3 ms·

Why are you applying your very rare and individual use of space to an entirely broad city layout write-up?

wahern 10y ago
Because implicit (or literally explicit, as in the article) in the notion of dense commercial space is the idea of diversity, where lots of different people can mingle and share ideas. When discussing street-level retail space the notion of having diversity in leasable floor area is well understood and accepted. If every retail space is 10,000 square feet you'll only get large chains. To get the small shops you need small spaces, down to just a couple hundred square feet and less. But somehow we forget this lesson when it comes to leasable office space. If office space is only leased per floor, you're severely restricting the viability of smaller businesses and professionals in those spaces. Instead, you'll end up pushing all of them outside the core business district. Overtime you'll just end up with a smaller number of medium and large corporations from a small number of industries who are capable of leasing the large spaces. If you want economic diversity downtown, you need diversity in leasable office space. Short-term that means less optimal use of office space. But long-term it means less volatility and more vibrancy. Silicon Valley has a ton of single-story office complexes. What's really unique about those complexes, in addition to the sheer number, is that many of the leasable spaces are rather small. Not small enough for single early stage startups or professionals, but definitely small by comparison to what's typical of office architecture today. Given the premium price of office space in dense urban cores, if you want to reproduce in dense cities what Silicon Valley nurtured early, those cities will need smaller office spaces. Especially once the stock market crashes in the next year or so, and VC money becomes tighter.
- ch4s3 10y ago
  That's actually a pretty good point. I know when I lived in Baltimore, this was a big problem. There's a ton of lage class B space but not much that's small.

Because implicit (or literally explicit, as in the article) in the notion of dense commercial space is the idea of diversity, where lots of different people can mingle and share ideas. When discussing street-level retail space the notion of having diversity in leasable floor area is well understood and accepted. If every retail space is 10,000 square feet you'll only get large chains. To get the small shops you need small spaces, down to just a couple hundred square feet and less. But somehow we forget this lesson when it comes to leasable office space. If office space is only leased per floor, you're severely restricting the viability of smaller businesses and professionals in those spaces. Instead, you'll end up pushing all of them outside the core business district. Overtime you'll just end up with a smaller number of medium and large corporations from a small number of industries who are capable of leasing the large spaces. If you want economic diversity downtown, you need diversity in leasable office space. Short-term that means less optimal use of office space. But long-term it means less volatility and more vibrancy. Silicon Valley has a ton of single-story office complexes. What's really unique about those complexes, in addition to the sheer number, is that many of the leasable spaces are rather small. Not small enough for single early stage startups or professionals, but definitely small by comparison to what's typical of office architecture today. Given the premium price of office space in dense urban cores, if you want to reproduce in dense cities what Silicon Valley nurtured early, those cities will need smaller office spaces. Especially once the stock market crashes in the next year or so, and VC money becomes tighter.

ch4s3 10y ago
That's actually a pretty good point. I know when I lived in Baltimore, this was a big problem. There's a ton of lage class B space but not much that's small.