7 ms·

The City of London is having a skyscraper boom at the moment - two major 100+ floor buildings are going up and you can hardly turn a corner without some crane o

The City of London is having a skyscraper boom at the moment - two major 100+ floor buildings are going up and you can hardly turn a corner without some crane or building work going on. I personally (and without any empirical evidence) think that there is no way London needs this much more office space, partly because "Brexit China Tariffs", but mostly because remote working and "just not in the office five days a week" is becoming a thing. Turning that sterile office space onto more live/work/mix-it-up space, perhaps floors 1-20 as office and 20-40 as apartments or something, will almaot certainly be a feature of the next twenty years. And all that office space and living space and mixed something or other we don't quite get, all that will need to be sold and packaged and marketed. And so, long story long, whilst WeWork may look like a joke, may be a "lose money on each sale but make it up in volume", something like WeWork may just be the Hoover or the Pullman coach of mixed live work office buildings. Because mixed live work office buildings will be the Pullman coaches of tomorrow's cities - cities have a new brighter car free future, where Barcelona's mega-blocks will meets the density of skyscrapers. But it needs ... looking after. Putting a millions tons of glass and steel pointing straight up is an awesome technical achievement Making that tower somewhere that families can live, love, shop and work is a different skill set entirely. It won't look like building service companies do today. It might just look like WeWork (Thank you, normal cynical and cutting remarks will resume shortly)

professorTuring 7y ago
> [...] perhaps floors 1-20 as office and 20-40 as apartments or something, will almaot certainly be a feature of the next twenty years. Please be wrong, please, please, please... If I just can telecommute I don't want my workspace being my live space and my neighbours being my coworkers. That can may be a thing if you are living by your own, living in a foreign city and without family. I can't see it other way.
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  One thing the City as an area is short of is hotel space. Hotels or part-time occupancy residential (serviced apartments and second homes) feels much more realistic for that space than "true" residential space.
- lifeisstillgood 7y ago
  Skyscrapers are only getting bigger. And while "walkability" and "going outside" are really important so too is density and density can breed innovation. It's why weird companies with funny CEOs might try things that a serviced office corporation might not and might build an environment that's better for us all. It would be rare I admit.
  - Phillipharryt 7y ago
    Ever read or watched High Rise by JG Ballard? Afterwards you might not be so keen on living in the same skyscraper as you work.
tomatocracy 7y ago
Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not sure I agree here. It doesn't feel much different to 2006/07 - ie peak of the cycle in real estate for the City (not to say that I think the bust will be like 2008/09 but that I think there really is a clearly cyclical element to it). The City is not a place families typically want to live because it has very little green space - and it's largely not a place marketed to families. High-end residential space in the City is essentially marketed at two groups: single people in their 20s/early 30s working nearby, and people for whom it's a second home near work. In my opinion, those markets are enough to sustain it for many years to come - they're likely to grow and what's more they have disposable income which will support the retail/etc element in a way homes for families these days don't. The commercial real estate boom in the City is the latest in a long, long list of such. Unlike Canary Wharf, which has been very careful to manage space so that almost every square foot is always occupied except in the deepest points of recessions, real estate in the City has had a large speculative element to it for at least the time I've been observing the market (since the 90s), and I don't see anything different here. There's a long-term growth story and a cyclical element. Long-term growth is about a move eastwards as the West End gets filled up/businesses get priced out. The cyclical part this time to me seems to combine an element of that with it being a "signalling" location for certain types of business about who/what they are.
- cm2187 7y ago
  Plus I believe the City of London has a policy of avoiding owner occupied apartments blocks. Once a building is owned by 600 people, there is no way you can buy it, demolish it to build something more adapted to the new demand.
  - tomatocracy 7y ago
    I'm not sure that's true, and in any case they can't really enforce that - if a building owner wants to sell individual units, they can sell them. The obvious counterexample to your point is the Barbican. Much of the Barbican is owner occupied and the vast majority of the flats there are privately owned (ie not local authority/housing association). I'm not sure but I think the Barbican still houses the majority of residents of the City proper.
loceng 7y ago
I wonder what happened to the concept of the garage startup that Silicon Valley's foundation is famous for? Too much money from profits and not enough people or ideas to invest in? Paying for an office space is an extremely inefficient use of resources, especially when plenty of cafe space - or just, you know, your living room, kitchen - or garage - are useful even for teams of 20+ because will be rare to need everyone in a single space at once, and then you can just rent something larger for that event. I kind of have a challenge with myself to work towards launching the fastest growing projects/platforms using as few resources as possible. whether I'll reach that goal is moot, though - it's more or less a mantra for me to pay attention to whether I am rushing or not.
- waitwhatwhere 7y ago
  IMO we’ve taken to conflating “work” with “job”. The social meme has shifted from find work you connect to, to find job at “Happy Cult Incorporated”. We owe management our time or they’ll take their money and go somewhere else is the messaging.
- rhizome 7y ago
  >I wonder what happened to the concept of the garage startup that Silicon Valley's foundation is famous for? Killed by housing costs and a mature industry. Who can rent most of a house right out of school (HP), or bang around in their childhood home (Apple) in SV? Not only are the costs prohibitive, but most residents are from somewhere else, so no childhood home in existence anyway. Moving to SV is done to parachute in to the success that previous generations had to create for themselves. Oversimplifying a bit, but the point is that both the economics and the demographics have swung way far away from "scrappy young geniuses" to "Ivy League careerists." It's almost a different universe, and would be completely distinct by now had Starbucks not been invented.
- umanwizard 7y ago
  Maybe it could work for founders, but as an employee I would absolutely not sign on to a company whose space is a garage. First of all, it signals precariousness and non-seriousness. Second, I can get a job at any number of companies in more comfortable settings, so why shouldn’t I? Maybe part of the difference is related to supply and demand: potential employees have other opportunities, so why should they make sacrifices for companies they don’t own more than 0.5% of?
laurex 7y ago
I had a previous job where the owner bought a building in NYC and made the top floors apartments, one of which I was offered at a low rate. I am very glad I said no, because imagine the golden handcuff scenario of having a below-market place to live ONLY if you keep working for a person/company who, at least in that case, turned out to be pretty creepy.
- brokensegue 7y ago
  Doesn't FB own nearby housing that it rents to its employees
twic 7y ago
> cities have a new brighter car free future, where Barcelona's mega-blocks will meets the density of skyscrapers. But it needs ... looking after. Without detracting at all from a really interesting speculation, this does sound like the opening crawl of a hopepunk Judge Dredd film.
txcwpalpha 7y ago
>two major 100+ floor buildings are going up Which buildings? According to this [1] there isn't a single building in London (completed, under construction, or even proposed) that is 100+ floors. The tallest building in London (The Shard) only has 80 floors and there are currently no buildings planned that would be taller. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_...
sgt101 7y ago
The reason for the boom is that building skyscrapers got a lot cheaper in the last 10 years as the techniques and approaches have been worked out in the Middle East and China. It's not really anything to do with the economy - just the chance to create a lot of office space cheap. I think that the other factor is the Queen Elizabeth line which will bring a lot of commuters from the west of london and outlying areas into city of london range. I expect docklands to be the big loser.

professorTuring 7y ago

> [...] perhaps floors 1-20 as office and 20-40 as apartments or something, will almaot certainly be a feature of the next twenty years. Please be wrong, please, please, please... If I just can telecommute I don't want my workspace being my live space and my neighbours being my coworkers. That can may be a thing if you are living by your own, living in a foreign city and without family. I can't see it other way.

tomatocracy 7y ago
One thing the City as an area is short of is hotel space. Hotels or part-time occupancy residential (serviced apartments and second homes) feels much more realistic for that space than "true" residential space.
lifeisstillgood 7y ago
Skyscrapers are only getting bigger. And while "walkability" and "going outside" are really important so too is density and density can breed innovation. It's why weird companies with funny CEOs might try things that a serviced office corporation might not and might build an environment that's better for us all. It would be rare I admit.
- Phillipharryt 7y ago
  Ever read or watched High Rise by JG Ballard? Afterwards you might not be so keen on living in the same skyscraper as you work.

tomatocracy 7y ago

Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not sure I agree here. It doesn't feel much different to 2006/07 - ie peak of the cycle in real estate for the City (not to say that I think the bust will be like 2008/09 but that I think there really is a clearly cyclical element to it). The City is not a place families typically want to live because it has very little green space - and it's largely not a place marketed to families. High-end residential space in the City is essentially marketed at two groups: single people in their 20s/early 30s working nearby, and people for whom it's a second home near work. In my opinion, those markets are enough to sustain it for many years to come - they're likely to grow and what's more they have disposable income which will support the retail/etc element in a way homes for families these days don't. The commercial real estate boom in the City is the latest in a long, long list of such. Unlike Canary Wharf, which has been very careful to manage space so that almost every square foot is always occupied except in the deepest points of recessions, real estate in the City has had a large speculative element to it for at least the time I've been observing the market (since the 90s), and I don't see anything different here. There's a long-term growth story and a cyclical element. Long-term growth is about a move eastwards as the West End gets filled up/businesses get priced out. The cyclical part this time to me seems to combine an element of that with it being a "signalling" location for certain types of business about who/what they are.

cm2187 7y ago
Plus I believe the City of London has a policy of avoiding owner occupied apartments blocks. Once a building is owned by 600 people, there is no way you can buy it, demolish it to build something more adapted to the new demand.
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  I'm not sure that's true, and in any case they can't really enforce that - if a building owner wants to sell individual units, they can sell them. The obvious counterexample to your point is the Barbican. Much of the Barbican is owner occupied and the vast majority of the flats there are privately owned (ie not local authority/housing association). I'm not sure but I think the Barbican still houses the majority of residents of the City proper.

loceng 7y ago

I wonder what happened to the concept of the garage startup that Silicon Valley's foundation is famous for? Too much money from profits and not enough people or ideas to invest in? Paying for an office space is an extremely inefficient use of resources, especially when plenty of cafe space - or just, you know, your living room, kitchen - or garage - are useful even for teams of 20+ because will be rare to need everyone in a single space at once, and then you can just rent something larger for that event. I kind of have a challenge with myself to work towards launching the fastest growing projects/platforms using as few resources as possible. whether I'll reach that goal is moot, though - it's more or less a mantra for me to pay attention to whether I am rushing or not.

waitwhatwhere 7y ago
IMO we’ve taken to conflating “work” with “job”. The social meme has shifted from find work you connect to, to find job at “Happy Cult Incorporated”. We owe management our time or they’ll take their money and go somewhere else is the messaging.
rhizome 7y ago
>I wonder what happened to the concept of the garage startup that Silicon Valley's foundation is famous for? Killed by housing costs and a mature industry. Who can rent most of a house right out of school (HP), or bang around in their childhood home (Apple) in SV? Not only are the costs prohibitive, but most residents are from somewhere else, so no childhood home in existence anyway. Moving to SV is done to parachute in to the success that previous generations had to create for themselves. Oversimplifying a bit, but the point is that both the economics and the demographics have swung way far away from "scrappy young geniuses" to "Ivy League careerists." It's almost a different universe, and would be completely distinct by now had Starbucks not been invented.
umanwizard 7y ago
Maybe it could work for founders, but as an employee I would absolutely not sign on to a company whose space is a garage. First of all, it signals precariousness and non-seriousness. Second, I can get a job at any number of companies in more comfortable settings, so why shouldn’t I? Maybe part of the difference is related to supply and demand: potential employees have other opportunities, so why should they make sacrifices for companies they don’t own more than 0.5% of?

laurex 7y ago

I had a previous job where the owner bought a building in NYC and made the top floors apartments, one of which I was offered at a low rate. I am very glad I said no, because imagine the golden handcuff scenario of having a below-market place to live ONLY if you keep working for a person/company who, at least in that case, turned out to be pretty creepy.

brokensegue 7y ago
Doesn't FB own nearby housing that it rents to its employees

twic 7y ago

> cities have a new brighter car free future, where Barcelona's mega-blocks will meets the density of skyscrapers. But it needs ... looking after. Without detracting at all from a really interesting speculation, this does sound like the opening crawl of a hopepunk Judge Dredd film.

txcwpalpha 7y ago

>two major 100+ floor buildings are going up Which buildings? According to this [1] there isn't a single building in London (completed, under construction, or even proposed) that is 100+ floors. The tallest building in London (The Shard) only has 80 floors and there are currently no buildings planned that would be taller. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_...

sgt101 7y ago

The reason for the boom is that building skyscrapers got a lot cheaper in the last 10 years as the techniques and approaches have been worked out in the Middle East and China. It's not really anything to do with the economy - just the chance to create a lot of office space cheap. I think that the other factor is the Queen Elizabeth line which will bring a lot of commuters from the west of london and outlying areas into city of london range. I expect docklands to be the big loser.