8 ms·

100 Salesforce employees work in its 61-story HQ

80 points by jeffthechimp 5y ago

zinekeller 5y ago
I hate clickbait tiles, but I hate it more when a perfectly good title (How SF tech giants are navigating a successful return to the office) is replaced by a clickbait title for posterity (and looking at the URL, it was definitely not A/B testing).
- junon 5y ago
  This is actually against HN guidelines. This is editorializing the article's title which is frowned upon here. It should be edited to reflect the original title.
  - SevenSigs 5y ago
    I think that this title (100 Salesforce employees work in its 61-story HQ) represents the reality more accurately (ie: this is not a successful return to the office when there used to be thousands of employees in that building).
xnx 5y ago
I constantly think about how at the same time we have a housing shortage there a millions of square feet of empty office and retail spaces. Will we ever reuse these spaces the way we turn small scale manufacturing spaces into trendy lofts?
- ipnon 5y ago
  No, because there is too much money to be made in the living space supply squeeze.
  - smt88 5y ago
    That's assuming the people who own commercial real estate also own a lot of residential real estate, which is not the case. The actual problem is that it costs an enormous amount of money to retrofit commercial properties as residential. Source: currently have dozens of commercial RE clients
    - Tempest1981 5y ago
      I'm thinking kitchens, showers, walls... fire safety (windows, exits). Are those the big items? Edit: from the SFChron article mentioned above: > “Finding the deal for us is almost like the needle in the haystack,” he said. “We had to basically build a brand-new building within a building. It’s not for the faint of heart.” > > Each apartment at 229 Ellis St., ranging from 180 to 300 square feet, cost around $400,000 to build out, less than ground-up construction. Seems expensive for that tiny of a space.
      - smt88 5y ago
        As far as I know, the biggest problems are converting plumbing, heating/cooling, and electrical from a communal (often open-office) setup to individual units. Office buildings are often concrete with drop ceilings to make it easy to access sprinklers, wiring, and pipes, but you would still need to run all of those things across every floor of the building. A single, modern condo likely has 2+ full baths, so if you're trying to get 10 units per floor, you're going to do that work 20+ times. Kitchens are also difficult, yes. You need to be able to vent heat and smoke, and you need different electrical wiring in most cases. Then think about ceilings. Drop ceilings are not appealing to most people, so you need a solution for that. Even if you keep the drop ceiling and just use a nicer tile, you're still spending $5-$30/sqft. Walls aren't that expensive, but you need a lot of them to convert back from the trendy open-office plans that most buildings have. There's also a lot of legal work to convert to condos (assuming you don't want to do rentals, which most of these office owners absolutely don't want to do). There's just a much bigger difference between office and residential space than people realize, I think.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- umeshunni 5y ago
  I've wondered the same and what my limited research has said is that the amount of plumbing and other re-structuring that needs to be done to convert an office space into a living space is current cost-prohibitive.
- smt88 5y ago
  We may repurpose them as residential, but it won't be soon. Most industries are still expecting a return to near normal. Even if a lot of people go fully remote, owners of these buildings assume the drop in demand will kill new projects rather than permanently empty out existing properties.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  The plumbing is all set up for centralized bathrooms. Doubt most people in trendy lofts want to a public bathroom down the hall.
- innagadadavida 5y ago
  Commercial real estate is very lucrative to local governments and it causes all kinds of problems with housing. We need some sort of a hard ratio limit on how many offices can be built fir a given amount of houses in commutable distance. It is sad to see all the baristas and workers commute crazy distances to get to their work. This is not good for employee well being nor traffic.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Commercial real estate is almost pure “profit” for a City - pays taxes with little demands on services beyond some streets and basic policing. Arguably property tax on office buildings should be lower to discourage cities from dedicate too much space to it.
- jollybean 5y ago
  These buildings would require enormous retrofit to bring to residential standards - and then - they're not even zoned for it. The same problem that's driving the empty space, i.e. 'remote' should 'solve' the housing problem for those remoting, in that there's unlimited inexpensive places to live in the US. It's just expensive to live in specific places, i.e. near that tower. Other than maybe some industrial buildings retrofitted to lofts + civic issues around that i.e. sidewalks, buses, zoning yada yada it's unlikely you'll ever see these kinds of things retrofitted. Give it another 2 years, this space will get used one way or another.
  - duxup 5y ago
    They converted an fairly tall office tower into condos not far from me. In short, it wasn't a very profitable venture due to costs of retrofiting it and folks who live there...still feel like they live in an office building.
    - bombcar 5y ago
      Even with skyscrapers it’s often more cost effective to level it and start anew. For the standard office park setup even Moreso.
- wahern 5y ago
  It's not uncommon, actually, including in San Francisco, where there are many examples. As others elsethread have said, though, it's just not as easy or affordable as you'd expect. Here's a recent SF Chronicle article discussing it: "S.F. has nearly 16 million square feet of vacant office space. Why can't it become housing?", https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/S-F-has-nearly-16-million-square-feet-of-vacant-16051240.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/S-F-has-nearly-...
- CommanderData 5y ago
  In the UK we have house developers converting offices located in busy industrial estates into residential flats. There's been a number of deaths of residents and countless accidents recently because of some of these locations are absolutely terrible for residents to live in. One area on my way to work has no green space for about a mile, access is through a single busy road used by skips and big vehicles and the noise starts early in the morning, and air pollution is very high. Where do families and children go when they want to play? I think it's criminal councils are approving some areas for residential use. I think councils are liable for deaths in these unsuitable areas.
duxup 5y ago
I worked in a four story building with maybe 100 people in it at one time, but in the past held about 600 people comfortably (dude to an acquisition we were what was left). It still received regular cleaning services and etc to all floors. Only a few bothered to leave our corner of our floor. Using the executive suite bathrooms was a real treat.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  I worked as an intern at IBM’s Boca Raton campus just before they shut it for a move to Austin. It was crazy deserted and eery. Not the same, I guess, since it was more sprawling with little multistory buildings.
  - throwaway3neu94 5y ago
    I worked in an office meant for 80 that only ever had 35. Room to grow! It was great. Then 30 people quit. Later I worked in a scyscraper. Our floor was never exactly full, then like 80% on the floor were laid off. Entire teams gone. Eerie is a good way to describe it. Being more or less alone with so much space, especially when you remember better days, is not fun. I had the same experience - facilities dutifully kept doing their thing. They also worked through one week business shutdowns. First time, food kept coming too. Now I work from home, which can be a different kind of isolating. If people left (one way or the other) I'd hardly notice unless they're on my team. (Still prefer the homeoffice overall, but eager to see my coworkers again occasionally.)
m0llusk 5y ago
It should be remembered that until quite recently there was an extreme lack of office space in San Francisco. Construction of new office space in the city is rationed because of the perception of an imbalance with residential space. On top of that Salesforce was infamous for having an insatiable appetite for office space exhibited by leasing whole buildings before construction was finished. Even a fractional return to normal could quickly use up all of the available space. The idea that it is time to convert office space to residential is not solid and ignores the laws against converting anything into new office space again if the balance changes. San Francisco has a history of converting office buildings into residential space with some notable examples within blocks of the Salesforce building. The Palms on Fourth between Bryant and Brannan is an example of this. Compared to the cost of housing in the area the complications involved with remodeling are actually rather minor, especially for new modern construction like this recently finished building.

80 points by jeffthechimp 5y ago

I hate clickbait tiles, but I hate it more when a perfectly good title (How SF tech giants are navigating a successful return to the office) is replaced by a clickbait title for posterity (and looking at the URL, it was definitely not A/B testing).

junon 5y ago
This is actually against HN guidelines. This is editorializing the article's title which is frowned upon here. It should be edited to reflect the original title.
- SevenSigs 5y ago
  I think that this title (100 Salesforce employees work in its 61-story HQ) represents the reality more accurately (ie: this is not a successful return to the office when there used to be thousands of employees in that building).

xnx 5y ago

I constantly think about how at the same time we have a housing shortage there a millions of square feet of empty office and retail spaces. Will we ever reuse these spaces the way we turn small scale manufacturing spaces into trendy lofts?

ipnon 5y ago
No, because there is too much money to be made in the living space supply squeeze.
- smt88 5y ago
  That's assuming the people who own commercial real estate also own a lot of residential real estate, which is not the case. The actual problem is that it costs an enormous amount of money to retrofit commercial properties as residential. Source: currently have dozens of commercial RE clients
  - Tempest1981 5y ago
    I'm thinking kitchens, showers, walls... fire safety (windows, exits). Are those the big items? Edit: from the SFChron article mentioned above: > “Finding the deal for us is almost like the needle in the haystack,” he said. “We had to basically build a brand-new building within a building. It’s not for the faint of heart.” > > Each apartment at 229 Ellis St., ranging from 180 to 300 square feet, cost around $400,000 to build out, less than ground-up construction. Seems expensive for that tiny of a space.
    - smt88 5y ago
      As far as I know, the biggest problems are converting plumbing, heating/cooling, and electrical from a communal (often open-office) setup to individual units. Office buildings are often concrete with drop ceilings to make it easy to access sprinklers, wiring, and pipes, but you would still need to run all of those things across every floor of the building. A single, modern condo likely has 2+ full baths, so if you're trying to get 10 units per floor, you're going to do that work 20+ times. Kitchens are also difficult, yes. You need to be able to vent heat and smoke, and you need different electrical wiring in most cases. Then think about ceilings. Drop ceilings are not appealing to most people, so you need a solution for that. Even if you keep the drop ceiling and just use a nicer tile, you're still spending $5-$30/sqft. Walls aren't that expensive, but you need a lot of them to convert back from the trendy open-office plans that most buildings have. There's also a lot of legal work to convert to condos (assuming you don't want to do rentals, which most of these office owners absolutely don't want to do). There's just a much bigger difference between office and residential space than people realize, I think.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
umeshunni 5y ago
I've wondered the same and what my limited research has said is that the amount of plumbing and other re-structuring that needs to be done to convert an office space into a living space is current cost-prohibitive.
smt88 5y ago
We may repurpose them as residential, but it won't be soon. Most industries are still expecting a return to near normal. Even if a lot of people go fully remote, owners of these buildings assume the drop in demand will kill new projects rather than permanently empty out existing properties.
oh_sigh 5y ago
The plumbing is all set up for centralized bathrooms. Doubt most people in trendy lofts want to a public bathroom down the hall.
innagadadavida 5y ago
Commercial real estate is very lucrative to local governments and it causes all kinds of problems with housing. We need some sort of a hard ratio limit on how many offices can be built fir a given amount of houses in commutable distance. It is sad to see all the baristas and workers commute crazy distances to get to their work. This is not good for employee well being nor traffic.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Commercial real estate is almost pure “profit” for a City - pays taxes with little demands on services beyond some streets and basic policing. Arguably property tax on office buildings should be lower to discourage cities from dedicate too much space to it.
jollybean 5y ago
These buildings would require enormous retrofit to bring to residential standards - and then - they're not even zoned for it. The same problem that's driving the empty space, i.e. 'remote' should 'solve' the housing problem for those remoting, in that there's unlimited inexpensive places to live in the US. It's just expensive to live in specific places, i.e. near that tower. Other than maybe some industrial buildings retrofitted to lofts + civic issues around that i.e. sidewalks, buses, zoning yada yada it's unlikely you'll ever see these kinds of things retrofitted. Give it another 2 years, this space will get used one way or another.
- duxup 5y ago
  They converted an fairly tall office tower into condos not far from me. In short, it wasn't a very profitable venture due to costs of retrofiting it and folks who live there...still feel like they live in an office building.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Even with skyscrapers it’s often more cost effective to level it and start anew. For the standard office park setup even Moreso.
wahern 5y ago
It's not uncommon, actually, including in San Francisco, where there are many examples. As others elsethread have said, though, it's just not as easy or affordable as you'd expect. Here's a recent SF Chronicle article discussing it: "S.F. has nearly 16 million square feet of vacant office space. Why can't it become housing?", https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/S-F-has-nearly-16-million-square-feet-of-vacant-16051240.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/S-F-has-nearly-...
CommanderData 5y ago
In the UK we have house developers converting offices located in busy industrial estates into residential flats. There's been a number of deaths of residents and countless accidents recently because of some of these locations are absolutely terrible for residents to live in. One area on my way to work has no green space for about a mile, access is through a single busy road used by skips and big vehicles and the noise starts early in the morning, and air pollution is very high. Where do families and children go when they want to play? I think it's criminal councils are approving some areas for residential use. I think councils are liable for deaths in these unsuitable areas.

duxup 5y ago

I worked in a four story building with maybe 100 people in it at one time, but in the past held about 600 people comfortably (dude to an acquisition we were what was left). It still received regular cleaning services and etc to all floors. Only a few bothered to leave our corner of our floor. Using the executive suite bathrooms was a real treat.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
I worked as an intern at IBM’s Boca Raton campus just before they shut it for a move to Austin. It was crazy deserted and eery. Not the same, I guess, since it was more sprawling with little multistory buildings.
- throwaway3neu94 5y ago
  I worked in an office meant for 80 that only ever had 35. Room to grow! It was great. Then 30 people quit. Later I worked in a scyscraper. Our floor was never exactly full, then like 80% on the floor were laid off. Entire teams gone. Eerie is a good way to describe it. Being more or less alone with so much space, especially when you remember better days, is not fun. I had the same experience - facilities dutifully kept doing their thing. They also worked through one week business shutdowns. First time, food kept coming too. Now I work from home, which can be a different kind of isolating. If people left (one way or the other) I'd hardly notice unless they're on my team. (Still prefer the homeoffice overall, but eager to see my coworkers again occasionally.)

m0llusk 5y ago

It should be remembered that until quite recently there was an extreme lack of office space in San Francisco. Construction of new office space in the city is rationed because of the perception of an imbalance with residential space. On top of that Salesforce was infamous for having an insatiable appetite for office space exhibited by leasing whole buildings before construction was finished. Even a fractional return to normal could quickly use up all of the available space. The idea that it is time to convert office space to residential is not solid and ignores the laws against converting anything into new office space again if the balance changes. San Francisco has a history of converting office buildings into residential space with some notable examples within blocks of the Salesforce building. The Palms on Fourth between Bryant and Brannan is an example of this. Compared to the cost of housing in the area the complications involved with remodeling are actually rather minor, especially for new modern construction like this recently finished building.