parking garage to their place of employment, but in most cities, people will not walk a few blocks from the parking garage to their home.
Adding insult to injury, office towers that have been constructed in the last 50 years are very expensive to maintain, mechanical systems are expensive and complicated, requires a full-time staff to run. They were built for utilization at very different price point.
Adding insult to injury, office towers that have been constructed in the last 50 years are very expensive to maintain, mechanical systems are expensive and complicated, requires a full-time staff to run. They were built for utilization at very different price point.
> It can be done, it can be tolerated, it's just not a very good or competitive product
I agree with everything you said, just want to highlight that this quote is the classic statement of a business opportunity.
There is a VC pitch here: a company that acquired distressed office space at scale, from panicked sellers, and with the expertise to do these conversions in a systematic, cost-optimized way.
Banks are going to want to unload these properties as soon as they appear, for dirt cheap. Someone is going to make a lot of money by approaching the issue as a tech problem.
I agree with everything you said, just want to highlight that this quote is the classic statement of a business opportunity.
There is a VC pitch here: a company that acquired distressed office space at scale, from panicked sellers, and with the expertise to do these conversions in a systematic, cost-optimized way.
Banks are going to want to unload these properties as soon as they appear, for dirt cheap. Someone is going to make a lot of money by approaching the issue as a tech problem.
I work in the adaptive reuse industry converting history office buildings into hotels or apartments. We've looked at a number of modern era office towers, and housing is simply not viable. To your point though.. ironically, urban factories and warehousing seems to me to be the best use. Can you build a small electric vehicle or iPhones with the assembly line going from top to bottom?
Banks are already there for unloading these properties. I can show you million-square-foot office towers today that are essentially free to acquire, but you get to pay tax, insurance, maintenance, keeping the lights on and functioning for any future use, a few million a year minimum, with no revenue.
Some groups thought they could mine bitcoin, but the floor fell out of that. At the end of the day, since there are substantial costs involved with the tower itself relative to a warehouse, the tower should used for something that also requires a large number of people. A datacenter-type use is best if located near cheap electricity - not usually city centers.
Lastly, office towers are usually located amongst excellent mass transit, even in cities with poor transit options, but the typical office tenant (bankers, lawyers, financiers) will not accept mass transit as an alternative to 1 parking space per employee. But factory workers will if it works!
Banks are already there for unloading these properties. I can show you million-square-foot office towers today that are essentially free to acquire, but you get to pay tax, insurance, maintenance, keeping the lights on and functioning for any future use, a few million a year minimum, with no revenue.
Some groups thought they could mine bitcoin, but the floor fell out of that. At the end of the day, since there are substantial costs involved with the tower itself relative to a warehouse, the tower should used for something that also requires a large number of people. A datacenter-type use is best if located near cheap electricity - not usually city centers.
Lastly, office towers are usually located amongst excellent mass transit, even in cities with poor transit options, but the typical office tenant (bankers, lawyers, financiers) will not accept mass transit as an alternative to 1 parking space per employee. But factory workers will if it works!
Super interested in your industry!
What makes conversion of office towers to housing not viable? It's easy for me to imagine a lot of objections to converting one building, but hard to imagine insurmountable difficulties in converting 1000, where you can amortize R&D and specialized equipment across a huge number of properties.
So, if you don't mind humoring me, can you sketch the worst / most expensive / most technically difficult requirements for converting an office tower to apartments? I suspect you're probably right, given you've got domain knowledge and I don't, it just feels like one of those problems that becomes more tractable at scale.
What makes conversion of office towers to housing not viable? It's easy for me to imagine a lot of objections to converting one building, but hard to imagine insurmountable difficulties in converting 1000, where you can amortize R&D and specialized equipment across a huge number of properties.
So, if you don't mind humoring me, can you sketch the worst / most expensive / most technically difficult requirements for converting an office tower to apartments? I suspect you're probably right, given you've got domain knowledge and I don't, it just feels like one of those problems that becomes more tractable at scale.
Think of the layout of a modern office tower. Nearly open floor plans, one or two multi-user bathrooms per floor, one or two kitchenettes per floor. Designs optimized for ingress and egress via a single path. Sound abatement is minimal. Support columns are in the open.
So at minimum, you would need to plumb and power each "apartment" which would require essentially a complete replacement of the plumbing in place, as well as the electricity. And since the units are distinct, you would need to meter and isolate each unit. You would need to ensure that each "apartment" had a reasonable exit for fire safety reasons. You are restricted by architectural/engineering decisions that were based on an open layout (aforementioned supports).
Think of it this way, have you ever seen the progress as a tower is built? Isn't it remarkable how the "shell" or exterior seems to get finished in a blink, but the rest of the "innards" take 4 or 5 times as long to finish? In this case, most of the "innards" would need to be re-worked. Huge capital investment with unclear returns (nobody wants to live among the blight that a lot of west coast city centers are seeing).
So at minimum, you would need to plumb and power each "apartment" which would require essentially a complete replacement of the plumbing in place, as well as the electricity. And since the units are distinct, you would need to meter and isolate each unit. You would need to ensure that each "apartment" had a reasonable exit for fire safety reasons. You are restricted by architectural/engineering decisions that were based on an open layout (aforementioned supports).
Think of it this way, have you ever seen the progress as a tower is built? Isn't it remarkable how the "shell" or exterior seems to get finished in a blink, but the rest of the "innards" take 4 or 5 times as long to finish? In this case, most of the "innards" would need to be re-worked. Huge capital investment with unclear returns (nobody wants to live among the blight that a lot of west coast city centers are seeing).
All good points, but given the prospect of getting a building essentially for free (minus tax/maintenance) and having substantial one-time costs... that sounds like a pretty good deal.
Many office towers have much higher ceilings than typical apartment buildings. Pretty sure a 12" subfloor would solve many of the issues you raise. And many office towers are designed to support multiple tenants per floor.
I'm not dismissing the difficulty, just saying that the scale economics seem very attractive for a high fixed cost, low variable cost, long term annuity investment. I'm either wrong or ahead of my time, but it's not like I've got the funding to put money where my mouth is.
> the blight that a lot of west coast city centers are seeing
I don't see how that's relevant. The shift to WFH is global; these problems/opportunities are just as real in London or Sydney or Shanghai.
Many office towers have much higher ceilings than typical apartment buildings. Pretty sure a 12" subfloor would solve many of the issues you raise. And many office towers are designed to support multiple tenants per floor.
I'm not dismissing the difficulty, just saying that the scale economics seem very attractive for a high fixed cost, low variable cost, long term annuity investment. I'm either wrong or ahead of my time, but it's not like I've got the funding to put money where my mouth is.
> the blight that a lot of west coast city centers are seeing
I don't see how that's relevant. The shift to WFH is global; these problems/opportunities are just as real in London or Sydney or Shanghai.
I was being purposeful not to extrapolate out to cities/cultures I do not personally know or have experienced. I can speak only for the Western USA, which is why I tried to limit that comment to that region. I am sure other locales have other unique circumstances.
If you search for it you will find a fairly recent episode of KQED "forum" that discussed this topic for a full hour.
Thank you! FYI it’s from October 6th.
Thank you! Will find and listen.
Not everything is a tech problem requiring a VC. This just seems like old fashioned real estate investing.
There is no need to "solve" every change.
In fact, there's a need to roll with every change and use the opportunity to improve. We can repurpose old office towers for housing - Houston does it all the time. We can narrow streets that don't see daily commuter crushes - we can use this opportunity to build a better world.
Half of the article talks about solutions. The last 2 sections are: "It's about new housing, stupid" and "The birth of the central social district"
[deleted]
Convert offices to apartments to alleviate the housing supply shortage.
That turns out to be surprisingly hard.
Offices and housing look similar from the outside, but are quite different on the inside, and both practical and regulatory problems are quite large.
Offices and housing look similar from the outside, but are quite different on the inside, and both practical and regulatory problems are quite large.
I guess it's all up to the next best alternative.
If you've got offices that can't lease, the only thing left to do is sell it at a price a developer thinks they can turn a profit
If you've got offices that can't lease, the only thing left to do is sell it at a price a developer thinks they can turn a profit
I'm sure it's not simple. It would have to be backed by some public policy.
I bet Americans, especially those <30yrs old, will appreciate having a sub 600 USD a month apartment in a big city with no parking, shared kitchen, and share bathroom. Because the alternative is having a roommate and paying 1000 USD+.
My city has a few neat adaptive reuse projects right now converting office building to residential buildings. I really hope the concept works out.
A bit off topic; I of course understand that I'm an odd situation and not representative of the broader trend at play here... But moving into remote work inspired my partner and I to move into Manhattan from the sprawling car driven nightmare that was Phoenix.
Tiny little studio, but we've never been particularly materialistic, a murphy bed massively opens up the space, and no office to go into means once the day is over we're a step or short train ride to really anything we could imagine doing without having to worry about gas/Uber pricing. Went for a lovely bike ride early in the morning, the city is practically dead at ~4:30AM. Whole Foods is just as expensive as it was in the suburbs of Phoenix, and our local Trader Joes is cheaper than the Fry's (Kroger) was out West. Then you have the street produce that absolutely slaughters any prices I've seen anywhere.
It's a little bit of work to find reasonably priced restaurants, admittedly, but there still are 6-10$ plates out here if you have the patience to look. I do miss In-N-Out.
Though really I think this is an indictment of the current state of Phoenix more than it is a reason to praise Manhattan... I'm sure any of the many lovely "flyover" states in-between would have much more livable pricing, and the drive cross-country showed that Arizona has some of the highest gas prices in the country.
Plan to move onto Wisconsin after a couple years, another plus of working remote (with companies that are very open/willing to support us in that choice).
Tiny little studio, but we've never been particularly materialistic, a murphy bed massively opens up the space, and no office to go into means once the day is over we're a step or short train ride to really anything we could imagine doing without having to worry about gas/Uber pricing. Went for a lovely bike ride early in the morning, the city is practically dead at ~4:30AM. Whole Foods is just as expensive as it was in the suburbs of Phoenix, and our local Trader Joes is cheaper than the Fry's (Kroger) was out West. Then you have the street produce that absolutely slaughters any prices I've seen anywhere.
It's a little bit of work to find reasonably priced restaurants, admittedly, but there still are 6-10$ plates out here if you have the patience to look. I do miss In-N-Out.
Though really I think this is an indictment of the current state of Phoenix more than it is a reason to praise Manhattan... I'm sure any of the many lovely "flyover" states in-between would have much more livable pricing, and the drive cross-country showed that Arizona has some of the highest gas prices in the country.
Plan to move onto Wisconsin after a couple years, another plus of working remote (with companies that are very open/willing to support us in that choice).
You don't mention children, but that's an important data point. Your small apartment is suddenly smaller, and if you want to be in a good public school district, your rent options are now a lot more expensive. Or you can go private, and suddenly discover brand new ways to have no money.
A lot of singles and DINKs like this sort of arrangement, but a community that has few or no children is dying, if not already dead.
Mobility is less of an option once you have children embedded into the community. Moving across the country is exciting and fun, until it means uprooting your kids. That's how a city, town, neighborhood maintains stability. Transients are not a long-term solution.
Cities chased out families with ever-increasing costs. This worked okay as long as business needed to be conducted in cities. That's no longer the case, turning our urban centers into glorified roadside RV parks.
A lot of singles and DINKs like this sort of arrangement, but a community that has few or no children is dying, if not already dead.
Mobility is less of an option once you have children embedded into the community. Moving across the country is exciting and fun, until it means uprooting your kids. That's how a city, town, neighborhood maintains stability. Transients are not a long-term solution.
Cities chased out families with ever-increasing costs. This worked okay as long as business needed to be conducted in cities. That's no longer the case, turning our urban centers into glorified roadside RV parks.
I'd love to move to NY but yeah, I have kids now and moving them from the acreage and amazing school district we have now is just not really an option.
I see a LOT of people moving to NYC for this reason. Not Midtown or the Financial District, mind you - the UES, UWS, Williamsburg, etc. I did it. I don't commute but am so much happier here than with more space in suburbia.
> Not Midtown or the Financial District, mind you...
Ha!
Imagine if, as in EU cities, one could live above one's shops and workplaces, with no car needed -- and no transit as part of the daily routine!
Very few places in USA is this feasible at scale, NYC being one of the few. Even there, when I preferred to walk (no transit) to work which required me to live in Midtown, I was looked at like I was nuts -- why wouldn't you live in Brooklyn or Upper West Side or Chelsea or East Village?
Because my aim was to not spend life on a commute.
Love that you don't commute, shows it's possible. It's also possible to have one of those Midtown or Financial District jobs and not commute at all day-to-day. Then when you want a different neighborhood for variety, use transit.
PS. Side benefit in a town where square meter residential space is so limited: no home office necessary, you can just "step into your office" downstairs or across the street.
PPS. If you're one of the "avoid Midtown" folks but like to wander around and browse food, check out the pedestrian corridor called "6 1/2 Ave" very Harry Potter style. The southern end starts at ~ 50th and runs up to ~ 56th. There is an Asian street food concourse between 50th and 51st that's new, another food hall at 52nd, and an amazing French bistro up between 53rd and 54th. The food halls essentially let you try food cart experience year round or in the rain.
Ha!
Imagine if, as in EU cities, one could live above one's shops and workplaces, with no car needed -- and no transit as part of the daily routine!
Very few places in USA is this feasible at scale, NYC being one of the few. Even there, when I preferred to walk (no transit) to work which required me to live in Midtown, I was looked at like I was nuts -- why wouldn't you live in Brooklyn or Upper West Side or Chelsea or East Village?
Because my aim was to not spend life on a commute.
Love that you don't commute, shows it's possible. It's also possible to have one of those Midtown or Financial District jobs and not commute at all day-to-day. Then when you want a different neighborhood for variety, use transit.
PS. Side benefit in a town where square meter residential space is so limited: no home office necessary, you can just "step into your office" downstairs or across the street.
PPS. If you're one of the "avoid Midtown" folks but like to wander around and browse food, check out the pedestrian corridor called "6 1/2 Ave" very Harry Potter style. The southern end starts at ~ 50th and runs up to ~ 56th. There is an Asian street food concourse between 50th and 51st that's new, another food hall at 52nd, and an amazing French bistro up between 53rd and 54th. The food halls essentially let you try food cart experience year round or in the rain.
Same perspective here. Even as a rural-boy-turned-inveterate-urbanite, I'm happy that people who don't want to live in the city are decreasingly forced to live in the city due to their jobs. There are plenty of people out there like me who were looking to escape to the city but who were stymied by all the people living in the city who wanted to escape to the country. I just prefer density and walkability/bikeability.
I think the more people are living where they want to and not where they're forced to the happier people will be in general.
Especially as the "city" fills up with "city people" they hopefully will stop voting so strongly against "city".
Especially as the "city" fills up with "city people" they hopefully will stop voting so strongly against "city".
> Especially as the "city" fills up with "city people" they hopefully will stop voting so strongly against "city".
It'll be interesting to see if the obverse is true.
My suspicion is that the US will continue to self-select along political and social lines, as it seems to have been doing since ~2000.
It'll be interesting to see if the obverse is true.
My suspicion is that the US will continue to self-select along political and social lines, as it seems to have been doing since ~2000.
I was more referring to "NIMBYism" or suburbification than purely political parties; both deep red and deep blue "cities" vote heavily NIMBY when they get the chance, and some of that may be that many of the people living in said cities wish they could live more suburbanly or more rurally, and try to make the city as much as such.
Same thing here, people were shocked when I moved from Colorado to Manhattan’s UES to work remote, but it’s been the best decision I’ve ever made.
Once you realize that privilege means being able to afford prioritizing movement and your health, you'll take the socioeconomic exemption that walkable cities provide
Nearly everything about the advertised American way is the opposite, so just unsubscribe and enjoy the few areas of the US that cater to it, they are more expensive for rational reasons
Nearly everything about the advertised American way is the opposite, so just unsubscribe and enjoy the few areas of the US that cater to it, they are more expensive for rational reasons
Wisconsin rocks. Moved back here after almost 20 years in/around Chicago. I love Chicago dearly, but I'm glad we made the choice.
Sorry your Phoenix experience was so bad for you. It's great out here though. Don't know why the top comment is dumping on Phx as if it doesn't have a great road system.
Our grocery options will improve as soon as the german discount chains set
Frys is not more expensive than TJs [0] When you drive east from AZ, you drive past the cheapest gas in the US[1]
[0]https://www.frysfood.com/savings/weeklyad/ [1]https://gasprices.aaa.com/
Our grocery options will improve as soon as the german discount chains set
Frys is not more expensive than TJs [0] When you drive east from AZ, you drive past the cheapest gas in the US[1]
[0]https://www.frysfood.com/savings/weeklyad/ [1]https://gasprices.aaa.com/
I think you’re missing the point of the comment. They wanted to live in a more walkable, bikeable, human centered environment that doesn’t require cars to get around.
You’re making the statement that Phoenix is a great place, and a great place to drive, if you don’t mind driving for your errands, etc.
They clearly don’t enjoy needing to drive everywhere, and NYC is a great place to be if you don’t want to have a car centric life.
You’re making the statement that Phoenix is a great place, and a great place to drive, if you don’t mind driving for your errands, etc.
They clearly don’t enjoy needing to drive everywhere, and NYC is a great place to be if you don’t want to have a car centric life.
>Though really I think this is an indictment of the current state of Phoenix more than it is a reason to praise Manhattan
They also claim that many other states compare favorably to Phoenix, middle-America states. Suburbia, drive-centric states, like almost all of US.
They also claim that many other states compare favorably to Phoenix, middle-America states. Suburbia, drive-centric states, like almost all of US.
[deleted]
>Don't know why the top comment is dumping on Phx as if it doesn't have a great road system.
They left Phoenix _because_ it is a kind of place with a "great road system." A place is either great to be, or great to drive in, but not both.
They left Phoenix _because_ it is a kind of place with a "great road system." A place is either great to be, or great to drive in, but not both.
How about an alternate headline: "remote work revitalizes small towns, allows people to spend more time with their friends and families"?
If you haven't felt it already the management consultants and CEOs are doing everything they can to damage remote work. I even heard the other day from one of these types that "studies show in-office work is more productive".
Its just a reminder that no matter what your pay and benefits "we are family" is always bullshit. Their goal is to simply extract maximum life from you at any cost. Despite increasing employee safety (no need to drive), reducing overall employee costs, and increasing employee health and welfare overall they will take all of this away. You can even find shills and company men here in this very forum touting the "astounding benefits" of office work.
At my current gig all of our remote benefits were taken away to encourage us to come into the office but the company would not say, officially, remote work is over.
Fuck these people.
Its just a reminder that no matter what your pay and benefits "we are family" is always bullshit. Their goal is to simply extract maximum life from you at any cost. Despite increasing employee safety (no need to drive), reducing overall employee costs, and increasing employee health and welfare overall they will take all of this away. You can even find shills and company men here in this very forum touting the "astounding benefits" of office work.
At my current gig all of our remote benefits were taken away to encourage us to come into the office but the company would not say, officially, remote work is over.
Fuck these people.
Don't forget all the money saved by reduced real estate and commuting costs.
As a side note: the quality of life of pets has increased dramatically since the pandemic. With people working from home, they now have more company and less time spent locked in crates. That’s the reason I have for not returning to the office and will ensure I only do remote work from now on.
Crating dogs is unethical, it's illegal in many parts of northern Europe, and it's tolerance on spaces like HN would be a sign that the average individual here has zero compassion.
"Oh it's like a den for them"
Well, ancient people didn't close the damn den every night.
"Oh it's like a den for them"
Well, ancient people didn't close the damn den every night.
I agree and have never crated any of my animal friends. I hate those crates. So terrible!
That's worth more than a side note. When I was non-remote I drove home 2-3 days a week (1hr round trip) when no one else was home to let them out and spend 30 minutes with them.
This is my reason for never going non-remote again as well.
It’s annoying that articles repeatedly wrongly claim that reduced real estate prices lead to reduced real estate taxes. The method of computation of real estate taxes generates a mil rate which is the percentage rate that needs to be charged to generate the current budget’s revenue. This rate is computed each assessment after the property values are adjusted. The government gets the same total amount of money if property values are high vs if they are low.
That's not true, at least not everywhere. My property taxes always go up when my property values are adjusted upwards.
It doesn't disagree with the OP. If the budget has not changed your millage rate should have gone down even if your property value goes up. Most likely your city hall did not adjust the millage rate down and used the extra assessment to pay down debt.
In my own city even though my millage rate is going down because of new developments going up it's being offset by values going up.
In my own city even though my millage rate is going down because of new developments going up it's being offset by values going up.
Usually this means your property grew in value faster than the rest of the city so you now pay for a higher total percentage of the cities budget. This has happened to me too.
Roughly speaking if the mill rate falls from 1.0% to 0.9% but your property went from $1 million to $1.2 million you now pay $10,800 instead of $10,000. But the rise in property prices still caused the mill rate to go down.
Roughly speaking if the mill rate falls from 1.0% to 0.9% but your property went from $1 million to $1.2 million you now pay $10,800 instead of $10,000. But the rise in property prices still caused the mill rate to go down.
The entire raison d'etre of cities in the first place is...jobs. When you no longer need a local job, it makes no sense to spend the extra money to get a smaller place near the city.
Some people like the amenities and will prefer the city. And that's fine. But most people I've known in life tend to be on the other end of the spectrum.
What's annoying to me is that this big reshuffling of people ends up putting a lot of people in areas that don't have the infra to handle it yet, and also messes up house prices and such in said areas. But that's a whole other topic.
Some people like the amenities and will prefer the city. And that's fine. But most people I've known in life tend to be on the other end of the spectrum.
What's annoying to me is that this big reshuffling of people ends up putting a lot of people in areas that don't have the infra to handle it yet, and also messes up house prices and such in said areas. But that's a whole other topic.
These seeds were sowed when cities cashed in on commercial real estate, pushing residential zoning further and further out of the city. Wake up call: nobody wants to spend longer than they have to on an unpaid, unpredictable commute into the city anymore. So while these downtown businesses are getting 1/3 of the foot traffic that they used to, all the supermarkets and shops a few miles down the road are raking it in.
I used to get the bus to work about 10 years ago because parking in the city became so expensive (I stopped long before Covid hit).
The thing I don't miss is that I got sick every single Winter. All it takes is one inconsiderate person to not cover their mouth and everyone is getting ill. And it happened all the time.
I had a commute time that ranged between one and two hours over that stretch as I'd lived in a couple of different places, but that wasn't even extreme. I knew people with 2+ hour commutes each way which they did for years on end.
I understand there are a lot of people who need a place to work away from their home, but who is going to voluntarily return to an office when they don't need to just to prop up your portfolio and obsolete businesses? Why should they?
It's like the argument that people should support local businesses instead of buying from Amazon. If Amazon is cheaper and more convenient, why would someone buy anything elsewhere? (It's not like those businesses are going to help with your rent or food costs).
The thing I don't miss is that I got sick every single Winter. All it takes is one inconsiderate person to not cover their mouth and everyone is getting ill. And it happened all the time.
I had a commute time that ranged between one and two hours over that stretch as I'd lived in a couple of different places, but that wasn't even extreme. I knew people with 2+ hour commutes each way which they did for years on end.
I understand there are a lot of people who need a place to work away from their home, but who is going to voluntarily return to an office when they don't need to just to prop up your portfolio and obsolete businesses? Why should they?
It's like the argument that people should support local businesses instead of buying from Amazon. If Amazon is cheaper and more convenient, why would someone buy anything elsewhere? (It's not like those businesses are going to help with your rent or food costs).
I've had funny conversations about why I still wear a good n95 on public transit (planes included). My right-leaning and remarkably well educated parents are incredulous.
A few years ago I thought personal masking didn't really matter. Wow, I was wrong! And not catching bs colds from weirdos on the bus or the grocery store makes it worth it.
My face isn't that pretty anyway.
A few years ago I thought personal masking didn't really matter. Wow, I was wrong! And not catching bs colds from weirdos on the bus or the grocery store makes it worth it.
My face isn't that pretty anyway.
Most everyone I knew when I worked in a grocery store basically never got sick, including my dad. He’s get sick once every 4-5 years maybe. People would call in sick, but it would be to miss a day.
Working in a grocery store, especially as a cashier, can be unpleasant to disgusting at times, especially when cash was a bit more common. I think you’re around everything all the time that your immune system tends to beef up a bit.
Conversely, the kids are getting hammered in winter time the last few years after covid after not getting sick between 2020-mid 2021.
I’m not so sure that humans evolved to avoid illness, despite how unpleasant it is.
Working in a grocery store, especially as a cashier, can be unpleasant to disgusting at times, especially when cash was a bit more common. I think you’re around everything all the time that your immune system tends to beef up a bit.
Conversely, the kids are getting hammered in winter time the last few years after covid after not getting sick between 2020-mid 2021.
I’m not so sure that humans evolved to avoid illness, despite how unpleasant it is.
This comment is an indirect appeal to nature: protecting yourself from exposure to pathogens is better than low level exposure if your intention is to not fall ill. I've seen a number of ill-looking grocery store employees (coughing, sneezing, sniffling, the works) before, during and "after" COVID.
Wearing masks does not compromise one's immune system: it just shields you from exposure to respiratory bugs. Kids are getting hammered because people have relaxed on wearing masks, so they are now more exposed than before.
Wearing masks does not compromise one's immune system: it just shields you from exposure to respiratory bugs. Kids are getting hammered because people have relaxed on wearing masks, so they are now more exposed than before.
They might be right about the actual plane ride because the filtration systems on modern (read 20 years old or newer) are really good. Public busses tend to be a disaster for air filtration though, especially in winter when no windows are open. I wish there was some better research/more accessible research on this.
Even if the plane's filtration is good, if the person 3 feet away from you is coughing it's not going to be that good. I'd rather rely on the combination of filtration & a mask. Defense in depth.
Day to day i'm not religious about masking, but for things like public transportation, airplanes, etc I try to always have face protection on.
Day to day i'm not religious about masking, but for things like public transportation, airplanes, etc I try to always have face protection on.
Pressurized airplanes have air changes per hour in the 12-16 range. That's above the ASHRAE recommended 6-12 air changes per hour for places that may contain viruses. (Obviously, ASHRAE isn't the CDC or healthcare organization directly, but they do know a few things about standards setting for HVAC.) Excellent filtration isn't as relevant when the average air molecule is in the aircraft for only 5-10 minutes.
The standard for AC/H for offices is 3-4.
The standard for AC/H for offices is 3-4.
The studied COVID outbreaks on planes show that this still isn't sufficient. I'm also pretty sure I got sick from the kid sitting directly behind me on the plane when I got influenza.
You can site all the statistics and propaganda in the world about plane ventilation. It clearly isn't enough to prevent viral spread (I don't care about air changes per hour or cfm or anything else, the only endpoint worth discussing is viral spread--I give precisely zero fucks about how fast the air is moving around). I'm using n95s on planes from here on out.
You can site all the statistics and propaganda in the world about plane ventilation. It clearly isn't enough to prevent viral spread (I don't care about air changes per hour or cfm or anything else, the only endpoint worth discussing is viral spread--I give precisely zero fucks about how fast the air is moving around). I'm using n95s on planes from here on out.
The real hazard is when you're on the ground. I've seen cabin C02 levels above 3000ppm when the cabin air handling hasn't been turned on!
I'll take my mask off to eat/drink in the air, which I didn't do the one time I had to fly mid-pandemic.
I'll take my mask off to eat/drink in the air, which I didn't do the one time I had to fly mid-pandemic.
anecdotally, this is marketing bs / wishful thinking.
I've been on a handful of flights in the last 2 years where the air system didn't work at all, and others where the climate control system was otherwise failing (80°F). This is accentuated by stale air when you embark and disembark when the aux generators aren't providing power.
I've been on a handful of flights in the last 2 years where the air system didn't work at all, and others where the climate control system was otherwise failing (80°F). This is accentuated by stale air when you embark and disembark when the aux generators aren't providing power.
How old were the planes that this happened on? There has definitely been a dramatic improvement over the years. I remember flying in the 90's and pretty uniformly feeling like I needed at least a good face wash, if not a shower after any flight longer than a half hour. Now this only happens when I am unlucky enough to get stuck on an old aircraft (i.e. the original westjet 737's still get me with this). I swear I saw a paper on this being tested showing particle diffusion on some newer crafter being really impressive for how it kept your particles around you until they were removed and replaced with fresh ones fairly quickly but I can't remember enough to find a link to the study to back this statement up.
These flights were in the last 2 years on a top tier (US though) carrier on domestic flights; 1 was a very regional flight, where , as you post, an older plane might expect it -- but if anything, that any planes in a top tier carrier that markets itself as Covid ready are expected to be bad is typical of how much bs this is.
Yep. I went from being sick roughly one week out of every 1-2 months before covid to only getting sick maybe once a year now that I mask in public places, thoroughly wash my hands with soap every time I arrive somewhere, and occasionally wash my phone. Never going back. This whole "train your immune system" thing is BS. Hygiene is important!
I muse to myself, without a shred of evidence, that masks do "train your immune system". Since they are no where near perfect, pathogens do make it though. However, the "initial viral load" is much smaller, giving your body more time to mount an effective defense. So, I would like to believe you are not neglecting your immune system by masking. Rather, by not overloading it, just being less sick than the unmasked, on average. Who knows, it might even train better this way.
> However, the "initial viral load" is much smaller, giving your body more time to mount an effective defense.
That's a myth from the early pandemic. Viral dose doesn't correlate with disease severity:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-11-relationship-viral-do...
That's a myth from the early pandemic. Viral dose doesn't correlate with disease severity:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-11-relationship-viral-do...
But:
the likelihood of becoming infected may rise with the size of that "dose."
So a small dose might still prime the immune system even if you don't get sick.
the likelihood of becoming infected may rise with the size of that "dose."
So a small dose might still prime the immune system even if you don't get sick.
> the likelihood of becoming infected may rise with the size of that "dose."
This is correct.
> So a small dose might still prime the immune system even if you don't get sick.
This does not follow.
If you don't get infected following a small dose, you'll have fought it off with your innane or intrinsic defenses. You won't generate any humoral immunity, form T-cells or B-cells or neutralizing antibodies and won't be any better off for the next round with the virus.
This is correct.
> So a small dose might still prime the immune system even if you don't get sick.
This does not follow.
If you don't get infected following a small dose, you'll have fought it off with your innane or intrinsic defenses. You won't generate any humoral immunity, form T-cells or B-cells or neutralizing antibodies and won't be any better off for the next round with the virus.
I want to carry you on my shoulders among a cheering crowd.
> A few years ago I thought personal masking didn't really matter.
I have always looked at Japan as a mixed bag of things that the entire planet will be doing in 10-100 years (yes, even sex bots and other forms of liberal individualism). I am so glad that at least parts of the west have caught onto the practice of masking up when sick, if there were ever a silver lining from the pandemic.
I'm still looking for a solution to the mask straps biting into my ears on planes, but a few hours of discomfort is still way better than being sick when I get to/back from my destination.
I have always looked at Japan as a mixed bag of things that the entire planet will be doing in 10-100 years (yes, even sex bots and other forms of liberal individualism). I am so glad that at least parts of the west have caught onto the practice of masking up when sick, if there were ever a silver lining from the pandemic.
I'm still looking for a solution to the mask straps biting into my ears on planes, but a few hours of discomfort is still way better than being sick when I get to/back from my destination.
>I'm still looking for a solution to the mask straps biting into my ears on planes
Try getting a proper N95 instead of a flimsy ear-loop mask: https://www.amazon.com/3M-Aura-Particulate-Respirator-9205/d...
Try getting a proper N95 instead of a flimsy ear-loop mask: https://www.amazon.com/3M-Aura-Particulate-Respirator-9205/d...
Cut the elastic ear loops off of an old mask and tie it to the elastic on a new mask to bridge the gap between the new mask ear elastics (or use a piece of string) so the pressure is on the back of your head.
If you fly a lot, there are also very likely commercial solutions for this.
If you fly a lot, there are also very likely commercial solutions for this.
A well-fitting elastomeric respirator is comfortable and much cheaper than n95s in the long run, but it will get more looks in public. If you're the kind of person who cares about that, just use 3m Auras.
For flying; try cutting the elastic and then tie both sides together behind your head. May make it a bit more snug on your face (which helps prevent your glasses getting so fogged up) but no back of ear pain at least :}
N-95 masks are rated to capture 50 um (micrometer).
COVID-19 is 10.5 um. Water droplet to carry them just a tad bit above.
Hydrostatic testing to get that 50um in N-95 mask were based on 8.0 pH Latex hydrostatic droplets.
COVID-19 best infection spread rate is at 5.8-6.2 pH (opposite spectrum of Latex's pH).
So, more will pass thru that mask unhindered.
Nonetheless, the dispersal rate is lower only if the infected wears it. Tough to make a public policy on that to this day
COVID-19 is 10.5 um. Water droplet to carry them just a tad bit above.
Hydrostatic testing to get that 50um in N-95 mask were based on 8.0 pH Latex hydrostatic droplets.
COVID-19 best infection spread rate is at 5.8-6.2 pH (opposite spectrum of Latex's pH).
So, more will pass thru that mask unhindered.
Nonetheless, the dispersal rate is lower only if the infected wears it. Tough to make a public policy on that to this day
Not really. Due to brownian motion and diffusion the mask will catch almost all particles anyway.
The mask is rated to capture 95% of airborne particles generally, but it’s efficiency doesn’t correlate to the spacing within the filter media.
The mask is rated to capture 95% of airborne particles generally, but it’s efficiency doesn’t correlate to the spacing within the filter media.
Brownian motion gets impacted if ions repels (as well as attract) at molecular and atomic level. And like pH, it has ions depending on where across the pH spectrum.
Now if they would construct a hydrostatic test using 5.8 to 6.2 pH aerosolizer, then the data becomes more robust.
Now if they would construct a hydrostatic test using 5.8 to 6.2 pH aerosolizer, then the data becomes more robust.
These numbers are suspect, and the conclusions are wrong. Filters don't work that way.
Pray, can you elucidate on your non-factual statements?
I have a smile that could sink a thousand ships so I consider wearing a mask to be a public service to the rest of you.
thank you for your service
> The thing I don't miss is that I got sick every single Winter. All it takes is one inconsiderate person to not cover their mouth and everyone is getting ill. And it happened all the time.
Give it a few years without exposure, and you will have very hard time if you have to get exposed again. I did 2 years for remote work with a single day with long exposure each week, after a few years with low exposure.
I then had a kid, it took at least 3 full years once it got to day care for my immunity to get trained back to normal. Middly sick at least 4 months total per year, strong fever and/or weakness 4-5 times per year.
I'm all for limited exposure to dangerous infections, but for the sake of everyone, we have to keep our immunity active to stay healthy, and this happens by getting sick times to times.
Give it a few years without exposure, and you will have very hard time if you have to get exposed again. I did 2 years for remote work with a single day with long exposure each week, after a few years with low exposure.
I then had a kid, it took at least 3 full years once it got to day care for my immunity to get trained back to normal. Middly sick at least 4 months total per year, strong fever and/or weakness 4-5 times per year.
I'm all for limited exposure to dangerous infections, but for the sake of everyone, we have to keep our immunity active to stay healthy, and this happens by getting sick times to times.
Nah, its just what happens when you have a kid. I was exposed all the time commuting to work on public transit. Once my kid got into preschool I was sick for months at a time.
It's hard to explain the near exponential increase in pathogen exposure when 20+ kids are in a room doing the least hygienic things imaginable for 4-8 hours a day.
I rode the subway every day for years and rarely got sick, but a few weeks of a kid in daycare and it was all coming at me at once.
I rode the subway every day for years and rarely got sick, but a few weeks of a kid in daycare and it was all coming at me at once.
The running joke among my doctor friends is that pediatricians are immune to disease. Sick like a dog for the first couple years but then they become bullet proof.
And everything, literally everything, is going straight in the mouth unless you tackle them to break up the play.
Immune systems don't weaken from a lack of exposure. It's not a muscle that needs to be worked out. Besides which, your immune system is pretty much constantly at work with relatively benign foreign tissue regardless of whether you're wearing a mask or not.
Some things like the uptick in RSV can be explained by children being initially exposed to RSV a bit later than usual, but for your average adult that's not really relevant.
Some things like the uptick in RSV can be explained by children being initially exposed to RSV a bit later than usual, but for your average adult that's not really relevant.
[deleted]
I think this is based on a misinterpretation of the hygiene hypothesis... exposure to germs helps when you're a child yourself but not after becoming an adult (AFAIA). This is supported by https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/05/all-social-...
I understand I have no authority on the subject, but, aren't we well aware that immunity wears off at different rates depending on the strain ? A lot of sickness only affect the children, and once for their lifetime, but there is at least covid for we know the immunity wears off. Surely there are many others.
edit: I suspect the article only states that life long immunity does not wears off. I don't challenge that at all.
edit: I suspect the article only states that life long immunity does not wears off. I don't challenge that at all.
This isn't really as simple as a linear decrease in immunity though - certain tools that your immune system uses like antibodies decrease over time but other tools like T-cell responses are long lasting. Thinking of it in terms of an acute response where you're very strongly protected and a persistent response where you have a slower but still effective protection is a better model.
But don't parents getting sick at work and bringing it home to their kids help the kids get exposed?
Or do you think kids get enough exposure at school? (assuming schools don't keep going remote too)
Or do you think kids get enough exposure at school? (assuming schools don't keep going remote too)
Based on how consistently my niece has been sick since starting school this year, I'd say they get enough exposure at school.
That's one of those sciencey articles that is only technically correct within a specific context, otherwise why are elderly people advised to get the flu vaccine every year?
There is no scientific basis for this assumption (the idea that you rake in immunity "debt" by not getting sick, leading to worse symptoms /when/ you get sick).
It's not "immunity debt" but rather that immunity for seasonal diseases is not permanent - you lose it if you don't use it, basically, with "refresh period" about the same length as the disease cycle.
I don't have citations handy, it's just something I've seen mentioned here and there some months ago, as a possible explanation why after 2 years of lockdowns, many more people seem to catch the common seasonal diseases.
I don't have citations handy, it's just something I've seen mentioned here and there some months ago, as a possible explanation why after 2 years of lockdowns, many more people seem to catch the common seasonal diseases.
It seems plausible that the immune system requires stressors to function well, and the absence of stressors may reduce immune system "strength". Selye's general adaptation syndrome seems applicable here as a first approximation. Muscles atrophy from disuse. Why not also immune systems?
"Immunology Is Where Intuition Goes to Die"
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/08/covid-19-...
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/08/covid-19-...
The immune system is never dormant. It is constantly engaged. We don't live in a sterile environment, don't eat perfect sterile food, don't breathe perfect air, etc. There are multiple aspects to our immune system, and a lot of them are being stressed daily.
I went to work every day when my kids were small and taught roomsful of college students. I still got poisoned by my little vectors who were a magnet for every virus in the Metro DC area.
> Give it a few years without exposure
> we have to keep our immunity active to stay healthy, and this happens by getting sick times to times
Is going to the grocery store, out to dinner, having friends/family over not enough exposure? Genuinely curious about the science if you need to be around kids (directly or indirectly via co-workers) to build or maintain a "strong immune system".
If anything I'd expect the lack of activity to cause your immune system to be hyper-aware and you'd get less sick. Trade-off is allergies and autoimmune disease.
> we have to keep our immunity active to stay healthy, and this happens by getting sick times to times
Is going to the grocery store, out to dinner, having friends/family over not enough exposure? Genuinely curious about the science if you need to be around kids (directly or indirectly via co-workers) to build or maintain a "strong immune system".
If anything I'd expect the lack of activity to cause your immune system to be hyper-aware and you'd get less sick. Trade-off is allergies and autoimmune disease.
>If anything I'd expect the lack of activity to cause your immune system to be hyper-aware and you'd get less sick
That's not really how it works afaik. The immune system can only respond quickly and effectively to the things it knows. If you spend 3 years outside society and you come back, your system will be 3 years behind on disease evolution. When you finally do get exposed, you'll have a much stronger immune response because it's an unknown threat.
Compare this to a immune system that has also never seen the latest variant, but has seen the one before -- it'll be much more effective at recognizing and fighting the threat early, and the person might not even notice they were exposed.
That's not really how it works afaik. The immune system can only respond quickly and effectively to the things it knows. If you spend 3 years outside society and you come back, your system will be 3 years behind on disease evolution. When you finally do get exposed, you'll have a much stronger immune response because it's an unknown threat.
Compare this to a immune system that has also never seen the latest variant, but has seen the one before -- it'll be much more effective at recognizing and fighting the threat early, and the person might not even notice they were exposed.
> The immune system can only respond quickly and effectively to the things it knows.
Is that true? I'm not sure. Another question is what does it mean to be "known". I'd get a cold or a flu every year. At what point has the virus mutated sufficiently so that I don't have an effective immune response? This is also a great point to get vaccines. Best of both worlds.
Is that true? I'm not sure. Another question is what does it mean to be "known". I'd get a cold or a flu every year. At what point has the virus mutated sufficiently so that I don't have an effective immune response? This is also a great point to get vaccines. Best of both worlds.
>At what point has the virus mutated sufficiently so that I don't have an effective immune response?
I don't think anybody really knows, this is an active area of research. What is known is that, the more similar a virus is to something you already had, the more likely your immune system is to be able to respond quickly enough that you don't show any symptoms and don't even realize you were exposed. And if you do show symptoms, it'll be more likely that they will be much milder than for somebody who wasn't exposed previously to something similar.
I don't think anybody really knows, this is an active area of research. What is known is that, the more similar a virus is to something you already had, the more likely your immune system is to be able to respond quickly enough that you don't show any symptoms and don't even realize you were exposed. And if you do show symptoms, it'll be more likely that they will be much milder than for somebody who wasn't exposed previously to something similar.
I mention the kid only because it was the the main change to sickness exposure. I suspect public transport and office work would have been enough.
Given what we could read about covid, exposure is a combination of length and probability of sharing air with sick people. Public transport is a short exposure with many people, evening with friend, long exposure, but less people. Kid: well for all the sickness they have bad immunity for, and the long length of exposure, you have good chances ti get something that you never had or have no immunity for anymore.
My experience is that I now use public transport every day and I have two kids, I get sick time to times, but much less than a few years ago.
Given what we could read about covid, exposure is a combination of length and probability of sharing air with sick people. Public transport is a short exposure with many people, evening with friend, long exposure, but less people. Kid: well for all the sickness they have bad immunity for, and the long length of exposure, you have good chances ti get something that you never had or have no immunity for anymore.
My experience is that I now use public transport every day and I have two kids, I get sick time to times, but much less than a few years ago.
> The thing I don't miss is that I got sick every single Winter. All it takes is one inconsiderate person to not cover their mouth and everyone is getting ill. And it happened all the time.
When I visited Hong Kong in 2008 I was amazed by how many people wore masks (presumably because they were either feeling sick or were worried about getting sick). It's too bad that post-COVID masks have become associated with authoritarian government overreach in many parts of North America.
When I visited Hong Kong in 2008 I was amazed by how many people wore masks (presumably because they were either feeling sick or were worried about getting sick). It's too bad that post-COVID masks have become associated with authoritarian government overreach in many parts of North America.
> COVID masks have become associated with authoritarian government overreach
I wonder why?
I wonder why?
Local businesses who buy/grow local, hire local, pay local taxes etc benefit the community in ways that Amazon cannot. Local business also support local events/charities/etc. I think there is a lot of long-term economic benefit in decentralization of money and power, apart from social benefits like increasing trust between citizens. Just my view.
[deleted]
> All it takes is one inconsiderate person to not cover their mouth and everyone is getting ill. And it happened all the time.
It's really depressing that even with the pandemic, the ratio of people covering their mouth didn't seem to have increased at all.
It's really depressing that even with the pandemic, the ratio of people covering their mouth didn't seem to have increased at all.
[deleted]
> The thing I don't miss is that I got sick every single Winter.
Everybody is always entitled to their values and preferences of course, but it's really hard to see how a chance of getting sick once a year is a worse outcome than a guarantee of missing out on normal society permanently, particularly when you can do everything about as perfectly as you possibly can and still get sick.
Everybody is always entitled to their values and preferences of course, but it's really hard to see how a chance of getting sick once a year is a worse outcome than a guarantee of missing out on normal society permanently, particularly when you can do everything about as perfectly as you possibly can and still get sick.
It's similar for me and I still get exposed to people in the non-work part of my life, quite a lot actually, I just don't get two crammed train cars full of people twice a day anymore. I'm not as healthy as during quarantine, but I'm mildly sick-ish right now and I used to get knocked out for a week or so around this time before wfh almost every year and be a lot sicker otherwise, so whatever I'm being exposed to right now my immune system seems to be able to handle. I had a few infections in spring and summer when everyone here finally came out of quarantine, so I guess the post-isolation shock is already behind me.
Besides, if "normal society" means miserable unpaid commutes and cold offices with bad cafeteria food and a lot less time and energy for the things in life that really matter, then I'm quite happy to miss out on that. I'm not living in some kind of self-imposed total isolation, if anything I'm more active outside work these days, and my whole life feels a lot healthier (and that sure helps too)
Besides, if "normal society" means miserable unpaid commutes and cold offices with bad cafeteria food and a lot less time and energy for the things in life that really matter, then I'm quite happy to miss out on that. I'm not living in some kind of self-imposed total isolation, if anything I'm more active outside work these days, and my whole life feels a lot healthier (and that sure helps too)
Europe arguably has better public transportation and shorter commutes. I am still seeing this happening (don't have any data to back my claim, just my experience). If I have to guess here is more about the housing cost being the issue. Buying is prohibitive given the average income and most new units are only for rent. In the last 6 years I spent more than 140k CHF in rent (close to Zurich).
Once remote working has started we said screw that and moved further away from downtown. Now we own a nice apartment with a garden (unthinkable before) and go the city only when required.
Once remote working has started we said screw that and moved further away from downtown. Now we own a nice apartment with a garden (unthinkable before) and go the city only when required.
> Europe arguably has better public transportation and shorter commutes
Mine (Dublin, Ireland) is still about an hour on the tram (for EUR 2) from where I live, so I'm not saying it's perfect, but my manager, in the Atlanta area, is a two-hour drive away from the office. That and he starting meetings at 6AM (because Dublin) makes me support remote working even more for the ATL teams.
I gladly traded the rich cultural life and world-class restaurants for a walkable city and a house with a small park one gate away from the back yard.
Even considering the occasional invasion of the house by a bunch of screaming little 10 yo's who are my daughter's gang (who lives mostly on the same street).
Mine (Dublin, Ireland) is still about an hour on the tram (for EUR 2) from where I live, so I'm not saying it's perfect, but my manager, in the Atlanta area, is a two-hour drive away from the office. That and he starting meetings at 6AM (because Dublin) makes me support remote working even more for the ATL teams.
I gladly traded the rich cultural life and world-class restaurants for a walkable city and a house with a small park one gate away from the back yard.
Even considering the occasional invasion of the house by a bunch of screaming little 10 yo's who are my daughter's gang (who lives mostly on the same street).
Carr's "The Big Switch" in reverse. Technology ushering in a decentralization effect. And that's fine. Work at home. Communities buy micro reactors, Starlink ready to go. Low carbon produce that doesn't have chemical shit all over it. Maybe testosterone rates go up, maybe cancer rates go down. Probably a good idea all around.
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids[1].
[1]: https://youtu.be/N1KvgtEnABY
[1]: https://youtu.be/N1KvgtEnABY
I guess a lot of people got triggered by the first words and never finished reading after the downvote.
Such an amazing movie...
Such an amazing movie...
The downvoters know the truth. rbanffy, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, rbanffy, __children's_ice_cream__.
You know when fluoridation first began? Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, rbanffy. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove
You know when fluoridation first began? Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, rbanffy. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove
Living in the Bay Area, I really can't afford to live close to my office. I have to drive to Palo Alto from San Jose (or take the train).
Pre-pandemic, my drive averaged 1hr to the office, and 1.5hrs back. So, I'm wasting 2.5 hrs of my life every day... to do the same exact job I do from home (not to mention cost of gas/car maintenance).
I also get more done at home, because I haven't reduced my hours any, but I don't waste time in the break room grabbing coffee and chatting. I don't know what the overall data is, and if I'm just a productive outlier or if that's a general trend.
If I'm ever required to commute again, I 100% view it as a pay decrease.
Pre-pandemic, my drive averaged 1hr to the office, and 1.5hrs back. So, I'm wasting 2.5 hrs of my life every day... to do the same exact job I do from home (not to mention cost of gas/car maintenance).
I also get more done at home, because I haven't reduced my hours any, but I don't waste time in the break room grabbing coffee and chatting. I don't know what the overall data is, and if I'm just a productive outlier or if that's a general trend.
If I'm ever required to commute again, I 100% view it as a pay decrease.
For a while, I used to commute from Santa Cruz to north San Jose for work. Since then, I absolutely factor my commute into my compensation, and anything more than an hour total commute per day is an additional premium. Factor in how terrible driving has become in the bay area, and I'm of half a mind to begin asking for hazard pay for commuting.
Especially on that Hwy17
I really love it how even on days where our team is in the office, if just one person can't make it (quite likely) then almost all the meetings are virtual anyway. Sitting in a room together with headphones in zoom meetings! Brilliant. :D
Some conference rooms have good video conferencing facilities, so no headphones in the same room though. But I get your point, it is a pain to commute all the way to be on zoom calls.
Right. The value has not been lost. It has been shifted. It happens.
It depends on how you count value.
Let's say you work from home and make your lunch. Previously you'd buy ready-to-eat lunch. While you still buy ingredients and pay for energy, you don't pay for someone to prepare it and then sell to you, prepare the housing of the eatery and so on. Effectively some GDP was lost. Next, let's say you grow some of your own veggies...
Let's say you work from home and make your lunch. Previously you'd buy ready-to-eat lunch. While you still buy ingredients and pay for energy, you don't pay for someone to prepare it and then sell to you, prepare the housing of the eatery and so on. Effectively some GDP was lost. Next, let's say you grow some of your own veggies...
[deleted]
Yes - pre-pandemic, white-collar office parks and big-box retail had already dispersed to the suburbs where I live (Baltimore).
Honestly, remote work allowed us to stay in the city (our preference), if I'd had to keep commuting I don't know if raising my kid would have been workable for us.
Honestly, remote work allowed us to stay in the city (our preference), if I'd had to keep commuting I don't know if raising my kid would have been workable for us.
Yeah—the stores in our area (which is a bedroom community for Baltimore and to a lesser extent DC) are doing great.
Which is funny, because after 2008 it felt like a lot of the bedroom communities / strip malls struggled and went down hill (lack of demand I guess) - and it felt like a whole wave of young people were only wanting to live in the city.
Living in the city is great for young people who have no kids - lots of entertainment options a short walk away. It's noisier/busier/dirtier (EVs will help A LOT with noise and pollution).
Living further out is much nicer when you have kids - more space, more freedom for the kids to move around, more trees for them to climb and places to explore.
Living further out is much nicer when you have kids - more space, more freedom for the kids to move around, more trees for them to climb and places to explore.
Don't forget older people who have no kids.
I'm part of a DINK couple and could not imagine leaving an urban area. There's so much more to do, so much easier to get around, etc.
I'm part of a DINK couple and could not imagine leaving an urban area. There's so much more to do, so much easier to get around, etc.
Sorry. Didn't mean to.
I suspect we'll be in that space in about 10 years or so, when being next to a good hospital with excellent geriatric services will be more important than having trees to climb.
I suspect we'll be in that space in about 10 years or so, when being next to a good hospital with excellent geriatric services will be more important than having trees to climb.
And nowhere for them to go by themselves? Living in the suburbs as a tween/teenager is death.
See:
> more space, more freedom for the kids to move around, more trees for them to climb and places to explore
Or „nowhere“ as in doing commercialized trendy stuff? Of course, when pop culture is pushing that lifestyle and people are glued to the screens, it ends up as a sad state of affairs.
> more space, more freedom for the kids to move around, more trees for them to climb and places to explore
Or „nowhere“ as in doing commercialized trendy stuff? Of course, when pop culture is pushing that lifestyle and people are glued to the screens, it ends up as a sad state of affairs.
Honestly, incredibly untrue. Everyone adapts. I grew up in a suburb-y suburb (northern virginia) 4-5 years ago. You bike to the local community center with your friends, you drive once you're 15 back from school, to the movies, to the basketball court. The real benefit is in actually being in proper nature. My backyard had trees, and miles of walking trails, and ponds to fish in just a 5 minute walk from my front door. You can't find that in the middle of NYC. Living in a 'real' suburb is far, far better than living in a city as a tween/teenager.
I grew up in a British suburb. One may not drive in the UK until 17, and the cost of insurance makes that basically impossible for all but the very wealthy. Even with that said they seem better than the suburbs where I live now in the US.
It was frankly so miserable I have resolved never to live in anything even remotely approaching a suburb again - in the UK I’d countenance the idea of living in a village with at least two pubs, but actually live in a city where I can walk to dozens of different events, bars etc every night if I want to and never see a situation where I would accept anything less.
The NYC suburbs are vastly different to suburbs in TX or CA, of course, and many are much more livable simply due to having a train to NYC.
It was frankly so miserable I have resolved never to live in anything even remotely approaching a suburb again - in the UK I’d countenance the idea of living in a village with at least two pubs, but actually live in a city where I can walk to dozens of different events, bars etc every night if I want to and never see a situation where I would accept anything less.
The NYC suburbs are vastly different to suburbs in TX or CA, of course, and many are much more livable simply due to having a train to NYC.
Tween, maybe. It's pretty normalized for families to add [a] car[s] as kids age into driving so in practice affluent 16-year-olds lead pretty independent social lives. And this was the case for my own adolescence back in the early-mid aughts so I imagine now there's both more stuff in the suburbs and more widespread car access for teens.
As an urban father of a three-year-old I'm actually anxious about how much stuff seems to be 21+ or expensive in my city (Baltimore). In principle we're a short electric scooter ride from trendy eateries, coffee shops, theaters, music venues, etc. But my wife is super-scared of crime and traffic so I don't know if this will actually translate into him being more independent than a typical suburban teenager.
As an urban father of a three-year-old I'm actually anxious about how much stuff seems to be 21+ or expensive in my city (Baltimore). In principle we're a short electric scooter ride from trendy eateries, coffee shops, theaters, music venues, etc. But my wife is super-scared of crime and traffic so I don't know if this will actually translate into him being more independent than a typical suburban teenager.
Teens live online now. Your youth experience is not the same as that of the youth today. It's generational snobbery to impose a previous generation's preferences on modern youth.
This isn't a response: "living online" is a cultural metaphor for increased use of technology, not a preference w/r/t suburban vs. other living situations.
Last time I checked, teenagers still eat food and socialize in the physical world. It's not a huge reach to understand how suburbs stifle and constrain that (nor has that changed particularly in the last 20 years).
Last time I checked, teenagers still eat food and socialize in the physical world. It's not a huge reach to understand how suburbs stifle and constrain that (nor has that changed particularly in the last 20 years).
No food in suburbia?
HBO Max has a documentary about the Automat, which was once America's largest chain restaurant. You could put in coins and receive food from small automated doors and spigots at the Automat. Its downfall came with expansion of the suburbs, as there were fewer people remaining in the city center after work. The present crisis of city centers seems similar. I'm not sure if the relevance of city centers has basically been downhill since the first half of the 20th century, or if this phenomenon is cyclical. Give it a watch.
I'd argue they're becoming more relevant, just less business-centric. A lot of people still like living near other people with easy access to goods, services, entertainment, etc without needing the excess of a large lawn and the isolation that comes with it. (The crowd on HN may be skewed towards the latter, but it doesn't make it wrong)
Being able to walk to pick your kids up from school, stop at a coffee shop on the way home, not have to worry about car seats, or waiting in an idling car for 30 minutes for your place in line, it can be a very nice life.
Being able to walk to pick your kids up from school, stop at a coffee shop on the way home, not have to worry about car seats, or waiting in an idling car for 30 minutes for your place in line, it can be a very nice life.
The term automat refers to a model of food distribution. [0] The movie [1] is about a specific firm, Horn & Hardart [2]. I don't think I'd agree with a thesis that suburbs were the direct cause of H&H's automat chain's decline. Logistically, there is a balance of preparation, freshness and transaction latency. The automat inverted freshness and transaction to prep latency from trad restaurants. The arrival of "fast food" used standardization to decrease prep and transaction latency from trad restaurant levels while maintaining freshness levels. In terms of payment tech, I'm not able to find a reference but my recollection is that automated bill accepting technology not common until the 1980s. If automats were unable to accept bills then they would be unable to offer higher value meals without human intervention (and lose their transaction latency advantage). [3]
The format was threatened by the arrival of fast food, served over the counter and with more payment flexibility than traditional automats. . . . Another contributing factor to their demise was the inflation of the 1970s, increasing food prices which made the use of coins increasingly inconvenient in a time before bill acceptors commonly appeared on vending equipment.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automat
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Automat
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_%26_Hardart
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_detector
Edit: removed first sentence "It's like a failure of imagination is cyclical." which had to do with H&H and other's ability to pivot, which H&H did in spades.
The format was threatened by the arrival of fast food, served over the counter and with more payment flexibility than traditional automats. . . . Another contributing factor to their demise was the inflation of the 1970s, increasing food prices which made the use of coins increasingly inconvenient in a time before bill acceptors commonly appeared on vending equipment.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automat
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Automat
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_%26_Hardart
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_detector
Edit: removed first sentence "It's like a failure of imagination is cyclical." which had to do with H&H and other's ability to pivot, which H&H did in spades.
The documentary did mention the problem H&H faced when the price of coffee began to rise beyond a nickel a cup. It mentioned changes in the fast food industry, too, but I glommed onto the influence of the suburbs.
Sucks for downtown's but I'm glad to see anything that leads to a broader distribution of population.
This.
And I would say the broader distribution will actually be good for the environment as whole. Or at least it could be.
And I would say the broader distribution will actually be good for the environment as whole. Or at least it could be.
More roads, sewer pipes, power lines, distribution networks, more cars, more power for bigger homes.
I think you have this reversed.
I think you have this reversed.
High rise buildings consume more electricity per capita than smaller family homes and apartments.
Walk me through that thinking?
Downtown residents walk and use transit. Places with broader distribution of people typically rely on roads because transit isn’t economically efficient.
My intuition is that higher population densities are more environmentally efficient because more people can be served by any resource. Are you thinking otherwise?
Downtown residents walk and use transit. Places with broader distribution of people typically rely on roads because transit isn’t economically efficient.
My intuition is that higher population densities are more environmentally efficient because more people can be served by any resource. Are you thinking otherwise?
I guess you might be right.
It is just me noticing my own behavior patterns and extending it to the greater populace which is not correct.
I had a pleasure to live in village, small city and big city.
I feel I use much more resources in bigger city. Distance to the mall is similar, but all the free-time activities in the city consume energy. While in the village I mostly just walked the forest and worked on the garden.
It is also much more easier to manage waste. Food waste goes to the garden. Cardbox goes to fire place. Also, water travels only few meters from the well before it is used.
It is just me noticing my own behavior patterns and extending it to the greater populace which is not correct.
I had a pleasure to live in village, small city and big city.
I feel I use much more resources in bigger city. Distance to the mall is similar, but all the free-time activities in the city consume energy. While in the village I mostly just walked the forest and worked on the garden.
It is also much more easier to manage waste. Food waste goes to the garden. Cardbox goes to fire place. Also, water travels only few meters from the well before it is used.
Water is a good example of a resource that can be more environmentally friendly in less dense areas, though that’s not true everywhere. Plenty of suburbs in the US pipe in water from far away.
Anyways, kudos for recognizing that your behavior may not be typical. For me, the main attraction of rural living would be the ability to have a hobby machine shop, multiple cars (sorry, am enthusiast). And I’d probably drive in to the city in the absence of transit.
Anyways, kudos for recognizing that your behavior may not be typical. For me, the main attraction of rural living would be the ability to have a hobby machine shop, multiple cars (sorry, am enthusiast). And I’d probably drive in to the city in the absence of transit.
Sprawling suburbia is not small towns and villages. I could see medium-sized towns being the happy middle ground for density vs costs vs desirability. But the typical American suburb is a blight on the planet.
I think the logical mistake is that I am able & willing to live simpler life in the village. But that won't be true for most.
The people I know who don't live in a city drive much more than people who do (I don't mean the suburbs of course, I mean little towns)
I do not see how it could be more efficient from a first principles perspective.
Energy = force * distance = mass * acceleration * distance.
Broader distributions means increases in distance means increase in energy consumption.
And usually having more space means having more stuff, which means an increase in mass, which also results in increase in energy consumption.
Energy = force * distance = mass * acceleration * distance.
Broader distributions means increases in distance means increase in energy consumption.
And usually having more space means having more stuff, which means an increase in mass, which also results in increase in energy consumption.
The only counter-thought I’ve got is that maybe there are some things that aren’t necessary in lower density populations, like say streetlights at night.
But the bulk of the environmental impact of civilization seems like it is more efficient at density, though I suppose the negative effects may be more concentrated and visible (a few big trucks making deliveries rather than a huge number of small vehicles)
But the bulk of the environmental impact of civilization seems like it is more efficient at density, though I suppose the negative effects may be more concentrated and visible (a few big trucks making deliveries rather than a huge number of small vehicles)
This debate is usually between "city people" and "McMansion suburbanites", but allow me to offer two alternatives. They are described as utopias, but they really have been realized to varying extents in various places.
1.
One alternative is to revitalize the tons of walkable second-tier cities that are sitting there rotting, and to connect them with intercity transit.
I love NYC, but the problem with concentrating everyone there and in SF, is that it drives up real estate prices and creates a desperate crush to acquire property. Yes, you can say "YIMBY", but even if that were politically feasible, it couldn't keep up with in-migration if there were only those few choices (NY and SF). It would badly bifurcate society, between those who had managed to secure a toehold, and those who hadn't.
(In fact, it creates a culty Bitcoin-like dynamic, where those who have sunk the cost to be inducted (by buying property) are then incentivized to preach the benefits and keep the values up.)
Then, because people would be so desperate for money to live in these places, they'd waste their lives on corrosive professions like surveillance advertising, instead of doing work that actually helps people. That may sound familiar.
And, most importantly, geographic concentration would, arguably, go hand-in-hand with economic concentration -- with the formation of economic "chokepoints" and the concentration of monopoly power.
2.
Even the medium-urbanist decentralization of (1) would however leave people dependent on monopolies for the provision of basic ecological services.
What good is it to concentrate in cities, if all food is produced by one or two huge agricultural conglomerates? This is a condition of total dependence.
As an alternative to urbanism, Permaculture-type people do have interesting ideas. But they require land. Their methods also -- let's be honest -- come with a dramatic reduction in what we call "living standards". But if "degrowth" can come from an increase in autonomy, then that might be a trade worth making. It's one I think young people would consider.
We would probably see some amount of homophily among people, if they reorganized along these lines. There are many incompatible tribes:
- The Colorado ski-bro kombucha-chick tribe.
- Various Black Israelite and Egyption-religion back-to-Africa tribes.
- The Kanye West cult of vaguely Trump-sympathetic heterodox permie stuff.
- Indigenous revival movements. They're likely to have different language but similar interest in the environment.
- Various trad-religious tribes, like the Mennonites and Amish, but you could totally see Benedict Option Catholics or even Evangelicals going this way. Again, they'd just talk a little differently.
They wouldn't combine as a single "diverse" community, but you could see any and all of them borrowing permie ideas from one another.
In the past I have spoken in favor of universalist ideologies (I like that they help me to get along with more people), but they might be at odds with this kind of pluralism. That would need to be worked out.
3.
A natural answer is to say that there can be "gains from trade", and that not everyone needs to live in the same way. That there can be both cities and rural areas. But,
a. I am doubtful of permaculture's ability to create the kind of surplus needed to sustain urban populations, and
b. we would have to be very careful with the introduction of too much financial intermediation, lest we simply recreate the conditions we now have today.
I'm not sure what the punchline here is, except --
- that issues of political economy need to be factored in here, because they ultimately determine how nature's resources are distributed;
- that power is best when not concentrated; and
- that I'm looking for ways beyond the dichotomies implied by these posts ("dense" vs. "not dense").
1.
One alternative is to revitalize the tons of walkable second-tier cities that are sitting there rotting, and to connect them with intercity transit.
I love NYC, but the problem with concentrating everyone there and in SF, is that it drives up real estate prices and creates a desperate crush to acquire property. Yes, you can say "YIMBY", but even if that were politically feasible, it couldn't keep up with in-migration if there were only those few choices (NY and SF). It would badly bifurcate society, between those who had managed to secure a toehold, and those who hadn't.
(In fact, it creates a culty Bitcoin-like dynamic, where those who have sunk the cost to be inducted (by buying property) are then incentivized to preach the benefits and keep the values up.)
Then, because people would be so desperate for money to live in these places, they'd waste their lives on corrosive professions like surveillance advertising, instead of doing work that actually helps people. That may sound familiar.
And, most importantly, geographic concentration would, arguably, go hand-in-hand with economic concentration -- with the formation of economic "chokepoints" and the concentration of monopoly power.
2.
Even the medium-urbanist decentralization of (1) would however leave people dependent on monopolies for the provision of basic ecological services.
What good is it to concentrate in cities, if all food is produced by one or two huge agricultural conglomerates? This is a condition of total dependence.
As an alternative to urbanism, Permaculture-type people do have interesting ideas. But they require land. Their methods also -- let's be honest -- come with a dramatic reduction in what we call "living standards". But if "degrowth" can come from an increase in autonomy, then that might be a trade worth making. It's one I think young people would consider.
We would probably see some amount of homophily among people, if they reorganized along these lines. There are many incompatible tribes:
- The Colorado ski-bro kombucha-chick tribe.
- Various Black Israelite and Egyption-religion back-to-Africa tribes.
- The Kanye West cult of vaguely Trump-sympathetic heterodox permie stuff.
- Indigenous revival movements. They're likely to have different language but similar interest in the environment.
- Various trad-religious tribes, like the Mennonites and Amish, but you could totally see Benedict Option Catholics or even Evangelicals going this way. Again, they'd just talk a little differently.
They wouldn't combine as a single "diverse" community, but you could see any and all of them borrowing permie ideas from one another.
In the past I have spoken in favor of universalist ideologies (I like that they help me to get along with more people), but they might be at odds with this kind of pluralism. That would need to be worked out.
3.
A natural answer is to say that there can be "gains from trade", and that not everyone needs to live in the same way. That there can be both cities and rural areas. But,
a. I am doubtful of permaculture's ability to create the kind of surplus needed to sustain urban populations, and
b. we would have to be very careful with the introduction of too much financial intermediation, lest we simply recreate the conditions we now have today.
I'm not sure what the punchline here is, except --
- that issues of political economy need to be factored in here, because they ultimately determine how nature's resources are distributed;
- that power is best when not concentrated; and
- that I'm looking for ways beyond the dichotomies implied by these posts ("dense" vs. "not dense").
air smells cleaner too
“Remote work props up smaller communities, pumping in $453B”
Office districts suck.
It is draining to share a space with sycophants fake-smiling and fake-laughing, and superficial people ("dress for the job you want" and similar bullshit). And the few loud people without empathy that distract others while they try to focus.
Just let people be represented by what matters: their work. Do you do good work? let that be what matters.
Let people work from a quiet place instead of cargo-culting the open office layout hoax. Finally, working from home, we can actually do work instead of waiting for loud people to shut up. And yes: many times, the reason I went for a coffee walk was to wait for some loud person to shut up and I know I am not the only one.
If you want to meet face-to-face to read my face expressions to know if I am lying to you or I am hiding something, or you need to see me sitting in a desk, then instead of doing that, then just don't fucking hire in the first place because you don't trust me. If you have trust issues, instead of opening an office, go see a therapist.
Even though I care about other people's well-being, I don't care about your appearance. And thanks to remote work now nobody gets distracted by your appearance, and that is amazing.
Now that we are all interacting electronically, I cannot wait for the next generation of collaborative tools that auto-flags toxic behavior. Or a solution that does sentiment analysis on what people say in real time, such as "You sound sad as fuck, can you please cheer up a little bit?". Or "insults are not OK, please go see HR after this meeting".
It is draining to share a space with sycophants fake-smiling and fake-laughing, and superficial people ("dress for the job you want" and similar bullshit). And the few loud people without empathy that distract others while they try to focus.
Just let people be represented by what matters: their work. Do you do good work? let that be what matters.
Let people work from a quiet place instead of cargo-culting the open office layout hoax. Finally, working from home, we can actually do work instead of waiting for loud people to shut up. And yes: many times, the reason I went for a coffee walk was to wait for some loud person to shut up and I know I am not the only one.
If you want to meet face-to-face to read my face expressions to know if I am lying to you or I am hiding something, or you need to see me sitting in a desk, then instead of doing that, then just don't fucking hire in the first place because you don't trust me. If you have trust issues, instead of opening an office, go see a therapist.
Even though I care about other people's well-being, I don't care about your appearance. And thanks to remote work now nobody gets distracted by your appearance, and that is amazing.
Now that we are all interacting electronically, I cannot wait for the next generation of collaborative tools that auto-flags toxic behavior. Or a solution that does sentiment analysis on what people say in real time, such as "You sound sad as fuck, can you please cheer up a little bit?". Or "insults are not OK, please go see HR after this meeting".
The headline relies on a definition of "cost" I do not accept.
Cities will get less tax income, sure, but their outlay is also less. Their actual costs could be radically reduced by changing zoning laws to enable residents to live near their place of employment.
Cities will get less tax income, sure, but their outlay is also less. Their actual costs could be radically reduced by changing zoning laws to enable residents to live near their place of employment.
In many cities, high-rises office towers pay multi million dollar tax bills. It's nearly free revenue that doesn't really cost the city any more effort to serve. Taxing office space is the only mechanism cities typically have to tax the business community to help pay for the services is it provides to its residents. That revenue evaporates, and will have to be balanced by increased residential assessment or fed/state government bailout.
It was quite short-sighted for the owners of hundreds of billions in commercial real estate to sit idly while almost all work turned into sitting in front of a personal screen. You used to have drafting rooms, map rooms, operation centers, and other types of collaborative environment. Now you have your own screen. Think of the boost to their property values if there were commercially available roomscale software, or some kind of hologram table.
We built downtowns like deserts, rather than mixing housing, commercial, and office space holistically.
Chicken coming home to roost.
Chicken coming home to roost.
Cities can revive and thrive if they open up zoning to allow for mass office to residential conversion.
Imagine what converting 50% of NYC offices to residential would do to foot traffic and rents. City living has the potential to be far cheaper than suburban due to economies of scale. They only weren’t prior due to the concentration of high paying jobs, which presumably are going to shift to remote/global and have far less of a concentrated impact on local economies
Before people say it’s not cost viable, it is in many cases, and was already being done precovid.
https://www.washingtonian.com/2022/11/14/dc-area-leads-the-w...
Imagine what converting 50% of NYC offices to residential would do to foot traffic and rents. City living has the potential to be far cheaper than suburban due to economies of scale. They only weren’t prior due to the concentration of high paying jobs, which presumably are going to shift to remote/global and have far less of a concentrated impact on local economies
Before people say it’s not cost viable, it is in many cases, and was already being done precovid.
https://www.washingtonian.com/2022/11/14/dc-area-leads-the-w...
The article mentions Facebook closing two of their smaller offices without mentioning that 770 is still the same size and that they’re getting ready to move into the largest office they’re ever had in the city near Penn Station.
Good. Convert the real estate to residential and other commercial, build fiber to smaller communities, let people disaggregate.
City downtown or small town downtown? This sounds like city-downtown.
Traditional "downtown" America was killed or mortally wounded by Walmart many years ago. In fact, the town I grew up in got a Walmart in the mid-90's and now it has a robust stretch of highway with every "big box" vendor. Guess what happened to the quant brick building downtown that used to have every store one could need? The town I would bike around every day, meet my friends and where my mom and her peers worked? Dead. It's now a mishmash of crap stores and empty storefronts despite hosting a decent college.
Traditional "downtown" America was killed or mortally wounded by Walmart many years ago. In fact, the town I grew up in got a Walmart in the mid-90's and now it has a robust stretch of highway with every "big box" vendor. Guess what happened to the quant brick building downtown that used to have every store one could need? The town I would bike around every day, meet my friends and where my mom and her peers worked? Dead. It's now a mishmash of crap stores and empty storefronts despite hosting a decent college.
There is a big push in Ottawa, Canada to get govt workers back on the road and into buildings. Downtown businesses (restaurants, etc) are pushing for it and the govt is doing its best to cooperate with them. They are slowly moving the needle on how many days an employee needs to show up. Many are accepting it because its a low number of days per month (like 2) right now. But basically its the boil a frog strategy. There is a pro-downtown bias going on here and even if local govt does not help the Federal govt will. Zero consideration for sub-urban businesses.
"Rural Flight Is Gutting Country Towns. Will Cost Local Areas $7T Over Next Century" - 1885
Gutting the downtowns of major cities perhaps. I personally think that remote work will be a bit of an equalizer that’ll allow more people to live in more affordable areas of the country. While it’s not glamorous, my hometown has 3,000 sqft lake homes for sale ranging from $350-700k. I have a few friends who have moved back home with their remote jobs and they are funneling that money into local bars and restaurants which desperately need it.
The wholesale abdication of cities to CRE is at an end. These useless monuments to corporate excess will eventually be turned into residential and mixed used properties that will revitalize walking cities. The blocker is again the greed of the CRE industry and corporate interests who know their overinflated property values will start to plummet once the conversions from gaudy status symbols to usable affordable city real estate begins.
Good! There's finally a way to escape the awful, soul-sucking residential zoning prison that keeps people trapped in a suburban hellscape. The idea of settling into a 1+ hour daily commute for the rest of your life is genuinely depressing & terrifying.
I'm thrilled that there's a chance (at the moment) to escape that nightmare. I will never willingly commute in a car ever again.
I'm thrilled that there's a chance (at the moment) to escape that nightmare. I will never willingly commute in a car ever again.
Given a choice, a lot of people would rather not just fork over a large percentage of their take home pay to the landlords of downtowns. Those landlords have been driving the zoning policies for decades in their favor. Now things are just a tiny bit less in their favor. They kept the status quo for a very long time and made a lot of money doing so. Now things are changing. Good.
I hate cities so much that I'd rather dedicate myself to taking care of a flock of sheep than set foot in a damn office in a city again.
Barcelona has undertaken a re-working of it's central district. Good idea!
"Barcelona has launched an ambitious 10-year plan to reclaim the city’s streets from cars and cut down pollution with the creation of green spaces and public squares.
One in three streets in the heavily polluted central Eixample district – the 20th-century grid devised by the engineer Ildefons Cerdà – will become green zones under the scheme, giving priority to pedestrians and cyclists, and 21 public squares will be created at intersections...."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/11/barcelona-laun...
"Barcelona has launched an ambitious 10-year plan to reclaim the city’s streets from cars and cut down pollution with the creation of green spaces and public squares.
One in three streets in the heavily polluted central Eixample district – the 20th-century grid devised by the engineer Ildefons Cerdà – will become green zones under the scheme, giving priority to pedestrians and cyclists, and 21 public squares will be created at intersections...."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/11/barcelona-laun...
It doesn't "cost" them that much if they never had that money to begin with. If I give you $10 every month and then I stop for a month that doesn't mean me not giving you $10 cost you $10.
People are still living they are just doing it somewhere else and the money will follow.
People are still living they are just doing it somewhere else and the money will follow.
Waiting for a major strategy consulting firm to advice corporate boards on the benefits of hybrid or remote working use cases, and adoption. Firm I work with have some teams at 4 days and others at 2 days a week. It is always team meetings at the office + long lunch breaks
Cities now compete for people, instead of corporations. This is a net positive.
If cities want to do civilizational-destroying activities like not prosecuting shoplifting or eliminating cash bail, then they can suffer the consequences of not having any residential tax revenue.
If cities want to do civilizational-destroying activities like not prosecuting shoplifting or eliminating cash bail, then they can suffer the consequences of not having any residential tax revenue.
In-person office jobs are a product and office space and restaurant lunches are accessories to that product. Demand is trending away from those products.
Cities are going to have to offer more than just expensive housing for boomers and brunchers. Cities need to be a place where anyone can afford a place to live and start a business and a family. Residential housing should not be left to the commercial sector.
Cities are going to have to offer more than just expensive housing for boomers and brunchers. Cities need to be a place where anyone can afford a place to live and start a business and a family. Residential housing should not be left to the commercial sector.
This is great for the climate, for families, and for residential communities. I’ve commuted so much less and spent so much more time with my kids since remote work. And impromptu gatherings with neighbors seems to be up at least for us.
But have you considered the bottom lines of landlords, real estate companies and tax-entitled cities?
Surely you realise that these people are more deserving of your money than you yourself. The climate is a small price to pay for it of course
Surely you realise that these people are more deserving of your money than you yourself. The climate is a small price to pay for it of course
> Remote Work Is Gutting Downtowns, Will Cost Cities $453B
Looked at another way: “remote work is easing competition for downtown real estate, providing an easy route for cities to deal with housing crises in urban cores.”
Looked at another way: “remote work is easing competition for downtown real estate, providing an easy route for cities to deal with housing crises in urban cores.”
I was in Manhattan when the pandemic hit, now I am in suburbs and I kind of like it out here. I miss the city, but it seems rent has gone up, not down, since 2020. So I will be staying out here for a while.
New York rental vacancy rate is still pretty typical, but trending up[0]. I expect it will continue as leases expire and people move to WFH elsewhere. If that happens, rents should come down, unless RealPage and similar drive price spirals of higher prices for fewer occupied units.
[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYRVAC
[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYRVAC
Not too sure about that. I visited NYC several times after covid, and it is packed every time. The offices might not be full, but the streets and apartments def are.
> Dense downtowns in Austin and New York have seen steep increases in rental demand, a sign that people continue to be willing to pay a premium to live in a social district.
(^^from the article)
People, especially young people, still find NYC desirable enough to pay a lot for rent.
> Dense downtowns in Austin and New York have seen steep increases in rental demand, a sign that people continue to be willing to pay a premium to live in a social district.
(^^from the article)
People, especially young people, still find NYC desirable enough to pay a lot for rent.
I wonder how they square steep increase in rental demand in NYC with decreasing occupancy rates.
Playing the world's saddest song on the world's smallest violin
I don't want to get back into the human cattle cars called commuter trains and buses while the "officials" are driving around in Suburbans and parking in "official spots"
[deleted]
This is an American problem. Not a cities problem.
There are cities with downtowns where people live in them. Not every city follows the American model of concentrating commercial activity in the center and having most people live in unsustainable suburbs. That's the problem.
This is what America gets for building shit cities that no one wants to live in. This is fundamentally a problem with a lack of mixed zoning and American style suburbia.
There are cities with downtowns where people live in them. Not every city follows the American model of concentrating commercial activity in the center and having most people live in unsustainable suburbs. That's the problem.
This is what America gets for building shit cities that no one wants to live in. This is fundamentally a problem with a lack of mixed zoning and American style suburbia.
Glad to hear it. Employers treated their workers like cattle, stuffing them together into ever shrinking spaces. I'll never go back to that torture.
The downtown area of every major American city is an urban hellscape dominated by soulless office buildings, six lane roads, cars, parking lots and overpriced sandwich shops catering to the weekday lunch crowd. No shit no one wants to spends time over there unless forced to.
Good. This is $453B that people can now put to better use, by working from their preferred location.
I'm continually surprised by the resiliency of the urban housing real estate market given the remote work transition. Why pay such a huge premium to sit at home? I understand wanting to be where the action is, but e.g. the New York rental market just seems insane.
People pay to live in urban centers to not sit at home. They're there for that aforementioned action! But on a more practical level, a lot of people enjoy being able to walk to the gym, supermarket, cafes, restaurants, etc and when working from home you get to utilize that luxury even more often. My days are often littered with short-to-medium walks
downtowns are picking up. With remote work my wife walks downtown and gets lunch etc.
Places like SF though may struggle because parts of Sf are not inviting - car gets broken into, have to lock bike going into stores etc
Places like SF though may struggle because parts of Sf are not inviting - car gets broken into, have to lock bike going into stores etc
Downtown SF has horrible QOL issues and will take a long time to recover. Downtown Columbus has had no problems continuing to thrive, because they don't tolerate shitting in the streets and shooting up in front of restaurants.
That $453B had been greedily seized by the real estate owners, often by inheritance. Good that a portion is being released to some of the workers, who no longer pay exorbitant fees.
The fees won't be as big a change as businesses being able to pay higher salaries from the savings.
[deleted]
Typical BI. Should have its title changed to:
Remote work is making downtowns more affordable, will save people $blablaB
[deleted]
Good. We have people needing housing and people not needing office buildings. Something needed to change.
No problem. Convert those commercial spaces to residential. There is a major housing shortage.
perfect setup for Sunk Cost Fallacy on a massive scale
[deleted]
Always blame the workers, never blame a system that is based in the following pillars: the exploitation of said workers, unlimited growth, the plundering of developing nations and the vast ammount of profits being kept by the capitalist class.
Gooood shit.
Good. Urban real estate is due for a correction.
I welcome these changes... Yes we'll need to rethink our urbanism, but if anything this switch feels like a coming back of what our urban centers are supposed to provide us.
Imagine parking spaces becoming local artisans/food stalls, conference rooms becoming event spaces, coworking spaces adapted to people's lifestyle and living patterns (e.g. a suburban cowork with childcare and a dog park).
"gutting downtown" might be true for those who are wary their office real estate investment will not have a positive ROI. But the way I see it, this change in urban patterns is a paradigm shift in wealth distribution patterns and in economic opportunities for leisure services, both locally and globally.