3 ms·

Even ignoring the effort needed and it's cost: who want to reside in former office buildings if now downtown areas start to be depopulated from local workers an

by kkfx 4y ago

Even ignoring the effort needed and it's cost: who want to reside in former office buildings if now downtown areas start to be depopulated from local workers and so services built for them?

cozzyd 4y ago
Plenty of people live in service-devoid suburbs. Services follow density of people.
- kkfx 4y ago
  Ok, good. So what's the purpose of converting former office buildings in residential one? Workers who left them surely do not came back in them to reside, they left and choose new homes more apt to the WFH purposes, something not easy to find in a dense city. Where you have plenty of space to develop renewables in a dense city? Where the home garage to recharge your car? Where the place to get larger and larger package due to the flourish of on-line retail? Where the place for future flying cars/drone delivery etc? If middle-class people start to de-urbanize cities would be let full of desperate with much job offers to find work.
  - cozzyd 4y ago
    There is plenty of demand for living in dense walkable places, which is why they're more expensive per square foot than houses in the burbs. You don't need to recharge your car if you don't have one at all, which is much more sustainable.
    - kkfx 4y ago
      Mh, I'm from EU so my view it's not on the current USA population but here while there are some who want to live "at a hyper-short range", that's all but NOT sustainable: they do not pollute, as single humans, but they need a supporting structure who pollute much. The denser an area is the more territories around are needed to feed it, to a point of 1000+miles ranges vs few if population is not that dense. Anyway, at least in Europe people who want to be in cities normally are a not so marginal cohort, but still far little in size than the one who want to flee, only few countries where services are not developed outside cities have different mean opinion.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    One possible purpose is demand shift: lots of (relatively affluent) people want to live in cities, and are currently inflating rents in neighborhoods that otherwise would be more affordable. (In general, it's incorrect to assume that WFH implies a desire to flee to suburbia, particularly in dense cultural hub cities: people often seek employment in these cities because they want to live there, not the other way around.)
    - kkfx 4y ago
      Ok again, but those people want to be there because they work in the city, if a significant cohort of workers leave the city why they do want to be there? Most would have no job there anymore.

by kkfx 4y ago

Even ignoring the effort needed and it's cost: who want to reside in former office buildings if now downtown areas start to be depopulated from local workers and so services built for them?

cozzyd 4y ago

Plenty of people live in service-devoid suburbs. Services follow density of people.

kkfx 4y ago
Ok, good. So what's the purpose of converting former office buildings in residential one? Workers who left them surely do not came back in them to reside, they left and choose new homes more apt to the WFH purposes, something not easy to find in a dense city. Where you have plenty of space to develop renewables in a dense city? Where the home garage to recharge your car? Where the place to get larger and larger package due to the flourish of on-line retail? Where the place for future flying cars/drone delivery etc? If middle-class people start to de-urbanize cities would be let full of desperate with much job offers to find work.
- cozzyd 4y ago
  There is plenty of demand for living in dense walkable places, which is why they're more expensive per square foot than houses in the burbs. You don't need to recharge your car if you don't have one at all, which is much more sustainable.
  - kkfx 4y ago
    Mh, I'm from EU so my view it's not on the current USA population but here while there are some who want to live "at a hyper-short range", that's all but NOT sustainable: they do not pollute, as single humans, but they need a supporting structure who pollute much. The denser an area is the more territories around are needed to feed it, to a point of 1000+miles ranges vs few if population is not that dense. Anyway, at least in Europe people who want to be in cities normally are a not so marginal cohort, but still far little in size than the one who want to flee, only few countries where services are not developed outside cities have different mean opinion.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  One possible purpose is demand shift: lots of (relatively affluent) people want to live in cities, and are currently inflating rents in neighborhoods that otherwise would be more affordable. (In general, it's incorrect to assume that WFH implies a desire to flee to suburbia, particularly in dense cultural hub cities: people often seek employment in these cities because they want to live there, not the other way around.)
  - kkfx 4y ago
    Ok again, but those people want to be there because they work in the city, if a significant cohort of workers leave the city why they do want to be there? Most would have no job there anymore.