3 ms·

And perhaps when enough of these like-minded remote workers are living near each other, some of them will find that they enjoy working in the same physical loca

And perhaps when enough of these like-minded remote workers are living near each other, some of them will find that they enjoy working in the same physical location at the same time. Then some of the space in the community can be turned into hubs for in-person collaboration, or offices!

edw 6y ago
Or coffee shops.
mb7733 6y ago
Not sure if you're being dismissive, but that still sounds great. It would lead to many small, livable communities with opportunity dotting the country. As opposed to everyone living in suburbs and and making long commutes to a small number of massive urban centers.
- rexarex 6y ago
  You ever try living in SF? You seem to have described it in a sense. Also see this great South Park clip for an analogy: https://youtu.be/a3ezyTXFgYM https://youtu.be/a3ezyTXFgYM
  - mb7733 6y ago
    I don't follow. What part of my post described SF, and what is the analogy with that South park clip? What I said was that if small communities spring up around places where remote workers converge, that is a good thing. It doesn't defeat the purpose of remote work.
    - rexarex 6y ago
      I might have misinterpreted your comment, however I’m poking fun at the cyclical nature of change. The fact that people want to go remote and distributed and then maybe start up these things called ‘offices’ is analogous to quasi anarchist hippies at festivals that want to move off the grid and let a new society flourish organically. Ultimately we end up in the same place.
- toyg 6y ago
  That’s basically the model IBM was actively pursuing in the 90s-00s (no idea whether they still do). They ran a bunch of studies in the previous decades, showing the various trade-offs involved into office locations; eventually they decided the best overall policy was to prefer mid-size offices in suburban settings, away from business districts and other high-density areas. At one point I think they had an outright ban on new city-centre offices. (Or at least this is what I was told when I was a contractor for them in the mid-00s in Europe, wondering why they avoided getting a single building in Manchester city centre and spread over two separate locations in the surrounding suburbs instead.)
  - ghaff 6y ago
    HQ is in Armonk which is Westchester County. Somers (since sold) and Poughkeepsie are there as well as is IBM Research at Yoktown Heights. Raleigh is in an industrial park (RTP). I'm by no means familiar with all of IBM's locations but, yes, many of them are suburban. IBM also sold their building in Manhattan in the 90s though they may still have some space there; they did when I last visited but that was quite a while ago. Most of the IBM people I work with work remotely.
    - wjamesg 6y ago
      I’m not sure RTP qualifies as “an industrial park” but suburban, sure
jdbernard 6y ago
Key difference is that in this model offices are built around the community, not the corporation. Seems likely to lead to very different results.
chippy 6y ago
this is the wework model. Instead of the companies running the offices, the companies pay the workers to use 3rd party offices.
- toyg 6y ago
  It’s the AWS model applied to real estate: move that $$$ from CapEx to OpEx, woot!
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    Office leases were always OpEx mang
    - toyg 6y ago
      You're right, I was thinking Old Businesses who actually bought their real estate (long-term thinking, such madness!)
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        As it so happens, in the long term they were all dead.
pimterry 6y ago
Self-chosen hubs for work are dramatically better for the individual than a company office though. They're not the same thing. Advantages: - Employee picks the location, so it's likely far more convenient for them - Because employee has freedom to pick their work location, they have far more freedom to pick where they live - Because employees have freedom to pick their work locations, all of a sudden "work location" is a competitive market, everywhere, and multiple options appear vying to fulfil different preferences (how quiet should they be? are pets allowed? do you want sharp & suited & professional, or lively with events every night, or chilled and friendly, or...?) - Employee doesn't need to change their commute or desk or _anything_ when they change jobs - 'Office' social life independent of your colleagues: you meet a wider range of people, and you separate work relationships from those friendships - Less presenteeism, because it's harder for people to tell when you're present (not impossible, but it pushes in the right direction)

edw 6y ago

Or coffee shops.

mb7733 6y ago

Not sure if you're being dismissive, but that still sounds great. It would lead to many small, livable communities with opportunity dotting the country. As opposed to everyone living in suburbs and and making long commutes to a small number of massive urban centers.

rexarex 6y ago
You ever try living in SF? You seem to have described it in a sense. Also see this great South Park clip for an analogy: https://youtu.be/a3ezyTXFgYM https://youtu.be/a3ezyTXFgYM
- mb7733 6y ago
  I don't follow. What part of my post described SF, and what is the analogy with that South park clip? What I said was that if small communities spring up around places where remote workers converge, that is a good thing. It doesn't defeat the purpose of remote work.
  - rexarex 6y ago
    I might have misinterpreted your comment, however I’m poking fun at the cyclical nature of change. The fact that people want to go remote and distributed and then maybe start up these things called ‘offices’ is analogous to quasi anarchist hippies at festivals that want to move off the grid and let a new society flourish organically. Ultimately we end up in the same place.
toyg 6y ago
That’s basically the model IBM was actively pursuing in the 90s-00s (no idea whether they still do). They ran a bunch of studies in the previous decades, showing the various trade-offs involved into office locations; eventually they decided the best overall policy was to prefer mid-size offices in suburban settings, away from business districts and other high-density areas. At one point I think they had an outright ban on new city-centre offices. (Or at least this is what I was told when I was a contractor for them in the mid-00s in Europe, wondering why they avoided getting a single building in Manchester city centre and spread over two separate locations in the surrounding suburbs instead.)
- ghaff 6y ago
  HQ is in Armonk which is Westchester County. Somers (since sold) and Poughkeepsie are there as well as is IBM Research at Yoktown Heights. Raleigh is in an industrial park (RTP). I'm by no means familiar with all of IBM's locations but, yes, many of them are suburban. IBM also sold their building in Manhattan in the 90s though they may still have some space there; they did when I last visited but that was quite a while ago. Most of the IBM people I work with work remotely.
  - wjamesg 6y ago
    I’m not sure RTP qualifies as “an industrial park” but suburban, sure

jdbernard 6y ago

Key difference is that in this model offices are built around the community, not the corporation. Seems likely to lead to very different results.

chippy 6y ago

this is the wework model. Instead of the companies running the offices, the companies pay the workers to use 3rd party offices.

toyg 6y ago
It’s the AWS model applied to real estate: move that $$$ from CapEx to OpEx, woot!
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  Office leases were always OpEx mang
  - toyg 6y ago
    You're right, I was thinking Old Businesses who actually bought their real estate (long-term thinking, such madness!)
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      As it so happens, in the long term they were all dead.

pimterry 6y ago

Self-chosen hubs for work are dramatically better for the individual than a company office though. They're not the same thing. Advantages: - Employee picks the location, so it's likely far more convenient for them - Because employee has freedom to pick their work location, they have far more freedom to pick where they live - Because employees have freedom to pick their work locations, all of a sudden "work location" is a competitive market, everywhere, and multiple options appear vying to fulfil different preferences (how quiet should they be? are pets allowed? do you want sharp & suited & professional, or lively with events every night, or chilled and friendly, or...?) - Employee doesn't need to change their commute or desk or _anything_ when they change jobs - 'Office' social life independent of your colleagues: you meet a wider range of people, and you separate work relationships from those friendships - Less presenteeism, because it's harder for people to tell when you're present (not impossible, but it pushes in the right direction)