It's disturbing the degree to which this article paints good things as bad. > In Austin and Denver—metro areas where 23% of workers usually work from home—more

It's disturbing the degree to which this article paints good things as bad. > In Austin and Denver—metro areas where 23% of workers usually work from home—more than a quarter of city office space is vacant, the highest share among big cities in America. Excellent, replace it with housing. > Austin expects commercial- and residential-property values [...] to fall by 10% next year, to $212.7bn. Good, it's becoming cheaper to buy property. > Quieter cities also mean less spending on transport, food and services. Excellent. > San Francisco has had one of the slowest recoveries in foot traffic to offices Why in the world would we want to "recover" this? The article acts like there's something wrong here. > Before covid the city’s transport agency got more than half of its budget from fares and parking fees. But now those revenues account for around 30%, Cities are experiencing less traffic and parking, that's great. I own a home. I plan to sell it in the not too distant future. It's unfortunate for me that I might not get as much when I sell it, but so be it. Houses are not an investment; they're a place to live. This whole article rhymes with other attempts to frame spending less as a horrible thing. It's a good thing, and cities should be adapting to it rather than treating it as a bug to be fixed.