Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian
Re working from home:
Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom @ https://news.stanford.edu/2020/06/29...-home-economy/
I think this is right and it means, essentially, that employees who can do some work at home will still have to come into the office about half the time and that means that living within a convenient range of the office will still be desirable. While you could move 2 states away and fly in for your days at work, that would both get expensive negating savings of living in a cheaper location, it could also get exhausting.
Then there’s the question of what does this mean for the amount of office soace companies need. It probably does mean they need less but maybe not as much less as some people think because the reason for having employees come to the office is to network and collaborate with other employees meaning many employees would likely be in the office at the same time. One large SF company, Salesforce, seemed to be contemplating this when CEO Mark Benioff talked about not so much reducing space as redesigning it to facilitate employees getting together in groups; in other words no cubicles but rather open living room like office spaces.
I do think it can mean less commute traffic, much lower peak demand on commuter transit systems and less business for downtown services like restaurants serving lunch. You could see a greater emphasis on dinner service in downtown dining spots. |
Yes, this is probably the most likely scenario. It will take a couple of years to know for sure, but I am fairly confident that the true risk is to lower cost suburban office parks than highly desirable locations in city centers. Companies will trade the space for location. It will look similar to the gradual obsolescence of suburban shopping malls.