Despite what they say, it certainly has nothing to do with collaboration and productivity.
They can’t have the empty office space after all. They’ve got a lease!
At least that was the excuse.
Rules for thee, not for me.
He adds: “CEOs and CFOs are looking at that lease or redecoration cost in their profit and loss statements and fixating on it as a bad financial decision that needs to be course-corrected — and in their minds, requiring people to use the space they’re paying for is the best way to do that.”
And then they lay off 25% of the workforce. The executive class’s mindset resembles insanity.
Remember folks, your preparation/travel time and budget for commuting to and eating at work is a free subsidy to both your employer and business real estate companies that is coming out of your life/pocket.
Plus all that foot traffic in the business districts, where nobody lives btw because of dumb zoning laws, will increase the real estate value because of the ancillary businesses that arise in that district to serve that stream of people.
When people stop going into those business districts those smaller ancillary businesses, like the shops and restaurants, will of course go bankrupt first. Which in turn will lower the value of those offices. And since the companies that own those building are using that real estate value to secure loans, they will be put at risk. It’s basically a house of cards that will collapse. Simply because people are working remotely and outdated zoning laws.
It’s why San Francisco’s business district is turning into a ghost town.
Well put. I hope this reconfigures cities to be more people oriented and forces better zoning.
Not to mention most modern office buildings can’t be converted into what is actually useful—housing. They need to be simply scrapped and replace.
If we adopted more mixed use zoning, there wouldn’t be this juggling act and waste. Cities could adapt to needs.
Bosses want to work from
hometheir ivory towersFTFY
