6 ms·

Office Parks are dying because the way our careers are going has changed. Many people change jobs every 2-3 years rather than dedicate their life at a single Bi

Office Parks are dying because the way our careers are going has changed. Many people change jobs every 2-3 years rather than dedicate their life at a single Big Employer. Living in the Suburbs and working at an office park is a very inflexible setup. Working in SF and commuting in from Oakland for example will enable you to change jobs more frequently without uprooting your life.

ghaff 11y ago
>Working in SF and commuting in from Oakland for example will enable you to change jobs more frequently without uprooting your life. So, in that example, anywhere outside of SF in the South Bay isn't an option. Beyond highly concentrated cities like Manhattan where there's a huge confluence of jobs in a particular industry, job mobility causes issues in any case (especially once the jobs of partners and kids' schools are involved) in any case. It's rare industries and location where you can generally change jobs without commute being a factor.
- mjevans 11y ago
  zinssmeister is viewing the /approximate/ duration of a commute as a 'sunk cost' (in time) for the worker. If the jobs are all centrally located even insane real-estate and urban development practices that drive the workers out to suburbs can make economic sense once the workers are conditioned to put up with that abuse. They are saying that many, in fact most, 'local' jobs exist with relatively little opportunity cost for change. Contrast this with a hypothetical future of (E.G) New York, where in 30-50 years they've gone full caves of steel: banishing cars to the edge and having a multi-layer dense mesh of rapid electric motor powered transit and living which intermingles living, working, recreational and (deep underground) industrial productivity. There the opportunity costs might also be the same, but the cost (in time) of migrating might be less, and favor walking on moving belts for a combination of speed and exercise.
- lucaspiller 11y ago
  Maybe this is why the European tech industry has been growing so much recently - most of our cities have great public transport :)

ghaff 11y ago

>Working in SF and commuting in from Oakland for example will enable you to change jobs more frequently without uprooting your life. So, in that example, anywhere outside of SF in the South Bay isn't an option. Beyond highly concentrated cities like Manhattan where there's a huge confluence of jobs in a particular industry, job mobility causes issues in any case (especially once the jobs of partners and kids' schools are involved) in any case. It's rare industries and location where you can generally change jobs without commute being a factor.

mjevans 11y ago
zinssmeister is viewing the /approximate/ duration of a commute as a 'sunk cost' (in time) for the worker. If the jobs are all centrally located even insane real-estate and urban development practices that drive the workers out to suburbs can make economic sense once the workers are conditioned to put up with that abuse. They are saying that many, in fact most, 'local' jobs exist with relatively little opportunity cost for change. Contrast this with a hypothetical future of (E.G) New York, where in 30-50 years they've gone full caves of steel: banishing cars to the edge and having a multi-layer dense mesh of rapid electric motor powered transit and living which intermingles living, working, recreational and (deep underground) industrial productivity. There the opportunity costs might also be the same, but the cost (in time) of migrating might be less, and favor walking on moving belts for a combination of speed and exercise.
lucaspiller 11y ago
Maybe this is why the European tech industry has been growing so much recently - most of our cities have great public transport :)