HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 1:12 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
Only hyper controlling manager types like being in the office. These types are generally extremely narcissistic, need to control others, and are losers outside of work. They thrive on telling others what to do and are normally old and ugly.
Somebody is angry at his boss.

A lot of people like being in the office, even if it's not the majority, though the shift since early Covid has reportedly been toward a balance at least. There can be a lot of positives. For example as a rank and file or midlevel person it's nice to have frequent casual access to the top folks as well as other departments.

I prefer WFH though, and it's what I do as a freelance consultant. I just turn my work computer off when the workday is over.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 2:09 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,674
I think the best combo is the hybrid work. That WFH say 2 or 3 days, office for like 2 days. A good mix. Helps keep the mind sharp and off the Lexapro as there is some form of human contact.

Like Mondays. Good example of a day to WFH. Than Tuesday is a good office day, because your recharged from the Weekend festivals involving banned Christian values activities. Mid week, Wednesday, is a good day to WFH. Just because of the psychology of it. Mid week, day 3... its an odd number, doesn't bode well. Now Thursday is an okay office day, because its almost Friday and if you have Friday to WFH, makes Thursdays seem like Friday in a nut shell. Like diet Friday. Just my reasoning behind this all. Now unfortunately, I have to go in to the office every day, dealing with left lane hoggers and trucks blocking two lane highways. Such is life...

Plus those WFH days I mentioned, the recommendations, are the worst days for traffic. For some reason... Friday's commute home, in the afternoon, tends to be terrible. And if rains... forget it!

Mondays are when the morning people come out. Who the hell is excited at 6 am on a Monday. Sick people that's who!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 2:31 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri View Post
I’d argue no one likes to be in the office. People go there because they’re paid to.
I'll be honest and say I don't like to work. If I could somehow be independently wealthy, I would.

But, I work because I have to. And if I'm gonna work, it sure as hell isn't gonna be at home, which is where I live and relax and want no reminders of work.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 2:34 AM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Somebody is angry at his boss.
I report to myself.

Interestingly, I see the corporate types being the most ferociously pro-office. They are probably scared that their inflated investments in urban commercial real estate will crumble if they don't force their subordinates to fill offices and protect their investments.

I see directly through this. There is literally no reason that anyone should force a worker, who is bringing value to a company, to sit in a loud open space or a tiny cramped and dark cubicle to work when they are able to produce the same or better at home. The ''culture'' argument is a farce and is used to mask the previously mentioned control freaks who want workers to drink their cool aid and worship them.

Obviously I'm not talking about some professions that require in person workers. Remote work is the future of tech and office jobs. It will reduce greenhouse gasses, reduce wasted space, will reduce sprawl. However there is specific parcel of the corporatist party who don't care about this and will still try to force subordinates to listen. They will eventually fail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 2:46 AM
twister244 twister244 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
But, I work because I have to. And if I'm gonna work, it sure as hell isn't gonna be at home, which is where I live and relax and want no reminders of work.
Which is why I am surprised the "WeWorks" of the world haven't taken off in the last several months. If I had a business, I would just give my employees all-access memberships. Come in when you need, or where you need. If you need a conference room for a couple hours, charge it to the company. Gives people the option to have a place to go work, without it being anchored to a fixed location. Plus, you can switch it up with different locations, and you have a place to go when you are traveling to other major cities. I did this in Europe last Fall (London, Paris, and Madrid).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 3:01 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
I'll be honest and say I don't like to work. If I could somehow be independently wealthy, I would.

But, I work because I have to. And if I'm gonna work, it sure as hell isn't gonna be at home, which is where I live and relax and want no reminders of work.
That is kind of the catch with WFH in some places. The work might not stop. One might be expected to take a call at 7 am and than one at 9 pm. It really depends on the nature of the position and type of work one does but sometimes WFH can suck.

I do respect that idea though in the bold. Yeah work is work, but life outside of work is even more important, and the home is a sanctuary away from all the BS aka the Puzzle Factory.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 3:06 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by twister244 View Post
Which is why I am surprised the "WeWorks" of the world haven't taken off in the last several months. If I had a business, I would just give my employees all-access memberships. Come in when you need, or where you need. If you need a conference room for a couple hours, charge it to the company. Gives people the option to have a place to go work, without it being anchored to a fixed location. Plus, you can switch it up with different locations, and you have a place to go when you are traveling to other major cities. I did this in Europe last Fall (London, Paris, and Madrid).
You know... that's the nice thing with some employers that if you get your work done, doesn't matter when you get in, just get the task or objective done.

It's like your working on say some initiative or some task. And say you can get it done in 20 hours as opposed to 40 hours. No big deal, so long as it gets done. Kind of why some jobs, and this will vary depending on what the assigned responsibilities are, can be kind of good for work-life balance because if your in an environment that encourages autonomy and looks at say results and performance versus how many hours one has been at work just for the sake of being there... that is a very sweet position to be in.

Now self-employed is a different beast in itself, because you'll need results to not crumble, and might not have the less riskier option of having a quasi-security net like a salary or fixed income assuming one doesn't mess up badly... but in the right hands and right conditions, can be conducive to work-life balance.

Going back to the commute, some people commute, especially if they have a government job, for the sense of security. Might be worth a commute to the right location if there is a sort of security-net to the place. Say a place that is in demand, that doesn't lay people off... that has been good to a person... that might keep them motivated to commute in the first place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 3:15 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Apparently you don't know what strawmaning is LMAO
By all means, please explain how you think the term relates to the post you were quoting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
And ive narrowed your quote to the crux of complete and total nonsense. Europe as a continent was living at extremely high densities in walkable urban environments for centuries. They never were moving on a path towards suburbanization en mass, the land, cost, financing, oil prices etc none of it was in place to allow for the kind of suburbanization that occurred in North America Auz etc. There was no available land to buy and suburbanize on it was all owned or occupied at that point for many many long decades by old old families and interests.

It simply never would have happened, where it could, it did. There was no policy decision or a single factor like the cost of gas in 1974 that ended European suburbanization (which would have been well along by that point 30 years post war and it obviously was not). Not sure where you got this idea but its completely unrealistic.

Suburbanization as it was even 50 years ago could not happen in the USA due to how much more constrained the land is today vs then vs 1940 and its still very much wide open in a way Europe has not been since ??? Idk 1400? after 1/3 of the pop died.
Obviously the cost of energy was just one of many factors that influenced people to make different policy decisions such as choosing to focus on creating HSR networks rather than expanding highways or the Netherlands to promote bike usage. But regardless of the influences, it was ultimately the people of those regions choosing the path they felt was most appropriate. Single cause narratives or inevitability are rarely historically accurate.


Video Link
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 3:22 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
By all means, please explain how you think the term relates to the post you were quoting.



Obviously the cost of energy was just one of many factors that influenced people to make different policy decisions such as choosing to focus on creating HSR networks rather than expanding highways or the Netherlands to promote bike usage. But regardless of the influences, it was ultimately the people of those regions choosing the path they felt was most appropriate. Single cause narratives or inevitability are rarely historically accurate.


Video Link
Thank you for replying. I wanted to say many things in your defense, but had to restrain myself from invective.
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 3:22 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by twister244 View Post
Which is why I am surprised the "WeWorks" of the world haven't taken off in the last several months. If I had a business, I would just give my employees all-access memberships. Come in when you need, or where you need. If you need a conference room for a couple hours, charge it to the company. Gives people the option to have a place to go work, without it being anchored to a fixed location. Plus, you can switch it up with different locations, and you have a place to go when you are traveling to other major cities. I did this in Europe last Fall (London, Paris, and Madrid).
They have taken off in the past several months.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 2:01 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
Only hyper controlling manager types like being in the office. These types are generally extremely narcissistic, need to control others, and are losers outside of work. They thrive on telling others what to do and are normally old and ugly.

No, that's just how you feel. In reality, there are many different types of people working in many different types of roles in different types of offices. What works for someone in a back-office cubicle farm is not going to be the same as someone working in say, a small architectural studio.

My job is pretty independent but I still prefer working from the office than from home. My office is nice, and a pleasant 10-minute walk from home - but I'm also just one of those people who mentally likes to keep work & home separate; and generally finds the thought of doing work at home intrusive (and in practice, easily distracting). I also enjoy the social element and find it much more helpful to casually work through problems together than having to schedule a zoom call. But most of all, I just need a good computer setup and my laptop on the kitchen table is no substitute.

One thing I think we could all agree on though is that more flexibility and choice to suit people's varying needs & preferences is a good thing. The notion of everyone having to have their ass in their seat at 9am and be there until 5pm, Monday-Friday and needing permission for any deviations to that schedule is obviously an antiquated, demeaning relic from the industrial economy that doesn't make sense in a modern knowledge-based one.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 2:30 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
It's far more dangerous to ride in a private vehicle than on public transit. And car break-ins affect drivers, not transit users, and would be most common where cars predominate.

So this theory makes no sense, unless you're talking alt-right brainwashing narratives.
And overal crime is still at multi decade lows even with recent increases. The reality doesn’t matter it’s perception and the perception as cities as lawless especially in the last 2 years is the case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 2:38 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
I report to myself.

There is literally no reason that anyone should force a worker, who is bringing value to a company,
Where your argument falls apart is that a large percentage of workers aren’t value bringing, they are pure but necessary expense to the operation
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 2:44 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
By all means, please explain how you think the term relates to the post you were quoting.



Obviously the cost of energy was just one of many factors that influenced people to make different policy decisions such as choosing to focus on creating HSR networks rather than expanding highways or the Netherlands to promote bike usage. But regardless of the influences, it was ultimately the people of those regions choosing the path they felt was most appropriate. Single cause narratives or inevitability are rarely historically accurate.


Video Link
Highways are not what cause suburbanization. Most of what is now suburbia did not exist before the 1950’s at all, and you couldn’t build a highway system like in the us which was practically a blank slate without the most egregious destruction like you nearly saw in nyc as well.

An hsr betwrok will not and and never would have worked in the USA we do not and did not have the densities for it. The fact that you think there was some
Mid century inflection point where the USA and Europe were on a like track and the USA chose wrong shows you have no clue what the USA’s built environments were and are
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 2:54 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,486
In 1950 the US built environment was not that different than many parts of europe.. Most of the US east coast has densities similar to many parts of Europe.

Cross-country HSR lines wouldn't have worked in the US, no, nor would they have worked in areas like Colorado or Utah.. but the US northeast is an excellent candidate for great rail networks and actually had european quality rail networks up until WW2 when rail declined in the US and continued to improve in Europe.

It's no different in Europe. It's a big place - lots of the continent are low density with poor rail connections. The difference is that the more populated areas (i.e. California, Texas Triangle, Florida, US Northeast, US Midwest) have decent rail networks connecting major cities.

Most of the US difference in design isn't even necessarily inter-regional travel though, it's intra-city travel. And on that front the US is arguably better built for transit than Europe in terms of population distribution, with generally more, larger cities compared to Europe which is full of smaller midsized cities outside of a handful of A-list mega-metros.

If America had followed the european path, or even the Canadian path of more transit focused development at higher average densities, it would be very different. And it has nothing to do with it's geography - it has everything to do with planning choices made post-WW2.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 3:04 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
In 1950 the US built environment was not that different than many parts of europe.. Most of the US east coast has densities similar to many parts of Europe.

Cross-country HSR lines wouldn't have worked in the US, no, nor would they have worked in areas like Colorado or Utah.. but the US northeast is an excellent candidate for great rail networks and actually had european quality rail networks up until WW2 when rail declined in the US and continued to improve in Europe.

It's no different in Europe. It's a big place - lots of the continent are low density with poor rail connections. The difference is that the more populated areas (i.e. California, Texas Triangle, Florida, US Northeast, US Midwest) have decent rail networks connecting major cities.

Most of the US difference in design isn't even necessarily inter-regional travel though, it's intra-city travel. And on that front the US is arguably better built for transit than Europe in terms of population distribution, with generally more, larger cities compared to Europe which is full of smaller midsized cities outside of a handful of A-list mega-metros.

If America had followed the european path, or even the Canadian path of more transit focused development at higher average densities, it would be very different. And it has nothing to do with it's geography - it has everything to do with planning choices made post-WW2.
Ah yes Canada the urban Mecca of no suburbs lol.

What are you people smoking for real? Outside of the standers east coast cities the USA was vast and mostly unpopulated before ww2 Europe was littered with medium sized dense ancient towns and cities

They weren’t similar at all you are just wrong
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 3:05 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,117
Wow look at all of these wimps:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/brrr-ai...hp_featst_pos5

...won't go back to the office because it's 1 degree to hot or 1 degree too cold? How is it acceptable to actually say these things out loud?

For several years we had people running space heaters under their cubicles in the summer because the AC was "too cold". Then one day one of them caught on fire and the company finally put an end to it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 3:19 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Ah yes Canada the urban Mecca of no suburbs lol.

What are you people smoking for real? Outside of the standers east coast cities the USA was vast and mostly unpopulated before ww2 Europe was littered with medium sized dense ancient towns and cities

They weren’t similar at all you are just wrong
The whole thing that you're missing is that we're not saying the places were the same (although they were far more similar in many ways then). We just understand that places don't need to be the same to choose to become more or less auto reliant as the starting point doesn't determine the direction one takes. Even places within the US aren't the same due in part to their different starting points. Look at say, Philadelphia and Phoenix. The former started out much more urban and remains much more urban, but it's still more auto oriented than most similar-sized cities in Europe, especially at the regional level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Highways are not what cause suburbanization. Most of what is now suburbia did not exist before the 1950’s at all, and you couldn’t build a highway system like in the us which was practically a blank slate without the most egregious destruction like you nearly saw in nyc as well.

An hsr betwrok will not and and never would have worked in the USA we do not and did not have the densities for it. The fact that you think there was some
Mid century inflection point where the USA and Europe were on a like track and the USA chose wrong shows you have no clue what the USA’s built environments were and are
No one said that highways are "what causes" suburbanization. Attempting to attribute singular, simplistic causes is your error, not ours. Highway building is one aspect of a car-oriented policy mindset and does encourage automobile usage but it is one factor among several.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 3:48 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
The whole thing that you're missing is that we're not saying the places were the same (although they were far more similar in many ways then). We just understand that places don't need to be the same to choose to become more or less auto reliant as the starting point doesn't determine the direction one takes. Even places within the US aren't the same due in part to their different starting points. Look at say, Philadelphia and Phoenix. The former started out much more urban and remains much more urban, but it's still more auto oriented than most similar-sized cities in Europe, especially at the regional level.



No one said that highways are "what causes" suburbanization. Attempting to attribute singular, simplistic causes is your error, not ours. Highway building is one aspect of a car-oriented policy mindset and does encourage automobile usage but it is one factor among several.
Since you like fallacy's I'm going to introduce you to Motte and Baily which you are engaging in.

Your initial imposition was that the USA and Europe at the point of say ww2 were similar enough that a change in policies would have resulted in the USA being like Europe or visa versa the Europe being like the USA.

Could the USA have been more dense? yes if a lot of various things went very differently. Could Europe be more Suburban? Maybe but even less likely in my opinion.

Could Europe ever be suburban like the USA or Canada is? Absolutely not will the USA be as dense and urban as Europe? Not this Millennium.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 4:00 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
I'll be honest and say I don't like to work. If I could somehow be independently wealthy, I would.

But, I work because I have to. And if I'm gonna work, it sure as hell isn't gonna be at home, which is where I live and relax and want no reminders of work.
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
I report to myself.

Interestingly, I see the corporate types being the most ferociously pro-office. They are probably scared that their inflated investments in urban commercial real estate will crumble if they don't force their subordinates to fill offices and protect their investments.

I see directly through this. There is literally no reason that anyone should force a worker, who is bringing value to a company, to sit in a loud open space or a tiny cramped and dark cubicle to work when they are able to produce the same or better at home. The ''culture'' argument is a farce and is used to mask the previously mentioned control freaks who want workers to drink their cool aid and worship them.

Obviously I'm not talking about some professions that require in person workers. Remote work is the future of tech and office jobs. It will reduce greenhouse gasses, reduce wasted space, will reduce sprawl. However there is specific parcel of the corporatist party who don't care about this and will still try to force subordinates to listen. They will eventually fail.
Bossa, you're implying every single person is a hardworking, ethical, ultra-productive and completely commited to their tasks.

It's not like that at all. It's not as simple as you put, about higher echelons being control freaks and worried about rents. It's also about basic management. A huge chunk of workforce needs to be demanded, to be oversighted. Those big companies know how to measure their productivity and many realized WFH is being damaged them at some degree.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:02 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.