Is the whole WFH cultural shift threatening cities a NA centric problem?

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by JManc

We live in an exurban area (30 miles from downtown, where my wife works) and if she worked from home, we'd still go into town regularly. Plenty of things to do there compared to where we live. The implication that people wouldn't have to go into town if they did WFH would not be a good thing as if people already didn't have issues creating their own bubbles reinforced with services like Instacart and Doordash and refusing to leave the house as it is.

Hell I live in a city where the downtown is booming now despite having less office activity, the only office building in the last 10 years downtown has been a relatively small midrise outside of incidental offices in some mixed use buildings but those are so small they arent noteworthy

People living there want to live there for the environment specifically even as the standard 9-5 office crowd has dwindled.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by badrunner

It could be a NA specific problem simply because NA cities are designed differently - greater separation of uses, longer commutes, smaller resident populations in the core. A lot of these suburban commuters have no reason to be downtown if not for work.

Originally Posted by 10023

I think (and hope) that flexible working is here to stay. But even if it is for all but the most backwards, boomer-dominated firms, we won’t lose anything good from cities.

It's been my partner's experience at his job that it's the boomers that want to continue working from home, particularly the higher-ups, because many of them have homes in the fricking Inland Empire or fricking south Orange County, and don't want to make the commute back to the office.

Like I said in a previous post, my partner works for a Japanese company, and they actually started being proactive early on in the pandemic, starting February/March of last year, they were already starting to make the older workers work from home, and then by May of 2020, most everyone else, including my partner, started WFH. Again, it's mostly the white boomers that wanna continue WFH, but all the Japanese employees, who all live in town anyway because their housing is being paid for by the company, all wanna go back to the office, and my partner is willing to go into the office a few days a week to mix it up a bit, because he is absolutely sick of working from home, and the office is only 3 miles away from our apartment.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Obadno

How can people get upset over offering people more freedom and empowerment in this way?

This whole process could unironically save dying towns across the entire united states and improve others even if they arent in such dire straights.

The idea that dying towns will be saved by more workplace flexibility for high-wage workers is one of the oddest pandemic predictions.

The pandemic will most harm the places where workers least want to be, which is dying towns. In the long run, this makes places like Santa Barbara even more desirable and places like Flint even less desirable.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The idea that dying towns will be saved by more workplace flexibility for high-wage workers is one of the oddest pandemic predictions.

The pandemic will most harm the places where workers least want to be, which is dying towns. In the long run, this makes places like Santa Barbara even more desirable and places like Flint even less desirable.

Not sure to what extent it's been the case in the US (obviously many additional dynamics going on with respect to desirable/undesirable places), but in Canada we've absolutely seen a wave of people enabled by their new-found geographic freedom to cash out of high-cost metros like Toronto and Vancouver and move to smaller, lower-cost centres.

Of course, it still remains to be seen how long this trend persists post-pandemic; but all the same there are still a whole bunch of formerly-stagnant communities that have benefitted mini-population booms in the short term.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Not sure to what extent it's been the case in the US (obviously many additional dynamics going on with respect to desirable/undesirable places), but in Canada we've absolutely seen a wave of people enabled by their new-found geographic freedom to cash out of high-cost metros like Toronto and Vancouver and move to smaller, lower-cost centres.

Wasn't that already happening pre-pandemic?

And the soaring prices in places like Windsor are due to high-skilled GTA professionals seeking cheap housing, placing a bet on never setting foot in their office? Not working-middle class boomers cashing out on their crazy GTA valuations?

Windsor-Essex area has a ton of old, white, socially conservative boomers from the GTA. I don't think the pandemic drove that migration. Their home was worth a ton, they're probably not fond of the traffic and demographic changes, I doubt they care about urban amenities, so they moved out.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The idea that dying towns will be saved by more workplace flexibility for high-wage workers is one of the oddest pandemic predictions.

The pandemic will most harm the places where workers least want to be, which is dying towns. In the long run, this makes places like Santa Barbara even more desirable and places like Flint even less desirable.

Argument for the extremes is nonsense. Flint is one of the most dire examples and SB has been a wealthy desirable city for decades.

The growth data from 2021 and 2020 show states with low or stagnant growth near large metros like Connecticut, Delaware having new growth from people leaving larger east coast cities. Even places like Montana and Wyoming saw increases during the pandemic as people chose to just move to their rural hideaways with their new mobility.

But in other ways the pandemic which has increased supply chain issues and the already growing unpopularity with global economics is causing massive re-shoring of manufacturing in Mexico and the USA in more modern and efficient factories that employ less people than in 1970 but can produce goods competitively.

Long term the pandemic, the reaction to it, and its follow on effects I believe will be a good thing for North America

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Wasn't that already happening pre-pandemic?

And the soaring prices in places like Windsor are due to high-skilled GTA professionals seeking cheap housing? Not working-middle class boomers cashing out on their crazy GTA valuations?

Yes trends it has sped up and exacerbated trends that were already in motion.

Basically the only negative thing is the rebirth of 2005 style Exurban development but I can accept it for the other good changes.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Obadno

The growth data from 2021 and 2020 show states with low or stagnant growth near large metros like Connecticut, Delaware having new growth from people leaving larger east coast cities.

In 2020, yes. In 2021, no.

Suburban Connecticut sales have fallen off a cliff, bc everyone who wanted such a home already bought in 2020. Meanwhile, urban real estate is white-hot, bc everyone who wanted such a home in 2020 was holding off.

Manhattan and Brooklyn are as hot in 2021 as Fairfield and Westchester were in 2020. Fairfield and Westchester are as cold in 2021 as Manhattan and Brooklyn were in 2020.

The pandemic migration trends are very simple. In 2020, all the demand for suburban housing for the next few years was filled in a single year. That's all. In the long run, nothing changed. The couple with a baby who planned on moving to a house with a yard once their kid went to kindergarten just sped up their move.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Read the headline you just posted. Then stop, and think.

I think you're smart enough to understand the distinction. The fact that Google offers WFH (which they did pre-pandemic) doesn't mean that Google won't be occupying millions of square feet of office space, and doesn't mean that the vast majority of employees won't be in-office at least some of the time.

Again, the link has nothing to do with what we're talking about. My firm has very liberal WFH guidelines. My firm also has almost everyone working in the office right now. Not a contradiction.

If Google were going even mostly WFH, I think this would be unlikely:

Google plans to buy New York office building for $2.1 billion
PUBLISHED TUE, SEP 21 2021

In the Bay Area tech industry, it seems to be mostly smaller companies and start-ups--the sort of outfits that not so long ago existed on somebody's laptop sitting at a table at Peet's Coffee & Tea--that are going fully WFH. Large companies are, at most, going hybrid. And the development industry has at least enough confidence in the future of office work to be currently building 2 new large office buildings (5M and 750 Howard . . . also maybe completing Oceanside Center sooner than some think) in San Francisco's FiDi.

[mhays]

The Seattle metro office market has positive net absorption in Q3 and Q4. The numbers are small and it could be a blip...but interesting.

[muppet]

In London WFH is still common enough (it's usually people coming into the office on certain days and staying at home on certain days); it's the same at my work and at my partner,'s who's been in a total times of once to the office since 2020.

However, adversely footfall, traffic and PT ridership is higher than pre-pandemic (and that's without international tourists too, who made up a big chunk of it all before -it looks like they've been largely replaced by domestic tourists unable to go abroad) -Im wondering if people are just going out more:



Also there's a huge churn in the job market -aka The Great Resignation:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...ing-job-change

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by muppet

In London WFH is still common enough (it's usually people coming into the office on certain days and staying at home on certain days); it's the same at my work and at my partner, who's been in a total times of once to the office since 2020.

However, adversely footfall, traffic and PT ridership is higher than pre-pandemic:

Funny you should mention that; a few days ago, I saw a local news story saying that traffic in southern California is back to pre-pandemic levels, and in some areas, it's actually higher than pre-pandemic levels, most notably the Inland Empire. I'm wondering if it's because the discretionary public transit riders who took public transit to work pre-pandemic, are now driving to work.

For several months now, I've also noticed that traffic is really heavy on the weekends. My guess is that people are now enjoying the weekend and are out and about more because of pandemic fatigue coupled with high rates of vaccinations.

[muppet]

^There's a phenomenon they noticed after the first Wuhan lockdown -while some people stayed in self-imposed isolation, there was 'revenge' spending and partying for many others. People tended to go out more, even if it meant just for walks.

After the 1918 Pandemic there followed the 'Roaring Twenties', a time of great social and cultural change (that ultimately got hijacked by extremism and led to WWII).

[10023]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

It's been my partner's experience at his job that it's the boomers that want to continue working from home, particularly the higher-ups, because many of them have homes in the fricking Inland Empire or fricking south Orange County, and don't want to make the commute back to the office.

That’s the opposite of what I’ve experience, and even what the business media says is typical, which is that more senior people (who have obviously benefited from the office environment, ipso facto) want to go back to the office and the juniors don’t.

[Crawford]

I call bullshit. London Tube ridership is higher right now than pre-pandemic? That sounds almost impossible, given no visitors and limited office work.

I'd be shocked if any global metro system fared better during the pandemic than pre-pandemic. That makes no sense.

Edit: London had epic drops in ridership, same as other major systems. Had the lowest ridership since the 19th century. Currently London is nowhere near pre-pandemic traffic.

The medium-term goal, per Andy Byford, leader of Transport for London, is to reach 80% of pre-pandemic traffic.

[3rd&Brown]

No.

At my company, we're basically allowing people to work how they want. The suggestion is "hybrid", a few days in the office and a few days at home every week, but you can petition to be full time remote.

In my experience thus far, the people who have petitioned to be full time remote are not moving to the woods. They're moving to other cities they want to try out but couldn't live in without upending their lives entirely.

My office is in NYC and people who still work for us but have moved went to Austin, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Phoenix, and Scottsdale.

Non of them are working from the woods far from any city.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Funny you should mention that; a few days ago, I saw a local news story saying that traffic in southern California is back to pre-pandemic levels, and in some areas, it's actually higher than pre-pandemic levels, most notably the Inland Empire. I'm wondering if it's because the discretionary public transit riders who took public transit to work pre-pandemic, are now driving to work.

For several months now, I've also noticed that traffic is really heavy on the weekends. My guess is that people are now enjoying the weekend and are out and about more because of pandemic fatigue coupled with high rates of vaccinations.

Buses in LA have definetely gotten more crowded lately in my experience.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I call bullshit. London Tube ridership is higher right now than pre-pandemic? That sounds almost impossible, given no visitors and limited office work.

I'd be shocked if any global metro system fared better during the pandemic than pre-pandemic. That makes no sense.

Edit: London had epic drops in ridership, same as other major systems. Had the lowest ridership since the 19th century. Currently London is nowhere near pre-pandemic traffic.

The medium-term goal, per Andy Byford, leader of Transport for London, is to reach 80% of pre-pandemic traffic.

Tube ridership is not higher but as I said, in Summer Public Transport ridership across the board was higher (in London although the Tube is very major, twice as many people use the bus, and of course there are the trains).

Full story here:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/othe...els/ar-AAKNwNx


Then the 'Pingdemic' hit in late summer, after the NHS app pinged anyone in contact with an infected person to self isolate -the result so many people off from work we had food and infrastructure shortages.

Fast forward to today and as infection has started to rise again across Europe (as cold weather sets in), people are starting to avoid PT again -there is of course talk of another lockdown by Christmas.

But anyhoo, if ever we get a hold of this virus -as seen between lockdowns and pingdemics -ridership and footfall into the centre goes up.


This is a good example - July, when tourism was still banned and most shops closed, yet the streets are heaving (though note, the suddenly empty stretches of shopping)


• Video Link



September (in between Pingdemic and cold weather) -just one of the entertainment districts

• Video Link

[10023]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I call bullshit. London Tube ridership is higher right now than pre-pandemic? That sounds almost impossible, given no visitors and limited office work.

I'd be shocked if any global metro system fared better during the pandemic than pre-pandemic. That makes no sense.

Edit: London had epic drops in ridership, same as other major systems. Had the lowest ridership since the 19th century. Currently London is nowhere near pre-pandemic traffic.

The medium-term goal, per Andy Byford, leader of Transport for London, is to reach 80% of pre-pandemic traffic.

Tube ridership is much higher than it was even this summer (and most are no longer wearing masks), but is nowhere close to pre-pandemic levels. And that’s on the parts that I use, which are the parts used by people who live in central London to get around central London. The “outer boroughs” parts that really rely on commuters are probably much less busy.

[Minato Ku]

The last data that I've seen were between 75%~80% of the pre covid level for Paris metro.