The Future of Cities

[Not A Serious Person]

I absolutely did NOT do that.  I stated the fact that there was no decrease in the Chicago metropolitan area between 2010-20.

Illiterate.

You did. And when you get caught you get mad and insult.

More gaslighting

It actually is the right metric and completely relevant. But you don't want to use it because it doesn't support your point. People are acting like the entire area is in some sort of decay. It isn't. It will likely continue to grow because it is a vibrant area with a diverse economy. (Unlike Rockford, Flint and Youngstown.)

Is it growing as fast as others? No. Will it fall behind places like DFW in the next couple of decades? Perhaps.

But these are the same dire predictions people made when LA passed up Chicago a few decades ago - and yet here Chicago remains with nearly 10 million people in the metro.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Lol. Now you are mixing up college aged students with total population. You can’t even keep your points straight.

[Not A Serious Person]

June 20, 2023

Wall Street Sours on America’s Downtowns
The pessimism from investors who bet on office buildings and mass transit can be seen in market signals that are flashing red
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cities-real-estate-bonds-taxes-c6736f8b


Investors are paying less for bonds linked to New York subways and buses. Downtown-focused real-estate investment trusts trade at less than half their prepandemic levels. Bondholders are demanding extra interest to hold office-building debt.

Downtowns have been a mother lode for American cities over the years, providing billions of dollars in tax revenue along with their distinctive skylines. In turn, investors who bet on downtown office towers, or on the trains and buses delivering workers to them, could generally trust they held a winning hand.

Now, with white-collar workers spending more time in their home offices, a phenomenon that shows few signs of ending, investments linked to downtowns are trading at falling prices in volatile markets.

“You could see this as a slow-motion change or as the beginning of a slow-moving train wreck,” said Richard Ciccarone, president emeritus of Merritt Research Services, a municipal credit-analysis firm. “I hope it’s not a train wreck, but it could be.”

Investors’ dimming view of downtowns isn’t good news for cities’ finances, nor for their residents. It puts under strain some of city governments’ traditional ways of extracting wealth: collecting property taxes on office buildings, taxes on wages earned within city limits, and fares from office workers’ commutes.

[Not A Serious Person]

June 20, 2023

Return to Office Enters the Desperation Phase
The next stage of getting workers back at their desks includes incentives like $10 to the charity of their choice — and consequences like poor performance evaluations if they don’t make the trek in.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/business/return-to-office-remote-work.html

For tens of millions of office workers, it’s been three years of scattershot plans for returning to in-person work — summoning people in, not really meaning it, everybody pretty much working wherever they pleased. Now, for the umpteenth time, businesses are ready to get serious.

----

These new policies come as business leaders accept that hybrid work is a permanent reality, with just over a quarter of full workdays in the country now done at home, and offices still at half their prepandemic occupancy. (Though that 50 percent occupancy metric combines Tuesdays and Wednesdays, when offices are bustling, with Fridays, when they tend to be ghost towns.)

[Not A Serious Person]

Migration is the most telling statistic about the desirability and health of an area.

People are moving in = good area.
People are moving out = bad area.


---------------------

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-census-2022-update-chicago-area-population-change-by-place-20230518-b3jwit6wvrfyhbzwlxl4ojcf74-story.html

New estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau show that Chicago lost about 81,000 people, or just under 3% of its population, from 2020 to 2022.

Chicago’s population as of July 1, 2022, was estimated at 2,665,039, with changes calculated from the estimated base of April 1, 2020.

The census also estimates that Illinois lost more than 230,000 people, or about 1.8%, in that time. Much of the reported decline — about 176,000 — came in the Chicago metropolitan area, which covers 14 counties including Cook and the collar counties, and extends into Indiana and Wisconsin.

The population of Cook County on July 1, 2022 was 5.1 million, a decrease of 3.2% since 2020.

The population of DuPage County on July 1, 2022 was 920,901, a decrease of 1.3% since 2020.

The population of Kane County on July 1, 2022 was 514,182, a decrease of 0.5% since 2020.

The population of Lake County on July 1, 2022 was 709,150, a decrease of 0.7% since 2020.

The population of Will County on July 1, 2022 was 696,757, an increase of 0.1% since 2020.

The population of McHenry County on July 1, 2022 was 311,747, an increase of 0.5% since 2020.

The population of Kendall County on July 1, 2022 was 137,254, an increase of 4.1% since 2020.

[JWags85]

June 20, 2023

Return to Office Enters the Desperation Phase
The next stage of getting workers back at their desks includes incentives like $10 to the charity of their choice — and consequences like poor performance evaluations if they don’t make the trek in.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/business/return-to-office-remote-work.html

For tens of millions of office workers, it’s been three years of scattershot plans for returning to in-person work — summoning people in, not really meaning it, everybody pretty much working wherever they pleased. Now, for the umpteenth time, businesses are ready to get serious.

----

These new policies come as business leaders accept that hybrid work is a permanent reality, with just over a quarter of full workdays in the country now done at home, and offices still at half their prepandemic occupancy. (Though that 50 percent occupancy metric combines Tuesdays and Wednesdays, when offices are bustling, with Fridays, when they tend to be ghost towns.)

People have been rushing to deem "the new normal" of office and/or hybrid work since 2021.  And they keep constantly shifting.  There is plenty still to be determined and worked out.  One solution won't work for all job functions and industries.

I was just at a major trade show and talked to colleauges of mine.  Two companies in very similar functions and spaces in the industry, both implementing expanded WFH programs.  One was raving about how well it was working.  The other talked about the struggles and challenges and how it would simply not work without more concessions back to the "old" way of working.  And neither were wrong or unreasonable and both have good culture/employee retention.

Where did all the thinkpieces go about "the end of business travel"?  Probably the same place as the large contract of a supplier to one of my oldest customers in HK.  Traditionally, they had trimester meetings and sales teams were in HK 5-6 times a year.  The supplier said post-COVID they had de-emphasized business travel and wanted to do more teleconferencing, even as HK was now open.  Proposed annual meetings and bi-annual sales trips with more frequent video calls.  My customer expressed their disinterest in it.  Supplier stood firm, contract was not renewed.  Now suddenly the supplier is saying they will travel more 

Bit of a tangent, but felt applicable.

[jesmu84]

People have been rushing to deem "the new normal" of office and/or hybrid work since 2021.  And they keep constantly shifting.  There is plenty still to be determined and worked out.  One solution won't work for all job functions and industries.

I was just at a major trade show and talked to colleauges of mine.  Two companies in very similar functions and spaces in the industry, both implementing expanded WFH programs.  One was raving about how well it was working.  The other talked about the struggles and challenges and how it would simply not work without more concessions back to the "old" way of working.  And neither were wrong or unreasonable and both have good culture/employee retention.

Where did all the thinkpieces go about "the end of business travel"?  Probably the same place as the large contract of a supplier to one of my oldest customers in HK.  Traditionally, they had trimester meetings and sales teams were in HK 5-6 times a year.  The supplier said post-COVID they had de-emphasized business travel and wanted to do more teleconferencing, even as HK was now open.  Proposed annual meetings and bi-annual sales trips with more frequent video calls.  My customer expressed their disinterest in it.  Supplier stood firm, contract was not renewed.  Now suddenly the supplier is saying they will travel more 

Bit of a tangent, but felt applicable.

The thing I read about WFH is the significant different influences, outside of the businesses themselves. Commerical real estate developers/investors want return. City leaders are also desperate for return.

So many different factors at play

[Goose]

The WSJ had an interesting piece on downtowns in major cities and it sure seems that the smart money guys are not betting on a resurgence of downtowns anytime soon. The article had a graph on cell phone activity in downtowns and several were under 35% of pre pandemic activity. The scary part of the story was the lost money in commercial real estate.

I also try and follow the smartest people, and most are running from major cities. I have no idea what will happen long term but I do not see any reason why anyone would be bullish on any big downtown.

I will say it makes me sad because I have always loved the action of being in the heart of a big city. While MKE is far from a big time city, I love having my office in a great location in the heart of the city and now am debating renewing my lease.

[Not A Serious Person]

San Fran now ... every other city next
----

June 19, 2023

With Commuters Staying Home, Transit Agencies Try to Reinvent Themselves
In California, Bay Area Rapid Transit has suffered so much that it needs a state bailout — and possibly a new business model.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/19/us/bart-san-francisco-california.html

Three years after the pandemic began, remote work endures as a way of life for many office workers, and few major transit systems in the United States have suffered worse than Bay Area Rapid Transit. The 131-mile network depends heavily on suburban residents who commute daily into San Francisco and less than other transit systems on local passengers trying to get across town.

Weekday ridership on BART is down to 32 percent of what it was before the pandemic began, punctuating a desperate moment for San Francisco. Without daily foot traffic, major retailers are abandoning downtown, and analysts believe the city core has yet to bottom out. Homeless encampments and open drug use have further discouraged visitors, while passengers have complained about safety and a lack of cleanliness.

BART officials are starting to come to terms with a future that no longer revolves around a downtown work culture. They are considering whether to pivot toward serving more concertgoers and sports fans on nights and weekends.

Across the United States, transit systems that have relied for decades on office workers are scrambling to avoid financial collapse as commuters stay home. Many systems are asking their local governments for bailouts as federal pandemic relief runs dry, but they are also racing to reinvent themselves.

Kansas City, Albuquerque and Boston have experimented with eliminating fares. Dallas is offering subsidized Uber rides to transit users. The Washington Metro is investing in housing and retail shops at dozens of its stations.

“If anyone says that they know the way out of this difficult situation, they’re fooling themselves,” said Brian D. Taylor, the director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. “This is a really challenging time.”

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

People have been rushing to deem "the new normal" of office and/or hybrid work since 2021.  And they keep constantly shifting.  There is plenty still to be determined and worked out.  One solution won't work for all job functions and industries.

I was just at a major trade show and talked to colleauges of mine.  Two companies in very similar functions and spaces in the industry, both implementing expanded WFH programs.  One was raving about how well it was working.  The other talked about the struggles and challenges and how it would simply not work without more concessions back to the "old" way of working.  And neither were wrong or unreasonable and both have good culture/employee retention.

Where did all the thinkpieces go about "the end of business travel"?  Probably the same place as the large contract of a supplier to one of my oldest customers in HK.  Traditionally, they had trimester meetings and sales teams were in HK 5-6 times a year.  The supplier said post-COVID they had de-emphasized business travel and wanted to do more teleconferencing, even as HK was now open.  Proposed annual meetings and bi-annual sales trips with more frequent video calls.  My customer expressed their disinterest in it.  Supplier stood firm, contract was not renewed.  Now suddenly the supplier is saying they will travel more 

Bit of a tangent, but felt applicable.

I'm on a short business trip the next two days.  The market intelligence I just learned from the customers today was irreplaceable.  If I didn't meet them in person I certainly would not have learned via videoconference.

[Hards Alumni]

The WSJ had an interesting piece on downtowns in major cities and it sure seems that the smart money guys are not betting on a resurgence of downtowns anytime soon. The article had a graph on cell phone activity in downtowns and several were under 35% of pre pandemic activity. The scary part of the story was the lost money in commercial real estate.

I also try and follow the smartest people, and most are running from major cities. I have no idea what will happen long term but I do not see any reason why anyone would be bullish on any big downtown.

I will say it makes me sad because I have always loved the action of being in the heart of a big city. While MKE is far from a big time city, I love having my office in a great location in the heart of the city and now am debating renewing my lease.

Simple.  People want to LIVE downtown.  Convert the commercial high rises into livable spaces until there is a balance. 

The cost of living in an urban center is extremely high, and a wise investor should consider converting while prices are high to maximize ROI.

[Not A Serious Person]

Simple.  People want to LIVE downtown.  Convert the commercial high rises into livable spaces until there is a balance. 

The cost of living in an urban center is extremely high, and a wise investor should consider converting while prices are high to maximize ROI.

Not simple ... it is incredibly difficult and expensive to convert commercial/office to residential, and only a small percentage of current buildings in most city centers are viable for such conversion.

One big problem ... modern office buildings have huge footprints. No one wants an apartment/condo without a window. What do you do with the vast interior space?  Also, ask Tower; converting these big buildings to residential is against most existing building and fire codes. All that means is another dump truck of money to bring them into compliance, meaning these are not affordable housing units but more units for the wealthy.

-----

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/11/upshot/office-conversions.html

The idea, however, is less like a sweeping fix and more like a set of intricate puzzles — a different one for each building. Each one must solve for local rules that say what counts as a bedroom, for structural columns and elevator shafts that shape where walls go, for construction costs and land prices that affect rent rolls. And they must solve, above all, for access in every unit to fresh air and sunlight.

For many offices, this puzzle may be unsolvable, at least for now.

[Not A Serious Person]

June 21, 2023

Untangling the Urban Doom Loop
As superstar cities struggle to fill vacant offices and pandemic boomtowns try to contain rising costs, both must double down on density, argues Bruce Schaller.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-21/to-break-the-urban-doom-loop-build-housing-and-transit

As pandemic-era migrations and behavioral shifts continue to play out, the precarious condition of America’s downtowns has emerged as an increasingly urgent refrain. Office attendance and transit ridership in many cities remain stalled at severely diminished levels, fueling much talk among urban scholars and pundits of an “urban doom loop” — a cycle of unstoppable collapse whereby tumbling property tax revenue forces cities to slash spending, speeding the flight of residents and businesses and triggering a rise in crime and disorder. As dynamism has shifted from unaffordable coastal “superstar cities” to inland insurgents in the Sun Belt, many have speculated that an entirely new geography of the American economy is taking shape.

[Hards Alumni]

Not simple ... it is incredibly difficult and expensive to convert commercial/office to residential, and only a small percentage of current buildings in most city centers are viable for such conversion.

One big problem ... modern office buildings have huge footprints. No one wants an apartment/condo without a window. What do you do with the vast interior space?  Also, ask Tower; converting these big buildings to residential is against most existing building and fire codes. All that means is another dump truck of money to bring them into compliance, meaning these are not affordable housing units but more units for the wealthy.

-----

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/11/upshot/office-conversions.html

The idea, however, is less like a sweeping fix and more like a set of intricate puzzles — a different one for each building. Each one must solve for local rules that say what counts as a bedroom, for structural columns and elevator shafts that shape where walls go, for construction costs and land prices that affect rent rolls. And they must solve, above all, for access in every unit to fresh air and sunlight.

For many offices, this puzzle may be unsolvable, at least for now.

It's only as difficult as you choose to make it.  Sure, it would cost a lot to retrofit, but it also costs a ton to tear down and rebuild.  Tax incentives, long term empty commercial taxes, Public housing, etc.  This isn't an unsolvable problem, it is an opportunity to change urban living.

Also, if you're saying that a lot of these buildings would only be affordable for the wealthy, there are obvious problems with that argument.  Require that a certain number of units are required for different income levels.  Not to mention the downward pressure that more housing overall puts on housing prices.

Your solution is what, exactly?

[Not A Serious Person]

It's only as difficult as you choose to make it.  Sure, it would cost a lot to retrofit, but it also costs a ton to tear down and rebuild.  Tax incentives, long term empty commercial taxes, Public housing, etc.  This isn't an unsolvable problem, it is an opportunity to change urban living.

Also, if you're saying that a lot of these buildings would only be affordable for the wealthy, there are obvious problems with that argument.  Require that a certain number of units are required for different income levels not to mention the downward pressure that more housing overall puts on housing prices.

Your solution is what, exactly?

New buildings with large footprints were never designed to be converted into residential units. Estimates are it would cost about $200/foot to cover in most urban cities. (the plumbing alone for kitchens and bathrooms would be a massive undertaking) And that is on top of $100/$300 foot to acquire the building.

So a typical 1200 square foot 2 bedroom would have $240,000 in conversion costs. Add in the building costs; that condo would need to go for at least $500k to break even.

What is the market for $500+k two-bedroom condos in a place like Milwaukee?

What is my solution? Not pretending the unworkable is workable.
Again, conversion works for many older low-rise buildings with small footprints. It does not work for large modern office buildings with big footprints, which is the majority of office space in most city centers.

[Uncle Rico]

It's only as difficult as you choose to make it.  Sure, it would cost a lot to retrofit, but it also costs a ton to tear down and rebuild.  Tax incentives, long term empty commercial taxes, Public housing, etc.  This isn't an unsolvable problem, it is an opportunity to change urban living.

Also, if you're saying that a lot of these buildings would only be affordable for the wealthy, there are obvious problems with that argument.  Require that a certain number of units are required for different income levels.  Not to mention the downward pressure that more housing overall puts on housing prices.

Your solution is what, exactly?

He doesn’t have one.  Just move to Fredonia

[Not A Serious Person]

I'm on a short business trip the next two days.  The market intelligence I just learned from the customers today was irreplaceable.  If I didn't meet them in person I certainly would not have learned via videoconference.

Did you meet in your customer's office in a conference room? Or did you take them out to lunch/dinner or another event to get one-on-one time (golf or a baseball game)?

Do you need an office with a conference room to accomplish this?

It sounds like you can get this without ever visiting another office again.

[Not A Serious Person]

He doesn’t have one.  Just move to Fredonia

Try reading about six or seven posts above ....

---

“If anyone says that they know the way out of this difficult situation, they’re fooling themselves,” said Brian D. Taylor, the director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. “This is a really challenging time.”

[Hards Alumni]

Try reading about six or seven posts above ....

---

“If anyone says that they know the way out of this difficult situation, they’re fooling themselves,” said Brian D. Taylor, the director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. “This is a really challenging time.”

Oh, well then nothing, I guess.  This one guy says so.  So it must be!

[Hards Alumni]

New buildings with large footprints were never designed to be converted into residential units. Estimates are it would cost about $200/foot to cover in most urban cities. (the plumbing alone for kitchens and bathrooms would be a massive undertaking) And that is on top of $100/$300 foot to acquire the building.

So a typical 1200 square foot 2 bedroom would have $240,000 in conversion costs. Add in the building costs; that condo would need to go for at least $500k to break even.

What is the market for $500+k two-bedroom condos in a place like Milwaukee?

What is my solution? Not pretending the unworkable is workable.
Again, conversion works for many older low-rise buildings with small footprints. It does not work for large modern office buildings with big footprints, which is the majority of office space in most city centers.

You're doing back of the napkin math and making a ton of assumptions regarding a complex issue.  Good job, good effort.

There are a lot more small/medium size commercial buildings in downtown Milwaukee that can be repurposed.  I never suggested taking the US Bank building and loading it with condos. Curious that you chose Milwaukee instead of SF.  But you probably did that because you checked zillow and noted that there were over 400 results for condos over $500k with 2+ bedrooms.  But I understand why you'd choose Milwaukee.  It better fit your claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Milwaukee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_East_Wisconsin

Between 2016 and 2023, several of the building's major tenants announced that they would be vacating their spaces. A number of these businesses moved up Water Street to the newly opened BMO Tower (Milwaukee). In 2023, Klein Development and developer and investor John Vassalllo purchased the building and announced plans to convert the building into 350 luxury apartments by 2026. The buildings small floorplates make it unattractive to modern office use, but the high quality of construction, views and location make it appealing to residential conversion.

https://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!"

[tower912]

His business model is boosted by uncertainty.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

You're doing back of the napkin math and making a ton of assumptions regarding a complex issue.  Good job, good effort.

It's a Heisey specialty.

[MU82]

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&regi_id=108420427&segment_id=136436&te=1&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa

Now 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.

+++

Manny Medina, the chief executive of a Seattle-based artificial intelligence sales company, doesn’t mind repeating himself. It comes with the territory, after all. That tolerance proved convenient this year as he faced the same question innumerable times.

Wait, so why was it you wanted us back in the office?

The engineers reminded him of their commutes. The working parents reminded him of school pickup times. Mr. Medina replied with arguments he has delineated so often that they have come to feel like personal mantras: Being near each other makes the work better. Mr. Medina approached three years of mushy remote-plus-office work as an experiment. His takeaway was that ideas bubble up more organically in the clamor of the office.

“You can interrupt each other without being rude when you’re in person,” said Mr. Medina, whose company, Outreach, is now in the office on a hybrid basis. “In a Zoom conversation, you have to let somebody finish their thought.”

For tens of millions of office workers, it’s been three years of scattershot plans for returning to in-person work — summoning people in, not really meaning it, everybody pretty much working wherever they pleased. Now, for the umpteenth time, businesses are ready to get serious.

A wave of companies called workers back to the office this spring and summer: Disney said four days a week, Amazon swung with three (prompting a walkout from corporate workers), Meta and Lyft are aiming for September deadlines for many of their employees. Others devised new tactics to ensure their return-to-office policies stuck. Google, which has asked most workers to be in the office three days a week, announced that performance reviews could take into account lengthy unexplained absences from the office, and badge records could be reviewed to identify those consistent absences, said Ryan Lamont, a company spokesman.

Google employees will be granted the ability to work remotely only on an extremely rare basis. “We want to see Googlers connecting and collaborating in person, so we’re limiting remote work to exception only,” Mr. Lamont said.

These new policies come as business leaders accept that hybrid work is a permanent reality, with just over a quarter of full workdays in the country now done at home, and offices still at half their prepandemic occupancy. (Though that 50 percent occupancy metric combines Tuesdays and Wednesdays, when offices are bustling, with Fridays, when they tend to be ghost towns.)

Salesforce, the business software behemoth, announced that for a 10-day period, it will give a $10 charitable donation per day on behalf of any employee who comes into the office (or for remote employees who attend company events). A spokeswoman said it was only natural the company would want to find moments for “doing well and doing good.” But to some employees, it might feel like a tonal shift, given that the company’s previous workplace plans were announced with fanfare for a future in which much of its staff could be fully or partially remote forever. (The company emphasized that this remains the case.)

“An immersive workspace is no longer limited to a desk in our Towers,” the company wrote in a February 2021 memo. “The 9-to-5 workday is dead.”

It was very much alive on a recent Monday at Salesforce Tower in New York, as a hum of activity filled the 41-story building looming over Bryant Park. Desks and conference rooms were filled with employees, some of them visiting from San Francisco for the company’s A.I.-focused day. In the top-floor lounge, workers stood in line waiting for coffee, as Salesforce’s catering team prepared shrimp tacos for an office event that week.

Scattered throughout the office were the company’s animal mascots. Brandy the fox represents marketing. Astro the astronaut sat behind a piano in the 41st floor lounge. Codey the bear stood guard near the developers.

“It’s the impromptu-ness of in-person — so for example, I was at the office and there was somebody from Chicago, she was in the San Francisco office — ‘Oh do you have time to go and chat and have a meeting about a strategy that we’re rolling out?’” said Nathalie Scardino, Salesforce’s global head of talent strategy. “Inevitably, as a high-tech company, you have to keep changing to meet the needs of the business, of the customer.”

It’s not often that the entire white-collar business world gets thrown into an impromptu experiment — executives left to discern how to make multimillion-dollar decisions in between bursts of “you’re on mute,” employees figuring out how to forge friendships and nudge mentors for advice while sitting next to piles of their laundry.

And for the last three years, some office decision-making has come to feel like parents scrambling to impose rules on an unruly home: “Do this.” “Why?” “Because I said so.” But now some business leaders say that the results of their remote work experiment are in. They feel emphatically that they need some in-person time. After months of layoffs, especially in tech, their next business moves feel particularly consequential.

“When the economy was warm, executives thought, ‘I’d really like to have people back but it’s OK because I have this margin of error,’” said Mark Ein, chairman of Kastle, the security firm whose “back to work barometer” made it a pandemic celebrity. “Now that things are tougher, they want to hunker down and have their people in the office.”

DocuSign, which has more than 6,500 employees spread across the globe, became a poster child for the lurching back-and-forth over return-to-office planning. The company had hoped to call employees back in May 2020, then August 2020, then October 2021, then January 2022. Then the plans disintegrated altogether.

But this month, much of the company finally came back to the office. Since February, executives have evaluated every role at the company and decided roughly 70 percent were hybrid, meaning people would be partly in the office and partly remote, 30 percent were fully remote and under 1 percent were fully in the office. Jennifer Christie, the company’s new chief people officer, absorbed dozens of questions from concerned employees.

“This can be a very polarizing subject,” she said, adding that she views this summer as a period of experimentation in which she and other company leaders will evaluate what parts of their hybrid plan need changing. “We’re running water through pipes that haven’t had water run through them in a long time. So where are there going to be leaks?”

But Docusign’s leaders were ready, she added, to stop talking about how to get people back in the office and start making their plans real. “We could debate it forever, we could speculate about what’s going to happen forever, but the best way for us to understand how this will impact our culture and productivity and collaboration is to just start doing it.”

It’s been a long period of choose-your-own-adventure style workplace planning, and the shift companies have made toward firmer deadlines has taken some recruiters by surprise. Jasmine Silver, who runs a recruitment firm specializing in mothers hoping to re-enter the work force, found that in the last few months, many of her clients transitioned abruptly from fully remote to either hybrid or entirely in-office work. The transition was jarring for some workers, especially those who had moved far from their offices, or had become attached to new work-from-home habits.

And it’s healthy for people to be able to express those frustrations, psychologists said.

“What appears to be a grumbling or complaint is in many cases a request for understanding,” said Tracy Maylett, an organizational psychologist. “When you look at change, the most dangerous people are people who are quiet, because you don’t know what they’re thinking. You can’t address their concerns.”

The period of hand-wringing also tends to be temporary, judging by those companies now settled in their hybrid routines. Asana, for example, the productivity software firm, asked employees to come in at least on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays starting in 2022.

For months, return to office, or R.T.O., was a big topic of office conversation. Everybody had questions, and they were all directed toward Anna Binder, the head of human resources.

“Before we R.T.O.’d — I love that that’s now in the Webster Dictionary — it was a topic of conversation because R.T.O. was theoretical, and being on the other side of the pandemic was theoretical,” Ms. Binder said. “Most people came, returned and are here. Some people tried it, decided, ‘It’s not for me,’ and they left.”

Now, Ms. Binder continued, the issue doesn’t really come up. Return to office isn’t a hypothetical scenario. It’s their reality. And they have so much else to talk about.

“Somebody on my team just recently fell in love with somebody, and she came in one day and it was like, ‘What is going on with you?’” Ms. Binder said. “She got so red and she was like, ‘My whole life has changed.’ To share that moment with another human being — it was really emotional.”

[Not A Serious Person]

You're doing back of the napkin math and making a ton of assumptions regarding a complex issue.  Good job, good effort.

There are a lot more small/medium size commercial buildings in downtown Milwaukee that can be repurposed.  I never suggested taking the US Bank building and loading it with condos. Curious that you chose Milwaukee instead of SF.  But you probably did that because you checked zillow and noted that there were over 400 results for condos over $500k with 2+ bedrooms.  But I understand why you'd choose Milwaukee.  It better fit your claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Milwaukee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_East_Wisconsin
https://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!"

I spent time trying to invest in conversion and gave up when I realized it was not that lucrative.

[Not A Serious Person]

Oh, well then nothing, I guess.  This one guy says so.  So it must be!

And that one guy is more credible than you.