• auth@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    mixed offices and apartments in the same building sounds good… would cut the commute

  • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes please. Let’s give corporations a reason to convert their office buildings into apartments so we can all go back to WFH. Plus, the more housing we have in the city the cheaper it gets.

    I’m hopeful that a lot of these will turn into condos so people can get into ownership instead of renting.

  • andallthat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I like how this is finally acknowledging WFH as something that is here to stay but I’m not sure I understand the connection with the housing crisis. From the article:

    New York’s famous Flatiron Building will soon be converted from empty offices into luxury residences

    Luxury apartments in premium locations is the first thing I would think of too if I were a developer, but their target buyers don’t sound like the sort of people who currently suffer from the housing crisis. But maybe I’m wrong and there will also be developers converting less prestigious office space into affordable housing…

    The other thing I don’t get is this: I don’t know Manhattan but I did work in some (I assume) similar business hubs in the middle of overpriced cities and I wonder: are many people going to want to live in expensive converted office spaces if they don’t work near there any longer? I mean if they were given the chance to WFH from anywhere would they still choose Manhattan? Honest question and maybe the answer is yes, because of the restaurants, culture, good schools or whatever… I would personally make different life choices if I could work completely remote, though.

    • David_Eight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      uxury apartments in premium locations is the first thing I would think of too if I were a developer, but their target buyers don’t sound like the sort of people who currently suffer from the housing crisis.

      It’ll have a domino effect, more apartments in Manhattan means less people in Brooklyn, Queens, etc. meaning prices go down in the latter boroughs. I live in Jersey City across the Hudson from Manhattan and a large part of the residents here are just people who can’t afford to live in Manhattan.

      are many people going to want to live in expensive converted office spaces if they don’t work near there any longer?

      Yes, I used to live in a converted office building in Newark NJ (not far from Manhattan) and really loved it. And yes people will always want to live in NYC and especially Manhattan. Many people, myself included simply prefer living in cities. I’ve also looked for apartments in Manhattan and it’s completely different than anywhere else.

      • bitwolf@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I remember watching the SOHO lofts get built sitting in 78e traffic towards Hoboken every morning.

        It seemed to me as if it was an old industrial revolution styled office building or warehouse being converted into apartments.

        I hope to see more of that in the future

    • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Former Commercial Zoning = Inner City

      People are going to fight bare knuckle for that kind of residence at a reasonable price. They charge out the wazoo for small apartments in that area.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They use the flatiron building because it’s very famous but essentially a nuisance at this point having been vacant for iirc over a decade because of a lawsuit.

      Ed: since 2019 but that’s quite awhile for the most famous like 2sq miles in America. (Which is also weird but we’ll talk about that another time.)

      • andallthat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ah thanks for the context, I didn’t know! But doesn’t my point essentially stills stand?

        As more people work from home and more Flatiron-like buildings struggle to find businesses looking for offices, developers might find “ex prestigious office to luxury apartments” a more appealing conversion than “ex Walmart to affordable housing”.

        Also, my understanding of the housing crisis is that people can’t find an affordable place to live close enough to where they work. In my country there are plenty of small towns that used to be very pretty places to live, that have very affordable housing and that are turning into ghost towns because all the jobs are concentrated in a few big cities.

        If you take away the offices, less people are going to need to live in New York, San Francisco or London. Plenty of people might still choose to, of course, but there should be less competition to rent the last bed space in a filthy apartment at ludicrous prices. Or to buy a small flat in a converted former office.

        • SnowBunting@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Some people choose a location for the amount of things to do. Like the bigger cities offer more bars, fairs, gyms, and other niche stuff. Meet ups are also a bit easier. This could change as people move out of bigger cities.

  • Brkdncr@artemis.camp
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    All high rise office buildings should be incentivized to have residential space. Let’s try and fix the housing issues and reduce cars/traffic at the same time.

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The incentive is already there, it’s just prohibited because of zoning and building codes many places. All the government has to do to fix this is stop getting in the way.

  • favrion@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Offices are actually chill if you take out the cubicles and stuff. They are spacious, neutral, and have a bathroom and roof access.

    • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I worked in a few skyscraper type offices and they are pretty awesome. The view was always crazy and there were always good food options nearby right in the middle of the city. You could make a nice house in there. Just need the bathroom and kitchen to be near the center of the building. You could probably fit 4 nice size units on each floor of my old building. But they would want to make a ton of tiny overpriced ones instead so they will say there isn’t enough plumbing lol.

  • nucleative@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are sometimes some strange issues with office construction.

    There might be no plumbing in the locations people will want for toilets and baths and kitchens in the individual suites away from the core of the building. Same goes for retrofitted laundry facilities.

    HVAC systems (in the US anyways) are often centrallized and might need a lot of retrofitting to make it work like a condo/apartment.

    Kitchen ventilation

    Windows might not open, can’t get to a fresh air source

    Aside from that stuff, the issue of empty office buildings while we are experiencing unsustainable housing markets is begging for a solution to address the demand.

    There will probably be a handy sum to be earned for construction companies who get efficient at conversions.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not that there might not be plumbing, it’s that there is zero plumbing in most office buildings aside from one clustered section for floor where there’s 5 to 10 toilets for each gender.

      On top of that, you have completely different mechanical systems. An office building for instance may have one single mechanical system for the entire building, whereas an apartment would need separate mechanical systems for each individual apartment.

      Then you have the kitchens, bedrooms and interior partition walls that are vastly different than an office building, plus the requirements for exterior windows which precludes larger office buildings with deeper floor plates from being converted at all without demolishing the interior portion of the building. Curtain wall systems that may or may not be compatible between an office and residential building (non-operating windows)… Not to mention the stair and elevator systems are probably not going to work either.

      So in the end you’re probably looking at gutting the building down to the structure and removing every piece of the building including the outer envelope, roof, all of the electrical plumbing and mechanical systems… In the end it may or may not be cheaper just to build a new building from the ground up.

      Source: am architect. And yes, I have done conversions like this in the past.

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wonder if it would be possible to require all future construction to be designed in a way that it could easily be switched between commercial/residential. Like each floor of an office building has to have plumbing roughed it to support x number of toilets/showers on each floor, stuff like that.

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also offices don’t require that all the rooms have access to natural light the way residential buildings do. That’s why office towers can be thicc blocks while apartment buildings often need to be U-shaped.

    • ziby0405@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      it’d be a lot of work resolving all those issues… but definitely doable. just have to find the maniac with money and drive that wants to do that

  • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    How about instead of giving money to private companies in the hopes that they build housing you give that money to people so they can afford to live in all the housing that already exists.

    Why do libs always make this shit more complicated than it needs to be

    • rynzcycle@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because both just give money to crappy landlords, but with exta steps. Why not just tax the hell out of anyone who owns a building that’s empty for longer than reasonable, maybe with an extension if you can prove you’re redeveloping an office into housing.

      • DefinitelyNotAPhone [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure there is. An enormous chunk of housing sits unused and empty because real estate speculators want to rent them out at exorbitant prices rather than use it for it’s intended purpose of having a roof over people’s heads.

        Pass nationwide legislation that restricts owning housing for commercial purposes beyond a certain threshold, and put rent controls in place pegged to 20% of the median income per town/city. You’d eliminate 95% of homelessness before the ink was dry, massively increase homeownership rates, and be the most popular politician of an era.

        It’s not even an ebil communist plot, and it’d still be more effective than giving even more money to private developers on a pinky promise they’ll build something people can afford, just trust them this time.

        • Pandemanium@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          An enormous chunk of housing sits unused and empty because real estate speculators want to rent them out at exorbitant prices rather than use it for it’s intended purpose of having a roof over people’s heads.

          If they are renting it out at exorbitant prices, then it’s not empty. If it’s empty, then they get zero money. You’re saying it’s both, which makes no sense. Interest rates and property taxes are both high right now. It costs investors money to hold empty property without renting it out. They don’t have to wait for people to pay inflated prices. The demand is already there.

          I’m all for more regulation, especially for developers and investors. Stiupulate that at least 50% of all new housing built be affordable. Give incentives to rehab old condemned properties. And stop letting AI algorithms determine rental prices.

      • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        According the the last census there are 15.1 million houses and apartments sitting empty in the US, roughly 29 properties for every one unhoused person in America.

        • Pandemanium@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          When I looked it said 13.9 million. But how many of those are habitable? Does that number include Airbnbs? Properties stuck in probate or the foreclosure process? How many of them are in senior communities that don’t allow younger people or families? The census data doesn’t specify any of that.

    • unsaid0415@szmer.info
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If the average Joe now has more money from the government, wouldn’t that drive the property prices up? Polish govt has a program where a mortgage is guaranteed to have 2% interest rate, while in reality the govt pays the difference between the 2% and the actual bank’s interest rate, and that just made the prices of housing increase.

      The only way not to give money to already rich developers is to have the govt build houses on its own to compete with the developers themselves, which is I assume unthinkable in the US. That would literally be communism

    • PeterPoopshit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Oh, I’m sure they’ll charge a minimum of $2k/month even for the shittiest of the shithole office apartments. They’ll get their money don’t worry.

  • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Biden wants to give money to wealthy landlords so they can build luxury apartments using our tax dollars, so they can rent them out and increase their wealth.

  • unsaid0415@szmer.info
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I like Biden. Giving taxpayer money to developers is another thing, but I’m happy to hear that the US govt is off the RTO madness train, at least in this particular situation. There were those articles about Biden wanting federal workers to return though…

    • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      There was a leaked OPM memo that was going to require DC govt workers to RTO. It obviously made a bunch of waves and they backed way off of it.

      This is probably their compromise solution. Because the DC mayor and all of those poor unfortunate corporate commercial landlords were losing money. And businesses weren’t getting the foot traffic from office workers anymore.

      The talented govt folks would walk. They already don’t get paid what their equivalents do in the private sector. RTO would have screwed the administrations ability to get things done.

    • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They always were, it’s just corporate landlords stood a lot to lose from them losing prominence so kept them artificially in demand. Went so far to lobby that corporations need to have an office by law, even if their structure doesn’t necessitate one.

  • Nagarjuna [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    Watching the Biden admin is wild. At one minute he’ll be escalating the wars in the Ukraine and Palestine, but the next he’ll be funding the NLRB and addressing the housing crisis in a way that improves walk-ability.

    It’s like, he has two settings: “actually useful moderate” and “KILLKILLKILLKILL”

    Unfortunately, this makes him the best US president since carter

    desolate