Dreaded Commute to the City Is Keeping Offices Mostly Empty

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Outside of the standers east coast cities the USA was vast and mostly unpopulated before ww2

in 1940, the 5 great lakes states (IL, OH, MI, IN, WI) were home to nearly 27M people.

that's roughly the same population as Spain at the time, in only a little bit more land area.

would you say that Spain was "mostly unpopulated" in 1940?

[Chisouthside]

currently on flex, im just a 20 minute cta train ride from my job in the Loop, i do like waking up later when wfh but prefer to work in the office if that makes sense. plus its nice walking out of work and being able to walk to a bar or the chicago riverwalk.

I think if more people were in my situation they would enjoy coming to the office more. But i understand the people with long commuter train commutes.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Yes. I'm neutral regarding mine, but even those "love the work" types, they're there because the pay. Cut the pay and no one will show up to work on the next day.

Well of course, no one is working out of the kindness of their heart. There's no debate over whether people want to work for pay vs work for no pay - but there is a valid question is how many employees would prefer to work (for pay) from home vs. work (for pay) from an office.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

in 1940, the 5 great lakes states (IL, OH, MI, IN, WI) were home to nearly 27M people.

that's roughly the same population as Spain at the time, in only a little bit more land area.

Per the 1940 census, the top 10 states were:

1. New York
2. Pennsylvania
3. Illinois
4. Ohio
5. California
6. Texas
7. Michigan
8. Massachusetts
9. New Jersey
10. Missouri

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Per the 1940 census, the top 10 states were:

1. New York
2. Pennsylvania
3. Illinois
4. Ohio
5. California
6. Texas
7. Michigan
8. Massachusetts
9. New Jersey
10. Missouri

Incredibly, Ohio was the #3 state for most of the 1800s, from 1830 until 1880, when it was bumped to #4 by upstart Illinois.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_census

It's pretty amazing how Ohio's profile has been so low throughout American history despite it being a Top 5 state from 1820 until 1970. It is currently #7.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

in 1940, the 5 great lakes states (IL, OH, MI, IN, WI) were home to nearly 27M people.

that's roughly the same population as Spain at the time, in only a little bit more land area.

would you say that Spain was "mostly unpopulated" in 1940?

Its not comparable and you know this. all population centers in the midwest by 1940 were no older than 150 years. The Spanish population was spread across millennia old traditional cities and towns and had been that way for centuries.

How did land ownership work in Europe? Where were the vast tracts of land that could easily and cheaply be subdivided and sold off to average families? That simply couldn't happen in European countries at any scale. Thats my point.

Even if the US took a decidedly more urbanist approach across the nation the best you could have hoped for is maybe Canadian development which would be a slightly more urban style of suburban development.

There was too much open cheap land and open cheap gas and relatively less tax burden and available credit etc etc in the USA that Europe never had.

that allowed for suburbanization. And there is no version of history where it would have happened in Europe. Not unless WW2 had killed off half of the populaiton.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Incredibly, Ohio was the #3 state for most of the 1800s, from 1830 until 1880, when it was bumped to #4 by upstart Illinois.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_census

It's pretty amazing how Ohio's profile has been so low throughout American history despite it being a Top 5 state from 1820 until 1970. It is currently #7.

Probably because Ohio isn't dominated by a single city and thus a single political "aristocracy" for lack of a better term. Anyone who's anyone in Illinois Politics is coming through Chicago. But in Ohio you have multiple competing cities and even competing industrial systems with one going out in the north through the great lakes and one looking south to the Ohio river.

Its probably helped keep Ohio the eternal moderate of American politics.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Probably because Ohio isn't dominated by a single city and thus a single political "aristocracy" for lack of a better term. Anyone who's anyone in Illinois Politics is coming through Chicago. But in Ohio you have multiple competing cities and even competing industrial systems with one going out in the north through the great lakes and one looking south to the Ohio river.

Its probably helped keep Ohio the eternal moderate of American politics.

If you're talking about the mid 19th century, it's more a matter of high levels of rural population than just urban. Ohio had a lot of prime farmland, which (in the days prior to mechanization) led to much higher labor needs per acre than something like ranching.

You can still see this legacy today. Look at this 2010 population density map. Rural Ohio is mostly yellow, with lots of highly populated county seats. There are some relatively low population areas in Appalachian Ohio,, but less than most of the surrounding states, and way less than out West, where areas outside of cities are nearly totally empty.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by obadno

its not comparable and you know this.

i'm not saying anything is comparable to anything, i'm simply pushing back against your assertion that the US, outside of the east coast, was "mostly unpopulated" prior to WWII.

That's an assessment that i simply do not agree with. That's all.

[niwell]

As with many people I was reticent about the idea of WFH at the beginning of COVID but have come to enjoy it far more than being in an office. To the point where I absolutely loathe every second that I'm forced to go back in lately (thankfully not often) - nothing to do with the commute either as the 25 minute bike ride is actually the only thing I miss. My home setup is better, I can hang out with my dog, get chores done during downtime and actually do in fact get a LOT more work done. In general our team has been more productive once the kinks of using MS Teams was worked out.

Now this is just me, and a lot of this is personal preference and would vary considerably based on exact roles and responsibilities. While I work with a team we generally do stuff independently and there isn't much "spontaneous interaction" or whatever they call it. I'm also conscious of work life blending into home, which is something I feel I can manage as a more senior staff member, and have also come to terms with. For instance over the Christmas season we were doing a bunch of very urgent work on COVID relief that required emails being sent back and forth wellll into the evening and starting again in the morning. It sucked, but instead of being in the office for 12+ hour days I could still do other things while waiting for responses.

Now, if I were more junior or didn't have as much going on at home I likely would prefer to be in the office more. It really varies from case to case, and the key is flexibility. Nobody wants to be forced to do an arbitrary number of days one way or the other.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Interestingly how rural Indiana is way more populated than the neighbouring Illinois, following Ohio and Lower Michigan pattern. Chicago really mess up with our perception of Illinois.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by niwell

As with many people I was reticent about the idea of WFH at the beginning of COVID but have come to enjoy it far more than being in an office. To the point where I absolutely loathe every second that I'm forced to go back in lately (thankfully not often) - nothing to do with the commute either as the 25 minute bike ride is actually the only thing I miss. My home setup is better, I can hang out with my dog, get chores done during downtime and actually do in fact get a LOT more work done. In general our team has been more productive once the kinks of using MS Teams was worked out.

It's funny the reversal that's taken place for me. This time last year, I would go into the office on the days when I needed to get stuff done with no distractions. There were only a handful of people that were coming in everyday, I could steal a partner's office, go to gym at lunch for as long as I wanted, etc.

Now that there is a regular crowd of people on from Tuesday to Thursday, I find I lean towards staying home on the days when I need to put my head down and get stuff done. I can wake up and literally be knee deep in my work in 15 minutes. I can screen any calls or messages on Teams instead of being trapped if someone comes to chat for 15 minutes in the office. The condo gym is an elevator ride away, and I don't have to worry about bringing 3 full tupperware containers to the office for a 10-12 hour day.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Interestingly how rural Indiana is way more populated than the neighbouring Illinois, following Ohio and Lower Michigan pattern. Chicago really mess up with our perception of Illinois.

Rural IL is much more focused on growing corn/soybeans, which are highly mechanized. Rural IN/OH have more small/family farms, which means a higher rural population.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Rural IL is much more focused on growing corn/soybeans, which are highly mechanized. Rural IN/OH have more small/family farms, which means a higher rural population.

Are there forests and some hills in Indiana, or it's all flat farmland?

Stranger Things' fictional Hawkins could be there or it doesn't match? I know the shots take place somewhere in Georgia.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Rural IL is much more focused on growing corn/soybeans, which are highly mechanized.

which is why IL (minus chicagoland) more closely resembles Iowa than the states to its east.

IL/IA is the corn and soybean epicenter of the nation.



source: https://www.cropprophet.com/us-corn-...tion-by-state/


source: https://www.cropprophet.com/soybean-...nited%20States.





when chicagoans make jokes about I-55 down to st. louis being nothing but 5 hours of cornfields, we're not really joking. that's what it is.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Are there forests and some hills in Indiana, or it's all flat farmland?

Stranger Things' fictional Hawkins could be there or it doesn't match? I know the shots take place somewhere in Georgia.

Southern Indiana is more hilly and forested in places.

As an aside, Wynona Ryder's "Great Lakes" accent in the series has always pissed me off, because outside of the area around Gary, no one in Indiana talks like that.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Are there forests and some hills in Indiana, or it's all flat farmland?

southern IN below Indy has some pretty large tracts of forest land, including brown county state park/yellowwood state forest, which together hold some 800 sq. miles of woodlands. and there are LOTS of other stands of woods down there, like hoosier national forest, interspersed with farmland.

you don't really find the same extent of woodland in IL until you're WAY down in the very southern extreme of the state down by shawnee national forest. overall, IL is more intensely agricultural in terms of land use, though there are certainly significant stretches of corn and soy bean fields in northern IN along I-65 that very closely mimic much of downstate IL.

Originally Posted by eschaton

As an aside, Wynona Ryder's "Great Lakes" accent in the series has always pissed me off, because outside of the area around Gary, no one in Indiana talks like that.

yeah, rural IN has a lot of country twang from my experiences (hell, you can even hear some good old country twang from people up in rural michigan), and places like Indy and other smaller IN cities sound way more "standard midwestern" than the nasally, vowel-shifting "great lakes" accent.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

which is why IL (minus chicagoland) more closely resembles Iowa than the states to its east.

IL/IA is the corn and soybean epicenter of the nation.


(...)





when chicagoans make jokes about I-55 down to st. louis being nothing but 5 hours of cornfields, we're not really joking. that's what it is.

Not sure how it's now, but till few years ago Iowa alone produced more corn than Brazil, which is the biggest American competitor in the world.

Grain as a whole (corn, soybeans, wheat, etc.), it's now 500 million t for the US and 270 million t for Brazil. In both countries it's heavily centered: in the US it's in the Midwest whereas in Brazil it's on the Southern and Midwestern states.

Originally Posted by eschaton

Southern Indiana is more hilly and forested in places.

As an aside, Wynona Ryder's "Great Lakes" accent in the series has always pissed me off, because outside of the area around Gary, no one in Indiana talks like that.

The thing is, some clues on the series suggest Hawkins should be at the northern half of Indiana.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by eschaton

If you're talking about the mid 19th century, it's more a matter of high levels of rural population than just urban. Ohio had a lot of prime farmland, which (in the days prior to mechanization) led to much higher labor needs per acre than something like ranching.

That rural population explains perhaps the oddest top 10 state in population: my home state of Iowa was #10 from 1880 to 1900.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by 10023

But you have to waste many hours in a car to do so. It’s even more stupid than going the other way.

Originally Posted by Obadno

Its no different than commuting in? We were young and wanted to live in fun urban neighborhoods while our offices put us in suburban parks that you had to drive too.

We would willingly drive to work and back so our nights and weekends could be in the neighborhood we liked.

Even now I live north of downtown in a moderately urban neighborhood and drive 25 mins to a secondary business node in a suburb. Would I prefer no commute? sure but im more picky about the area I want to live/own property and ill deal with the drive if I need too.

I'm going to have to agree with Obadno. I'm currently reverse commuting out of St. Louis for my job, and my drive time is far shorter than friends driving with the flow of traffic going a similar distance. In a perfect world my job would be in the city, and maybe down the line a different job will be, but I'd much rather have the city's amenities than living in the suburbs next to my job. I already tried that, and it wasn't for me.

Additionally, some 3/4 of Americans already drive to work. Outside of a select handful of metro areas with proper commuter rail systems and public transportation, America decided to go all in on its highways.

Originally Posted by Yuri

Interestingly how rural Indiana is way more populated than the neighbouring Illinois, following Ohio and Lower Michigan pattern. Chicago really mess up with our perception of Illinois.

Chicagoland comprises some 2/3 of Illinois' total population. What will mess up your perspective of Illinois even more is that the next largest populated area in Illinois is the Metro East, which are St. Louis' suburbs in Illinois. The area is highly decentralized and not nearly as built up as the Missouri side of the river as well. It's a collection older historic cities, newer suburbs, flood plains, and urban decay all spread across multiple counties and with corn fields spread everywhere.