San Francisco's Mayor is Urging Employers to Return Workers to Downtown Offices
source link: https://it.slashdot.org/story/22/02/20/0324254/san-franciscos-mayor-is-urging-employers-to-return-workers-to-downtown-offices
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
San Francisco's Mayor is Urging Employers to Return Workers to Downtown Offices
Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid
freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe
offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated
San Francisco mayor London Breed "is working with business leaders to push San Francisco employers to start bringing more workers back to downtown offices at some point in March," reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
"Breed said she was developing a strategy with the Chamber of Commerce and other groups to help turn around the city's once-bustling commercial core."
San Francisco's downtown has been hit hard as most employees have stayed home during the pandemic.... Breed's comments reflect the pressure she's under to revive San Francisco's struggling downtown where weekday foot traffic remains sparse, small businesses have shuttered and massive office towers sit largely empty nearly two years after COVID-19 sent most workers home indefinitely. Some workers are likely to stay remote because they're concerned about being exposed to the virus or for other personal reasons.... San Francisco officials predict that around 15% of office workers will stay remote when the economy is expected to stabilize in 2023, a major shift that would permanently hurt business tax revenue, according to a report released last month....
Despite rampant commercial vacancies and an abundance of employees choosing to work remotely in perpetuity or leave San Francisco entirely, Breed said she was encouraged by a number of businesses that have signed new leases or are looking at new opportunities in the city. "Working from home has been so convenient and so comfortable, let's be honest," Breed said. "But at the same time, people miss people. They miss being out in the streets. They miss being at places and restaurants."
John Bryant, CEO of the Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco, tells the newspaper that downtown San Francisco's buildings are only about 20% occupied now. And that this year he hopes to see that double — to 40%.
Thanks to Slashdot reader nray for sharing the story...
-
›
I am all for luring the Californians back to where they came from, but how many times does this story have to run?-
The previous story was about New York's Eric Adams mayor urging the same thing, this time it's San Francisco's mayor London Breed. (Is that really her name? It sounds like a joke.)
-
-
-
BBC is in London.
-
-
-
-
Until they come back to California to ensure property values don't plummet and the rich find themselves less rich?
-
-
Emboldened by the surprise school board recall, Mayor Breed may propose making shoplifting illegal again. Wilder things have happened.
-
-
Oh YES, this! Please keep thinking you live in the bestest place on Earth, forever. Never, ever come to Michigan. Trust me, it TOTALLY sucks here! There is no where better than CA. The skyhigh property taxes proooves it!
-
Dude, if you think Michigan sucks, don't ever come to Canada! You know our winters really are nine months long, right?
-
-
99% of people in California can afford live in La Jolla, Pacific Palisades etc. We are not just talking what is pretty, but overall quality of life. Most of greater LA is not a worse place to live than se many medium size urban areas across the country. Why do you think California is losing population? It may not be overrun with homeless, drug addicts and criminals like Downtown and South LA, but it's still pretty grim and way more expensive than what you get for it. Not to mention taxes.
-
Why do you think California is losing population?
Migration too and from CA is cyclical and the once-in-a-century pandemic caused a once-in-a-century anomaly in the pattern . As a lifelong resident of California, I've been hearing about the mass exodus of businesses and residents from California for 25 years, which is as long as I've paid attention to politics.
Yet, California and its economy somehow continue to roll on, despite what people like you are led led to believe by propagandists.
-
Exactly, this.
-
-
-
You know that happens in like, 2 square miles in downtown LA and San Francisco, the rest of the West Coast is still more beautiful than anywhere else in the US.
I don't know if you are trolling or really just this ignorant.
First of all the homeless camps are pretty much everywhere. They are worse in downtown LA and San Fran. but they are all over the place. They are so bad that you can fly over them in Microsoft Flight Simulator and see them. They are so bad they have made it into a video game.
I lived in California for a while, and yes it was pretty but not more so than any other place. You probably never have left California so I'm going to chalk up your comments to ignorance.
Tell me you think California is the most beautiful place when you are over looking the Grand Canyon, or at one of many look outs along the Appalachian Trail. Maybe looking out my window and seeing the mighty Mississippi go rolling by. Looking out a light house in New England that over looks the sea. How about a freighter on the Great Lakes.
California is beautiful but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I much prefer beauty that I find in Tennessee to it..
-
That guy either doesn't live in the Bay Area, is a propagandist, or a moron (my money is the last 2). I've got hundreds of tents a block from my place. The local 7-11 went out of business because they don't prosecute small thefts, so the owner got tired of people walking in and stealing his merchandise. People shooting up on the street. The onramp to work shut down at least once a month so they can clean all the trash out that is impeding traffic. Guys urinating on the sides of buildings. Rancid food
-
-
Yes. Washington State is a shithole. Now is your opportunity to go back.
-
Totally agree- I've lived happily in WA for ~40 years and it's so so so SO horrible that I urge everyone to stay the fuck away.
Go back to Cali or whatever dust-blown Midwest shithole you escaped from. It's terrible here, really, please believe me.
-
-
-
-
-
So businesses are allowing their employees to work from home to be cautious about infection. Why is the mayor poking his nose where it doesn't belong? It's not like he's been running the city so smooth that he got nothing else to do. The city is flooded with homeless, crimes are unstoppable, cops are standing around on the streets not doing their jobs. He can't even get his shit together and he wants to impose on how companies deal with their employees?
-
It's San Francisco. You'd better ask him his pronouns to make sure he's not a woman again this week.
-
-
London Breed sounds like a British punk rock band.
-
-
-
-
Germicide is fine. Personally I draw the line at genocide, but that's another conversation.
-
-
-
-
Or how about convert some of those empty office buildings into apartments. Greater availability of living space coupled with lower demand will reduce prices, making housing more affordable and consequently reduce the number of homeless.
Plus if there are people living there, they are more likely to frequent the nearby businesses.-
It really is a sad story that neither aisle of the political spectrum actually wants to solve the homeless problem. Neither Democrat dominated cities which is where a majority of homeless are (which is a natural consequence) but Republican led suburban and rural areas are not exactly showing us "how it should be done".
Salt Lake City is at least trying with some degree of success. California as a whole has really dropped the ball and with the money they have spent over the decades on enforcement, relocation and crime prevention I imagine they just could have, you know, given people homes.
Almost every study on the issue shows a housing first approach works. You either have people who are homeless because of just plain hard times, addiction issues, or genuine mental illness. If you get people a roof over their heads and something of a stable, safe environment that they can mentally rely on will be there in the future most people who are just on hard times can start to live on a longer timescale, find work and pull themselves together. Addicts can get support in one location and also develop a plan to recovery, and genuinelly mentally ill are also in a stable situation where they can get help and stay off the streets. People generally want to work and support themselves but as a nation we make it difficult. Plus if the homeless have homes maybe we could hve some godamn public bathrooms for once.
Americans are sadly just allergic to the idea of someone ever, anywhere, getting "something they don't deserve". It's probably our biggest failing as a society and prevents us from actually advancing. So many people will sacrifice their own quality of life and the countries economic and societal wellbeing to keep a few people from "freeloading". It's politics of spite and we are worse off for it.
-
You are intentionally neglecting Gavin Newsom's Homekey [endhomelessness.org] program that renovates dilapidated motels into homeless shelters and in many cases long-term homes. Or have you just no heard of it?
-
I had not heard of it so thank you for the info. It sounds like a real actual good plan. As much as California gets ragged on (sometimes for good reason) it really does lead the way in a lot of areas.
Hope it's successful so the model can get copied elsewhere, espcially if the homeless numbers go down and economic activity goes up it becomes an easy case to make.
-
Which are then flipped for $800k once the homeless are done making it into their drug dens. There is more to homelessness than 'homes'. Many of them should be institutionalized for a period of time before reintegrating into society.
-
-
It really is a sad story that neither aisle of the political spectrum actually wants to solve the homeless problem
As much shit as I give California, it's homeless problem isn't completely its fault. There are recorded incidents of Atlanta, Birmingham, and some places in Texas giving the homeless money and a one way bus ticket to California.
If I was in charge of California, I would have people at the bus stops intercepting these homeless and sent them right back where they came from. Baring that, I would take these cities, counties, and states to court if I was CA and sue the fuck out of them. Make these places that dumped their homeless on them pay their fair share.
-
"As much shit as I give California, it's homeless problem isn't completely its fault. There are recorded incidents of Atlanta, Birmingham, and some places in Texas giving the homeless money and a one way bus ticket to California"
People have reported seeing cop cars from out of state dumping people into LA's Skid Row.
-
Sue for what exactly? What laws are there that prevent a state government from giving free bus tickets to other states? Seems like sending people back at the bus station would violate federal law.
-
It really is a sad story that neither aisle of the political spectrum actually wants to solve the homeless problem
As much shit as I give California, it's homeless problem isn't completely its fault. There are recorded incidents of Atlanta, Birmingham, and some places in Texas giving the homeless money and a one way bus ticket to California.
If I was in charge of California, I would have people at the bus stops intercepting these homeless and sent them right back where they came from. Baring that, I would take these cities, counties, and states to court if I was CA and sue the fuck out of them. Make these places that dumped their homeless on them pay their fair share.
They do:
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
-
California isn't immune to this themselves. LA has been putting its homeless on buses and shipping them out to Lancaster/Palmdale (on the edge of LA county) for years now. Let's not pretend this is purely an out of state thing.
-
-
Well first of all, where the fuck did you get the idea that this was about immigration? Immigration has nothing to do with this. This thread is about other states dumping their homeless in CA, which leads to the current problem they have there. This whole thread is about states and cities sending their "undesirable" people to other states instead of having the fucking compassion to deal with it themselves.
Reading comprehension is your friend.
-
-
-
I think everyone's tired of it because it's ever-growing and never-ending.
-
And what is all this stuff that these awful, awful poor people are getting that they "don't deserve"?
What is it that disturbs you so much? Housing? Food? Clothing? Medical care?
-
-
and that's to just give people homes. Guaranteed housing would solve the problem. Nordic states have been doing it and it works. But it would a) lower property values (people not afraid of homelessness would struggle less to keep their homes) and b) doesn't fit in well with the American cultural proclivity for punishment.
So it's basically a political non starter. The result is our current patchwork of solutions and band-aids, where you get scenarios like the ones described here [youtube.com]-
Yup, America has worked itself into a real pickle since many Americans wealth is tied to their homes and the idea of increasing property values. It's not even the homeowners fault, they just bought into the system as designed over decades.
If we want to have a market system for housing we can't also complain of the outcomes when the market is unable to meet the needs of every person. That means the free market people are going to have to accept and even advocate for a substantial amount of public and socia
-
The housing problem is more complex than lack of homes. There is mental illness, lack of discipline, and drug addiction. A lot of the homeless people are lost because of idiots like you failed to teach them the right things early in life. I am not sure Norway is a good model btw â" a lot of countries have less homeless than Notway, look at countries where there is less homelessness than Norway by far â" places like Japan. Fact is you dont care about solving homelessness. You dont care about under
-
Aren't generally long-term homeless. But guaranteed housing solve their short-term housing problems while they get back on and stay on their feet. Those people who lack discipline are generally victims of our cyclic economic crashes. Their lack of discipline prevents them from saving the massive amounts of money needed to survive those cyclic economic crashes. That said we know exactly how to stop those cyclic economic crashes and again we refuse to do it because the political will isn't there.
As for th-
The homelessness RATE in Japan is 0.3 per 10,000 citizens. While in Norway it is 7, and in the USA it is 17. I would assume being homeless in Norway, where the temperature is freezing can be considered ghastly. The fact is in Japan the culture does everything to avoid people becoming homeless.
-
-
-
-
"Neither Democrat dominated cities which is where a majority of homeless are (which is a natural consequence) but Republican led suburban and rural areas are not exactly showing us "how it should be done"
There are plenty of drive through videos with commentary of poor southern neighborhoods and cities on Youtube.
Yeah, I can't imagine any of those places being "on the grow" any time in the foreseeable future.
-
"on the grow"
On the move. Dammit Simpsons!
-
-
Everywhere mostly resorts to the relocation "solution", which solves nothing. So instead of homeless sleeping on the sidewalks, they're sleeping under bridges, in parks, in alleys, or anywhere away from where tourists visit.
And by everywhere, I mean everywhere. If you visited Japan you'd think there were no homeless, but I stumbled upon a very large homeless encampment there.
These homeless also aren't all addicts or crazies. Most people in the lower income ranges, and even in parts of the middle class, a
-
-
Or how about convert some of those empty office buildings into apartments.
Now there is an idea. California has been trying to do away with single family homes now, this is a perfect solution. I bet one of those almost empty high-rises could house, if not all, most of the homeless in LA.
-
-
The prosperity of a city lies entirely at the feet of a mayor. His nose is exactly where it's needed. Cities in an older classical case live and die on the prosperity of its downtown districts. They generate by far the most tax revenue and the most GDP.
The issue here is that the mayor is following New York in sticking his head in the sand. Rather than looking for ways to plan and adapt for a future where work is spread out, considering zoning laws that would allow distribution of services and facilities awa
-
Ever hear of "never have all your eggs in one basket"?
Another 9/11, or a major earthquake in San Fransisco's case would crash the local economy, and spread damage far and wide to the rest of the country's.
-
The prosperity of a city lies entirely at the feet of a mayor.
Lol, please. You've bought into the myth that the guy or gal at the top can somehow effect massive changes by issuing a decree or demanding something be done or whatever.
The fact is that it's hard to make things better in any substantive way, but all too easy to make things worse.
Most mayors would all LOVE to make their cities better places but they're often hampered by funding, disbursement fights, practical concerns, competing interests, etc etc etc.
You probably think the president has a big lever on his desk that controls gas prices, right?
-
-
one word: taxes
-
A massive reduction in the number of people forced to work inside of San Francisco will cause the property values to drop substantially. That's what he's worried about. Or alternately it's what the people bankrolling his next campaign are worried about. Liberal cities are hardly immune to that kind of corruption.
-
Let the shit fall where it may.
-
-
-
It is simultaneously an overpriced, completely affuent wealthy tech bro paradise of artisial hipster shops but also a dystopian wasteland with roaming homeless gangs and you can't walk the streets becuase of rivers of human waste.
-
This is the start of what happens when the middle class keeps shrinking.
Imagine an America with only rich and poor. Imagine walled compound neighborhoods with machine gun toting guards that the rich live in and fly to work from in helicopters. Imagine drug cartels and guerilla warlords ruling the poor neighborhoods, even having their own security forces. Imagine privately hired "death squads" who gun down homeless children sleeping on the steps of a church, or cut off their limbs for stealing and apple.
-
-
thatsthejoke.jpg
-
Oh, Poe's law
-
I know right, bleak times.
-
-
-
-
-
My cousin moved to San Francisco to work for Instagram. A month after they announced permanent work-from-home, he moved to Chicago. He says it's, pretty much, as bad, or worse, than you hear.
-
-
-
If you legalize crime, the official stats drop, yeah, but the crime is still there, and people and businesses are still hurting.
-
-
-
by awwshit ( 6214476 ) on Sunday February 20, 2022 @10:48AM (#62285607)
SF is some kind of weird dystopia where the ultra wealthy literally step over the homeless and feces every single day. I'm not sure there is any other place that presents a better example of inequality in the US. Better hope you are one of the lucky ones.
-
It's a stark image of inequality, but if they just pushed the bums into the desert it would be a better example of inequality.
-
This is your fantasy, not reality.
-
LA is bad, but SF seems to have gotten this much worse.
"bUt tEh wEaThEr", uh there are plenty of places in the US that has "The Weather" and does not get cold and damp like SF.
-
Clearly you've not visited central Florida. If you do, take a look at the places where the majority of people who work for Disney actually live. Here's a few Google reviews from one of the mobile home communities in Kissimmee:
"Looks run down.. definitely lots of older trailers.. but better than no home."
"Rude, loud neighbors, the streets are in terrible condition, shady people roam the neighorhood, and lot prices are rising for no reason."That's how it is pretty much any place with fancy attractions and e
-
-
-
I've been to most of them and EVERY city has it's run down, craphole section. Every city.
-
-
-
I live in San Francisco, I walk everywhere I go, so I couldn't care less about your visit some months ago.
Market (almost all of it) is the worst state ever. Mission Bay, which is nothing special but didn't have homeless, now has some. Potrero Hill. etc
So if you want to call my daily experience "bullshit narrative", feel free. Or you can inform yourself, there's a lot of videos on YouTube if you want to see how SF is today.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
How about no. Perfectly happy working remote and not having to wear pants.
-
Detroit collapsed after the white collar and blue collar union jobs were pulled from Detroit and sprinkled into the surrounding suburban development and small towns. The issues leading to the cause of their collapse is different between Detroit and San Francisco are different. For Detroit it is the white flight of the 1950's and 1960's, with a peak of 1.85 million and below 650k today. For San Francisco it is massive growth of its neighbors in the Bay Area. With the so-called Silicon Valley tech industry and residential growth that came along with it.
San Francisco can expect crime to go up. People who can leave to do so. The people who cannot or will not leave, a large portion have economic vulnerability. The social programs of SF will continue to be stretched thin. And people will fall through the cracks in greater and greater numbers. Reducing the quality of life of not just those directly affected but for everyone living there who must see and hear everyday struggles. As the more affluent tax base leaves, money will run out for even the most basic services that make living in a big city attractive.
-
SF's saving grace is the location. The bay will always be a draw for some people. All the city has to do is crack down on vagrancy.
-
-
"But at the same time, people miss people. They miss being out in the streets. They miss being at places and restaurants."
Are there no people where you live? Are there no streets you can be out on? Are there no places or restaurants where you live?
I certainly don't miss having a long arduous commute into a business district, there are plenty of places i can visit which are closer to home.And people still need to eat and shop, while patronage at some places will have decreased others will have increased as people simply conduct the same activities elsewhere. Most of those downtown small businesses were never terribly profitable to start with due to the exorbitant rents so while they might have struggled downtown they will thrive elsewhere.
San Francisco's struggling downtown where weekday foot traffic remains sparse, small businesses have shuttered and massive office towers sit largely empty
Well here's a thought, how about convert those office towers into apartments. That way people can live in the downtown area and frequent those small businesses based there. For those companies which still have offices there, there will be more stock of housing nearby so people can live closer. This will massively reduce congestion on the various transport networks, as well as reducing costs and pollution.
Office space is unnecessary wastage and it's good to get rid of wastage. Create more space for people to LIVE, not force duplicate living and working space for everyone.
Everything else like food, shopping and entertainment will still be in demand the only thing that changes is the location.-
"weekday foot traffic remains sparse, small businesses have shuttered and massive office towers sit largely empty nearly two years after COVID-19 sent most workers home indefinitely."
You can't solve a problem if you don't even state it accurately. COVID-19 absolutely did not "send most workers home", some governments did that in response to their own perceived risk of COVID-19. Why does this distinction matter? Because some governments decided to not send most workers home, and their cities and towns are flourishing. The places that are struggling are those where government mandated a one-size-fits-all response that literally crushed businesses who made the mistake of being in a downtown area.
Same virus, completely different government responses, leading to opposite results. Rocket science, it ain't.
The first thing those governments who wiped out their inner city business cores need to do is eliminate any and all friction to coming downtown again. Well, we'll see what happens. I don't like being a skeptic, but my guess is that those governments will mouth all the right words, but slow-roll any real action until occupancy gets even lower than 20% (!) and they get kicked out of office. Then you'll see some change. As they say, "people are policy." To get different actions, you need different actors.
-
Which high density city (i.e. which relies on public transport) are you referring to didn't send its workers home and is flourishing?
-
They don't have an answer, they just made it up because it makes "their side" look good, regardless of the evidence.
-
"Which high density city (i.e. which relies on public transport) are you referring to..."
Well, I didn't limit my remarks to "high density" cities, I said cites and towns with a downtown core, an obviously much broader category. I was thinking, of course, of nearly every city and town in Texas, Florida, and even my own "blue" state of Virginia, where businesses have generally been allowed to stay open, or where closures were for a much more limited time. The office occupancy rate of Dallas, for example, is now twice that of San Francisco. I work in Washington, DC, and that place is dead. It's no wonder the Mayor is lifting restrictions come March 1st. The federal emergency money train has been stopped, so now the local governments care again, I suppose.
As I said, rocket science this ain't.
-
-
Cities where zoning allows mixed residental and office buildings suffered less under Covid as people who were working from home still used local services for takeaway food etc.
-
-
> Are there no places or restaurants where you live?
San Francisco lost approximately 50% of its small businesses in 2021. It's not merely Covid-19, but the BLM looting and the city mandated $950 minimum before police act on theft. The small businesses can't stay open when dine&dash and delivery theft, especially theft of supplies delivered to the stores, aren't even investigated.
-
-
So I've a few questions to ask.
First. Do businesses need all of that office space? Or can more businesses be brought into the area, leveraging the office space that is currently unused?
This is an important question to ask. If you need X number of people to be working in offices downtown, but only half that are currently working from an office, then if you have double the number of companies, you still have X number of people working downtown. Correct? Good, we're all capable of multiplying and dividing, I see. Even politicians, who are usually only good at very different sorts of multiplying and dividing.
This means that companies do NOT have to move people back into offices to revive downtown businesses, they only have to scale how much office space they're using to reflect the number of offices that they're filling AND the city government has to make it attractive enough for other businesses to move in from elsewhere or start up. (Start-ups right now should be doing really well.)
But if you have double the number of businesses working there, you've just doubled the amount of corporate tax (or whatever the local version is) you're collecting, right? Businesses don't pay less corporate tax because their employees are remote, that's decided by where the head office is and how much the company earns, nothing else. (That's why so many companies have a virtually deserted headquarters in Texas but 99% of their employees elsewhere.)
So in one fell swoop, we've ascertained that corporations do NOT have to move people who are teleworking to achieve the desired goal PROVIDED that the city is sufficiently friendly to start-ups and people moving in from outside.
This, in turn, tells me that there is a lack of imagination rather than a lack of chronic cubicle syndrome sufferers. If there's going to be a 15% drop in numbers anyway, this lack of imagination has to be fixed. There's no other way to make this work in the long run, whatever anyone does.
-
If I can summarize your solution it's: business category A was driven out of the downtown, so let's bring business category B in to take their place. Problem solved.
Unfortunately, the very government "leaders" who drove category A out of town in the first place are still running the show, and they'll do exactly the same to category B. Category B won't even want to come in the first place is what I reckon.
-
What if the answer is "yes"?
-
-
-
You could run in to some zoning issues there and you don't want to put affordable housing in higher pollution areas... unless you're one of those people that hates the poor.
-
The office spaces aren't built for humans to sleep in. They lack the utilities, especially the water.
-
-
A mayor doing what a mayor should do which is look out for their city.
Shocking, I know. What's next? Water is wet?
-
No, she's looking out for business owners rather than her constituents. What she should be doing is having the city's property values reevaluated which would upset the current guard because their properties have devalued significantly but it would spur property use.
-
-
They call the Assessor's office and have a chat about whether circumstances have changed enough to warrant a reevaluation. Maybe they get the city council into it too.
-
-
-
-
San Francisco has spent years complaining about the tech workers gentrifying the area and displacing local residents and businesses. Now they're getting exactly what they asked for. The tech workers have left. Happy now?
-
You can't tell people to come back, you have to lure them. The way to do this is obvious: re-evaluate the property values. The mayor may not like it but a shift has occurred and ignoring that shift what ails your city. A significant devaluation in property values would certainly entice more businesses.
-
That won't happen because of recall elections. Even if the mayor is willing to burn all future political aspirations to "do the right thing", they'll be recalled so quickly that the action will be effectively reversed to no gain, and they still lose everything.
-
-
That should be the one big takeaway in the post covid US and maybe the post covid world.
The employment landscape has been permanently altered.
People want a better life and they are demonstrably willing to take big risks and make major life changes in order to get it.
The one percent, the corporate oligarchs, and the politicians they own are frightened. They should be. -
Nobody actually misses going to work in downtown San Francisco.
-
By keeping the core of the city and all of its office buildings empty, the cost of real estate in the rest the city should drop making San Francisco more liveable.
-
The people that miss it are in the offices. If there are no people in the offices, then they don't actually miss it. I have friends that went back to the office the second it opened its doors, and consistently return after every mandatory lockdown. I did not. I've done my damndest to stay away.
People don't want to go there anymore. Reconfigure yourself. Stop thinking about how things used to work and how you can browbeat people to be miserable where you want them to be.
-
Sure, employees are just dying to step through used needles, feces, and people charging after them screaming that they are Jesus on a day to day basis.
Dot com/Dot bomb was the first crashing blow to the city. Lax enforcement and allowing the city to fall into decay was the second.
-
While Democrat-led cities ponder how to get workers to return to their downtown offices and what to do about the homeless in their city, why not just Teach the Homeless to Code?
-
No one is going back to the office unless they absolutely have to. I know people that quit their jobs because they were told to go back to the office. My company said, unless you are customer facing, the 5 day work week is dead to you. We are in the era of the home-office now.
-
When I retired years ago as a lowly knowledge worker / Unix bit-pusher
there were folks called "project managers" who seemed to exist
just to call office staff meetings. Either that or constantly be reminded
that a technical problem (outside their limited understanding) would
be impossible to solve by next week due to it being R and not D.When the office meetings were slotted for 8 am everyone groaned. Or,
if your co-workers were in Bangalore (or vice versa vis-a-vis Silicon Valley)
then you got to pick 6 am or 6 pm being twelve time-zones apart.What folks actually manage to accomplish in these downtown
(phallus-shaped like Salesforce) or isolated (spaceship-shaped like
Apple campus) monstrosities is beyond human ken.Further, peeps who work behind a computer screen especially don't
need physical offices and rarely need personal interaction except at
a bar to trade gossip. Even induced with free coffee or free food it
wasn't worth a CO2-laden commute and time away from family.Glad I got out of that racket, but maybe it's time again for
paper-pushing bureaucrats to rejoice again! -
-
It's pushed by the wealthy owners of buildings. Rents aren't coming in as they used to. Floor space left unused.
The high prices in that area are directly responsible for the refusals to go back. Cut rents in half and you'll have people flocking back. Cut housing prices in half and you'll have people that are coming back.Too bad for restaurants and shops and commerce in the city. The owners are directly responsible for the situation. Why go pay 3000 for a 1 1/2 bedroom when you can pay the mortgage of a home in the suburbs and be an onwer and put money in your pockets every month instead of someone else's ? The downtown areas can rot in hell. They have to change and adapt. Not the workers.-
It is not only the buildings. Basically it is the city tax revenue too.
-
Realistically, businesses, especially in expensive locations like downtown SF, can save literal ton of money by just letting folks work from home and getting rid of the massive office expenses.
Sure, some jobs require in-person. But a lot of them really don't. Sure, it'll be some changes. That's what happens and why we're not all riding horses. It's time for a sea-change and let folks work from home. Sure, downtowns will suffer some ad things change but so too did whip and buggy makers. More businesses
-
we gave that up when we started voting for politicians based on showmanship and abstract social issues like what kind of history schools teach instead of pocketbook issues like whether you could zone single family housing for short term rentals or whether mega corporations can buy up 60% of the houses in a market.
Never watch a politician talk. Look up a transcript of what they say and read it. If their words can't stand on their own without their body language, find a new politician. -
(1998)
"Oh boy! d0t c0m b00m! Let me start up my robo fried cheeze door to door delivery franchize, and bilk VCs out of millionz of dollarz. I don't even know how to make fried cheeze yet, and I didn't look for a warehouse to rent, but look at this expensive historical building in SF I kicked all of those low incum bumz out of! Now I have all of this space for my bouncy ballz, floopy flopz, all the hot girlz from high school I hired as office "workerz" (who play pinball all day), and even my hookerz, and blo -
FTFY.
-
-
-
-
The problem is that they are so heavily built around the idea of everything being done by car.
To get sufficient density of services you could reach by say walking, would need to have sufficient density of people living close by and the American style suburbs are the opposite.
Basically many of the old European cities(and in US New York) are built like that.
I once talked to a person who said that all his normal life is within one km of home, and that he goes "far away" to the city center (about 3km away) mayb
-
The high level of suburban areas and sprawl contribute to this phenomenon and suburbs generally lose money. There is a great series on how America's urban planning and zoning methods put us into a kindof economic death loop:
The Suburban Wasteland: How the ‘Burbs Bankrupt Us [youtube.com]
-
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK