4 ms·

> They wanted to build 3M square feet of office space, but now they probably won't do that, which is a big win for the community who wants it to be retail or ho

> They wanted to build 3M square feet of office space, but now they probably won't do that, which is a big win for the community who wants it to be retail or housing and not offices. This is the real point of opportunity. Rather than the well-meaning but economically unviable push to convert office buildings into housing, the most attainable goal right now is to prevent new offices from being built and build housing on that land instead.

b112 4y ago
This is the real point of opportunity. Is it though? If you take away the offices, and offices close, why do people need to live there? Where will they work? And if it is 100% remote, why not live where the cost of living, and housing, is 1/2 the cost already?
- ghaff 4y ago
  Some people do choose to live in cities even though there's no work-related reason to do so--and even put up with incremental inconvenience to commute out to a suburban office park. But, still, when tallying up the pros and cons, taking easier commute off the plate certainly doesn't help the urban apartment side of the ledger.
  - b112 4y ago
    I wonder for a place like SanFran. There are many smaller cities, and cities without as many issues as SanFran too. So with remote, there is also the choice of "better managed city". I wonder if it will empty, or become some apocalyptic landscape, with endless abandoned empty office buildings, and the homeless living in them, and everyone else just gone. It seems, from the comments here, that SanFran is very poorly run. The robberies, the homeless, the filth on the street, and now, emptiness and presumably maybe budget problems soon. For example, what if some of the older office buildings are just cut+run? Property management corp X goes bankrupt, or, just decides that it's not worth paying property tax any more. Sure, the city can seize and sell off property for back tax reclamation, but what if no one even wants to buy? What if eventually 1/2 the office space is just owned by the city, decaying, no property tax, unmaintained? It could become Detroit, but worse.

b112 4y ago

This is the real point of opportunity. Is it though? If you take away the offices, and offices close, why do people need to live there? Where will they work? And if it is 100% remote, why not live where the cost of living, and housing, is 1/2 the cost already?

ghaff 4y ago
Some people do choose to live in cities even though there's no work-related reason to do so--and even put up with incremental inconvenience to commute out to a suburban office park. But, still, when tallying up the pros and cons, taking easier commute off the plate certainly doesn't help the urban apartment side of the ledger.
- b112 4y ago
  I wonder for a place like SanFran. There are many smaller cities, and cities without as many issues as SanFran too. So with remote, there is also the choice of "better managed city". I wonder if it will empty, or become some apocalyptic landscape, with endless abandoned empty office buildings, and the homeless living in them, and everyone else just gone. It seems, from the comments here, that SanFran is very poorly run. The robberies, the homeless, the filth on the street, and now, emptiness and presumably maybe budget problems soon. For example, what if some of the older office buildings are just cut+run? Property management corp X goes bankrupt, or, just decides that it's not worth paying property tax any more. Sure, the city can seize and sell off property for back tax reclamation, but what if no one even wants to buy? What if eventually 1/2 the office space is just owned by the city, decaying, no property tax, unmaintained? It could become Detroit, but worse.