Scholarship table
Since this thread has veered significantly since Page 1, here's something related -- a NYT piece on many major tech companies trying everything they can to lure workers back to the office because they think it fosters creativity and accountability:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/business/return-to-office-remote-work.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20230622&instance_id=95727&nl=the-morning®i_id=108420427&segment_id=136436&te=1&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855faNow that tech hiring has stagnated -- with the likes of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Salesforce, Meta, etc, actually freezing or even reducing their workforces -- maybe the companies finally have leverage to bring people back in, at least on a hybrid basis? I guess we'll see.
Perhaps instead of listening to what one doomer says, perhaps look to what the investors and banks have actually decided was a good idea. Might there be problems or financial woes? Yes, of course, but that is investing. Your solutions seems to be to throw your hands up in the air and say, "Nothing to be done! Sky is falling folks!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_East_Wisconsinhttps://www.jsonline.com/story/money/real-estate/commercial/2023/03/10/100-east-office-tower-conversion-to-350-apartments-to-happen-by-2026/69994734007/I guess someone already had the idea to swap to luxury apartments in Milwaukee. Oh shoot, I thought that idea was all mine! Perhaps instead of listening to what one doomer says, perhaps look to what the investors and banks have actually decided was a good idea. Might there be problems or financial woes? Yes, of course, but that is investing. Your solutions seems to be to throw your hands up in the air and say, "Nothing to be done! Sky is falling folks!"
See the story above, they have been trying to get everyone back for three years, this is the umpteenth time that companies have tried this. Why will it work now?
And that one guy is more credible than you.
This article makes my point, conversions are incredibly expensive and result in high-end apartments/condos. They are not the way to solve the affordable housing problem.
This article makes my point, conversions are incredibly expensive and result in high-end apartments/condos. They are not the way to solve the affordable housing problem.And note that will take 3+ years ... it would take less time to build a similar building from an empty lot ... because conversions are that complicated.
It's already working now for some companies, including Google and Microsoft, which have massive workforces in expensive cities. It's not working as well for some others. It's too early to make a declaration - for me, anyway. If you want to take the extreme view and call it a done deal, that's your prerogative.
Any housing additions puts upward pressure on supply, and therefore downward pressure on demand, thereby decreasing prices.Unless you're trying to refute basic economic theory.
I should hope so, but despite what he says the reality is that he's wrong. There are developers renovating buildings.That's the reality. I'm sorry it hurt your feelings to be proven wrong so easily.
Before you make up more stuff ... read this. (again, conversions will happen. But it is not the big solution you keep insisting it is. It only works for selected niche buildings.)April 27, 2023https://www.brookings.edu/research/myths-about-converting-offices-into-housing-and-what-can-really-revitalize-downtowns/Myths about converting offices into housing—and what can really revitalize downtowns
Over recent decades, numerous cities have provided public support and subsidies for office-to-residential conversion, and evidence suggests that these interventions produced a public benefit. Inpost-9/11 New York, the conversion of 20 million square feet of office space into housing was part of doubling the residential population of Lower Manhattan. Downtown Los Angeles experienced a renaissance after the passage of an“Adaptive Reuse Ordinance” in 1999 that allowed conversions of older commercial buildings without adding parking, resulting in the direct creation of over12,000 units of housing over 20 years. More direct financial subsidy includes the recentCalgary incentive program that provides $75 per square foot to convert offices into housing, or Philadelphia’s prior10-year tax abatement that converted 8.2 million square feet from over 40 office buildings, increasing the Center City neighborhood’s population by 54% between 2000 and 2020. These experiences demonstrate the potential of adaptive reuse. But they vary considerably in their exact details, which merits careful consideration.
You should just take the L and stop.
This may be your belief but it is incorrect. Building high end RE solves the affordable housing problem.Private developers/capital are inherently risk averse. They build high end RE/condos or convert buildings in dense desirable neighborhoods because there is already demand.Now, if that demand isn't met by new high-end development you know what people like me do? Snap up affordable housing and gut-reno it to make it high end housing, problem solved for me and problem created for others.More supply is always the answer. Expanding a city’s housing supply exerts downward pressure on market rents. It's obvious, and here's a study - https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=up_workingpapers
You forgot that rich white people that now live in expensive properties in the city will not sit by and allow their market to get swamped with supply leading to their home values going down.That will place restrictions on it via building codes and limiting tax abatements.
Aren’t rich people leaving cities? Now they’re staying?
I said the exact opposite ... it is the poor and middle class that are leaving.It is privileged white people like you defending them (while you live far far away).
That’s true. I live in a gated community to stay away from people like you
Minimum security prison does not equal gated community.
Conclusion:Shaka won't be able to field a team before his new contract is up.
This comes back to the major economic and cultural change in the wake of the pandemic that should now be viewed as permanent, remote work, and work from home. We can argue all we want, whether it is good or bad, it has already happened, and we are not going back. Out this morning ...https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-23/commercial-real-estate-reset-is-causing-distress-from-san-francisco-to-hong-kongThe creeping rot inside commercial real estate is like a dark seam running through the global economy. Even as stock markets rally and investors are hopeful that the fastest interest-rate increases in a generation will ebb, the trouble in property is set to play out for years.--What PGIM analysts have called “the great reset” of values is likely to be agonizingly slow. It took six years for US office prices to recover after the 2008 financial crisis, even though that episode was centered on residential real estate. “This time we think it’ll take 10 years,” says Richard Barkham, global chief economist for CBRE Group Inc.Commercial real estate’s woes will add to the stress on a financial system that’s already reeling from this year’s crisis in regional banks. And as the downturn deepens, it stands to have a transformational impact on some cities as they contend with empty buildings and lower property tax revenue.
I don't disagree with any of this. Also, I thought I read a while back that commercial real estate was undergoing some credit default swaps... I could be misremembering, though.