To Save Downtowns, Destroy Them

[M II A II R II K]

To Save Downtowns, Destroy Them


May 19, 2023

Read More: https://www.wired.com/story/plaintex...-destroy-them/

......

The pandemic is officially over, yet Zoom City—the city that Zoom built—endures. But right now it’s not a place of creativity, exploration, happiness, or trust. Instead, remote work has turned some global cities into dried-out urban husks—decaying downtowns full of shuttered sandwich shops and empty office blocks. As businesses leave or downsize, city tax revenues decline, meaning less money to spend on public services. And the people left behind because they can’t work remotely get trapped in the doom loop.

- This is particularly apparent in San Francisco, which has been dubbed “the most empty downtown in America.” Much of the technology that enabled the transition to remote work emerged from the Bay Area, but it also created a combination of traits—demographics, industry norms, property prices—that has made workers here particularly unlikely to return to the office. --- The New York Times recently reported that office occupancy in SF is at 40 percent of its pre-pandemic level, roughly 7 percentage points below the average major US city. It’s facing a $728 billion budget hole at the same time as grappling with a suite of problems—homelessness, drug abuse, crime—that have been exhaustively well documented (arguably by those with a vested interest in singling out a rich and progressive city).

- Downtowns in the United States are uniquely monofunctional in form compared to almost any other part of the world,” he says. Strict zoning laws, combined with the widespread leveling of city centers in the 1960s and 1970s to build multilane highways, have created downtowns that are difficult to use for anything other than white-collar work. --- A recent op-ed by Harvard economist Edward Glaeser and MIT’s Carlo Ratti argues that we’re entering the era of the “playground city,” where downtown areas will be remodeled to attract leisure visitors as well as workers. I’ve definitely spotted this pattern in London, where people who go to the office only a couple of days a week arrange their work schedules to complement their social calendars, rather than the other way around. It’s similar to what has happened to British high streets over the past 20 years, where retailers decimated by online shopping have been replaced by bars, cafés, and restaurants.

- One thing that’s true of both London and San Francisco is that while central business districts have struggled, residential neighborhoods have thrived. Former commuter towns are stuffed with workers with newly discovered free time that they really don’t want to use making their own lunch. Places like Mill Valley, across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco, have been attracting new businesses, drawing the same lunch chains that might once have been confined to downtowns. Perhaps the answer to saving downtowns is actually a simple one: Transform them into neighborhoods in their own right that actually cater to the needs of the people who live there. --- College students, Freemark suggests, are one group that might benefit from the cheaper living costs and good access to public transportation offered by a wide-scale conversion of downtown buildings into high-density residential dwellings.

.....

[Steely Dan]

what a dumb title.

but i guess a more accurate title like "to save downtowns, we should further their ongoing transformation" doesn't get the clicks.

[Crawford]

"Instead, remote work has turned some global cities into dried-out urban husks—decaying downtowns full of shuttered sandwich shops and empty office blocks."

Uh-huh. Even for SF, this is an absurd exaggeration, as if SF were I Am Legend.

[Docere]

We had to destroy the village in order to save it!

[Doady]

Offices already became split between downtown and suburbs due to improvements in communication technology so not a new trend. The article mentions online shopping but that is affecting suburban shopping more , where all retail is in single use structures surrounded by parking. There is a power centre near my house being converted to mixed use high rise retail and condo towers. Downtowns are going to get stronger, and new ones being built. And that's not even getting into self-driving cars which will eliminate all parking lots and garages and reduce traffic lanes.

[iheartthed]

Converting commercial skyscrapers into housing will likely mean tons of bankruptcies.

[mhays]

It'll require buildings to be purchased at fire-sale prices, yes. And that will happen only if and when enough of the office-market optimists have lost hope. Not just some potential buyers, but MOST of them, because (depending on the building and local codes) prices might need to come waaay down. If buyers are jumping on 40% price cuts because they think offices might come back, it's not enough in many scenarios. And some developers say even free buildings would be too expensive without other support, because renovations costs would be double that of new construction.

This will take a while. And in some cities it'll take public support, or at least some easing of codes.

[Qubert]

On the positive side, I agree that transitioning downtowns away from single-use white collar work zones is a good thing. OTOH, it's not a magic bullet. Using NYC as an example, one thing to consider is places like Midtown are almost wholly bereft of things like schools, grocery stores and other residential amenities. This will need to be recitified before widespread residential conversion takes place.
Another issue is many american downtowns do not have an attractive streetwall interface compared to typical urban reisdential neighborhoods. What I mean by this is there's a lot of setbacks, windswept plazas, and huge empty lobbies that often deaden the street-building interaction compared to a place like the LES.

In the future, alot of class B/C space should go residential or be torn down. However, it'd be a huge waste of transit and physical infastructure to just let offices melt away. Where we strike that balance is going to be interesting to observe.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

"Instead, remote work has turned some global cities into dried-out urban husks—decaying downtowns full of shuttered sandwich shops and empty office blocks."

Uh-huh. Even for SF, this is an absurd exaggeration, as if SF were I Am Legend.

Downtown SF is more Walking Dead actually.

[jd3189]

We just need to return many of our downtowns into mixed use developments. Hopefully the urbanism-walkability movement causes a major shift in how we build cities in the US. It will be a battle with NIMBYs, but we will see it through.

[BigDipper 80]

I'm well aware that post-1970s skyscrapers are harder to convert than older, slender skyscrapers of eras past, but it's really annoying to me that neither the national media nor the more coastal-oriented urban planning orgs/blogs seem interested in diving deep into the lessons of the rust belt. Obviously you can't directly import Detroit's solutions over to SF, but there is literally decades worth of knowledge just sitting out there in the industrial midwest that people can and should be tapping into for ideas on how to transform a dying downtown.

[mhays]

The non-industry media will be the last to know. Urban planners and their political bosses are often aware, but don't necessarily know the issues, though many are coming around. Industry groups and developers are deep into this stuff and often very aware of the typical opportunities and challenges. Many have tried to make specific projects work.

The basic economics need to follow. Renovations can't work if they're twice the cost of new construction, as has been said to be the case in Seattle for example (daunting codes being a big part). Conversions seem to work best in areas with easy codes and very low office building values. It's really hard in many other cities.

What lessons do you think are missing?

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by mhays

This will take a while. And in some cities it'll take public support, or at least some easing of codes.

On Lasalle Street in Chicago, the city has started the process to give $188 million to 3 office buildings to convert part of their buildings to residential.

https://chicagoyimby.com/2023/03/thr...-the-loop.html

the mixed-use makeovers for the winning proposals will meet the initiative’s target by repurposing historical buildings along LaSalle Street, now set to add 1,059 apartments to the financial district, of which 317 of them being affordable.

They also laid the groundwork for a second round of funding, but the new mayor may not be as keen to continue this initiative. We’ll have to see.

[mhays]

So maybe $300,000 each affordable unit, and $125,202 each for the rest. Just wild guesses about how it breaks out of course.

And that's a non-seismic city, which I'm guessing doesn't have very aggressive codes on energy for example. My understanding is they'd need far more in Seattle.

The subsidy sounds great for Chicago, but wow is that a big hurdle for any city.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by JManc

Downtown SF is more Walking Dead actually.

As if drug addicts and homeless people are a new thing. And even with a 30% vacancy rate, SF still has a large and busy downtown, seeing as there's like 90 million square feet of office space in total, not to mention tourists and shoppers and tens of thousands of residents (close to 100,000 people depending on how you define downtown SF). It's crazy to see the media and pundits pushing this false "crime-ridden ghost town" narrative so hard, especially considering that they failed to do so in past decades, when SF's violent crime rate was 2 to 3 times higher.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by tech12

As if drug addicts and homeless people are a new thing. And even with a 30% vacancy rate, SF still has a large and busy downtown, seeing as there's like 90 million square feet of office space in total, not to mention tourists and shoppers and tens of thousands of residents (close to 100,000 people depending on how you define downtown SF). It's crazy to see the media and pundits pushing this false "crime-ridden ghost town" narrative so hard, especially considering that they failed to do so in past decades, when SF's violent crime rate was 2 to 3 times higher.

Where it's bad, it's bad. The media portrays all of SF this way which is total bullshit as most of the city is fine but downtown is pretty desolate.

[dktshb]

I work downtown 3 days a week between 1st and 2nd on Mission and it is not a ghost town by any means. With conventions non existent is is not nearly what it used to be but not like people portray it.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by JManc

Where it's bad, it's bad. The media portrays all of SF this way which is total bullshit as most of the city is fine but downtown is pretty desolate.

The financial district always has been like that as far back as I can remember, if that's what you mean by "downtown". I'm sure it got better over time with more street level eateries and stuff appearing, and it's pretty active during the daytime especially heading down market. The Ferry Building and the piers/Embarcadero are always buzzing.

[twinpeaks]

Originally Posted by JManc

Where it's bad, it's bad. The media portrays all of SF this way which is total bullshit as most of the city is fine but downtown is pretty desolate.

I was there on Thursday afternoon, happy hour bar I went to was full. Downtown was active, no where near the desolate narrative you are saying. I wish we still had our company office in downtown. It moved to Mission Bay.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by dktshb

I work downtown 3 days a week between 1st and 2nd on Mission and it is not a ghost town by any means. With conventions non existent is is not nearly what it used to be but not like people portray it.

That's over by Salesforce which does have some activity.