3 ms·

Seems like a sunk cost fallacy to keep these buildings at this point. For those buildings their heating/cooling/upkeep costs have to be huge. Honestly we should

• nostrademons 3y ago
  That also doesn't work. It costs more to convert an office building to housing than it does to tear it down and build new condos in its place, which in turn costs more than just building new condos in a different location. All the plumbing/HVAC/electrical systems need to be redone, you need ventilation isolation, there are different load capacities, etc. Plus if remote work really takes off, there's no need to crowd all those people into the downtown cores of a few cities anyway. It'd shift housing demand to cheaper, more naturally desirable locations. What'll happen is that a few firms with ineffective cost structures will go bankrupt, a few major cities will become hollowed-out wastelands the way NYC was in the 1970s or Boston was in the 1950s, and economic growth will pick up in other areas, with new startups and new desirable hubs.
  • polygamous_bat 3y ago
    > It costs more to convert an office building to housing than it does to tear it down and build new condos in its place, which in turn costs more than just building new condos in a different location. Except in SF or NYC, there aren't that many desirable "different locations" left. Which is why freeing up the poorly used space in city centers can be a net positive for society rather than keeping to maintain these white elephants.