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

[destroycreate]

I was just curious now that so many companies are shifting to remote work permanently, and offices space usage around the country is plummeting, if this is really just a North America thing or happening across Europe/Asia etc. too? It doesn't seem like my friends in Europe have the remote option so much. Maybe I just also work too much in a tech bubble, but my company seems more and more to be leaning towards a remote model which I'm not sure how I feel about that.

It seems like LA's downtown and business areas continue to remain bleak and desolate, and the more time that passes I just don't see this getting better. Seems like this is common throughout the US, but I can't speak for Canada. For those abroad, curious to get your take.

[Crawford]

Is the premise true? There are "so many companies shifting to remote work permanently"?

I can't think of one major firm that has announced this. I don't know anyone who experienced such a shift, where they were previously full in-office, and now have been told they'll never go to the office again.

[Yuri]

Here in São Paulo there are still lots of people WFH (in Brazil people say on "home office", like that, in English), but people are coming back slowly, but there's still no sign WFH will become default, to be a permanent thing.

Office spaces were already facing challenges all over the world on the past years, even before Covid. The new shinning financial centre of São Paulo, 10 miles away from the old one in Downtown, is still like a ghost city whereas the former, decaying one is booming with bars, restaurants, nightclubs,cafés, art galleries and lots of new residential developments.

[Steely Dan]

My Spidey senses tell me that for a large amount of generic old office work, most companies are gonna settle on a hybrid model where some amount of in-office time is expected with much more liberal WFH options available at other times.

What constitutes "some amount of in-office time"? That's the big question, isnt't it?


One big benefit of more liberal WFH policies could mean less disease transmission overall. "Hey boss, I started coming down with a cough last evening, so I'm gonna WFH until I'm better". I think that most people don't want to spread their illness around, but when you're forced to use precious sick days, or even more precious PTO, just to stay home to rest and not spread your illness to others, far too often people go into the office sick. And then others around them get sick too. And so on.

[Acajack]

I think a lot of office tenants still have a wait-and-see attitude at this point. We still have no idea of what the full impact of this will be.

No doubt many of them haven't even had their leases come up for renewal yet.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

One big benefit of more liberal WFH policies could mean less disease transmission overall. "Hey boss, I started coming down with a cough last evening, so I'm gonna WFH until I'm better". I think that most people don't want to spread their illness around, but when you're forced to use precious sick days, or even more precious PTO, just to stay home to rest and not spread your illness to others, far too often people go into the office sick. And then others around them get sick too. And so on.

For those of us who live in colder winter climates it would be great if we had flexible work locations so that we'd be expected to commute less in the cold and snow. Maybe two/three days in the office in the winter as opposed to three/four in the summer - similar to how many companies have half-fridays or fridays off in the summer months.

[EastSideHBG]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Is the premise true? There are "so many companies shifting to remote work permanently"?

I can't think of one major firm that has announced this. I don't know anyone who experienced such a shift, where they were previously full in-office, and now have been told they'll never go to the office again.

Have you been living under a rock? The below link is just one list and there are many now. My company has been hiring all over, permanently remote positions, and there's a chance I may never have to go back (and if I do it will be rarely).

https://weworkremotely.com/21-compan...me-permanently

People have gotten too used to this model and there are a lot of benefits for employers. I have discussed this topic in a few threads so if you're curios here's more of my thoughts: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...0&postcount=23

[eschaton]

Except when talking about public budgets, I don't really see how the office slump hurts cities in particular.

I mean, downtown areas will remain highly desirable for uses other than office space (hotels, residential, etc.) Office space will be converted to other uses, and the market will right itself.

I actually think the crisis is significantly worse for suburbs with strong commercial bases, because reusing "office parks" is much more difficult, which in many cases will necessitate total teardown. Plus I remain convinced that the number of positives related to returning to work in person in an office park is far less than a traditional downtown.

The real concern IMHO is for city budgets which are reliant upon property tax, because at some point reassessments will take place which devalue a lot of the office space. A shift in tax structures within cities to be more reliant upon income tax may become a necessity. Also, farebox recovery from transit systems will never be what it was, which poses grave threats to public transit.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

One big benefit of more liberal WFH policies could mean less disease transmission overall. "Hey boss, I started coming down with a cough last evening, so I'm gonna WFH until I'm better". I think that most people don't want to spread their illness around, but when you're forced to use precious sick days, or even more precious PTO, just to stay home to rest and not spread your illness to others, far too often people go into the office sick. And then others around them get sick too. And so on.

^ The problem with this is that if one is truly sick, they should be resting their body and mind.

Just working from home in front of a computer is also not good. Stress, emails, calls, meetings, etc. You really need to rest completely when you are ill.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by EastSideHBG

Have you been living under a rock? The below link is just one list and there are many now. My company has been hiring all over, permanently remote positions, and there's a chance I may never have to go back (and if I do it will be rarely).

https://weworkremotely.com/21-compan...me-permanently

Allowing employees to work from home isn't the same as a company going completely remote. I only know of a couple startup tech companies that have done that so far.

I doubt many white collar industries will ever go back to mandating in-office 5 days per week, but I also think many people will come back to office voluntarily, like I have done.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by EastSideHBG

Have you been living under a rock? The below link is just one list and there are many now. My company has been hiring all over, permanently remote positions, and there's a chance I may never have to go back (and if I do it will be rarely).

That link is garbage. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

It claims to show companies "that now allow their employees to work from home permanently". But that isn't what we're talking about. And many of these firms offered such policies pre-pandemic. Google absolutely allowed permanent WFH pre-pandemic. I have neighbors who worked permanent WFH for American Express and Google pre-pandemic. Big companies have done this for years.

The issue is whether companies will no longer require in-office as a rule, not whether they'll have flexible policies for some workers. My firm had permanent WFH pre-pandemic, but used by few. It will have permanent WFH post-pandemic, but still likely used by few.

At this point, I know of no major firm that has permanent WFH for everyone, as a result of the pandemic. Basically all traditional office jobs are transitioning back to the office, mostly in some sort of hybrid format. There are some all-remote jobs, but there were some all-remote jobs pre-pandemic. Companies are still feeling this out.

[sopas ej]

This whole time, I've been going into the office, and with my experience, having to communicate with the few people who were/are WFH, I found it frustrating. When I told my partner this, who is still WFH, he said "Now you know what I mean about communicating with people remotely vs. if you were just all in the same office, or even the same room."

My partner's company seems to be straddling the fence about wanting to bring people back to the office or having them continue to work remotely; he works for a large international company headquartered in Japan, and, it seems that they've been wanting everyone to come back to the office, but of course the evolving COVID situation has had them moving back the target date for "back to the office." As an aside, he finds that working with Japanese people has blown away a lot of the stereotypes that people have about Japanese people, particularly the women, hehe.

Also, my partner was telling me that he heard an NPR story about how companies have actually found that WFH has made people generally more productive, because office banter/socializing has been drastically cut down.

Edit: BTW, my company is now fully back to the office.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That link is garbage. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

^ You are essentially a pathological liar, and impossible to conduct meaningful dialogue with.

Literally this is the title of the article that he linked you to:

21 Companies That Now Allow Their Employees to Work From Home Permanently

Which is in response to this idiotic and utterly baseless comment you just made:

There are "so many companies shifting to remote work permanently"?

I can't think of one major firm that has announced this.

I wouldn't say that you need medical attention because you have a behavioral disorder for which there is no cure (or you just suffer from brain damage)

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ The problem with this is that if one is truly sick, they should be resting their body and mind.

Just working from home in front of a computer is also not good. Stress, emails, calls, meetings, etc. You really need to rest completely when you are ill.

I think just getting more sick people to stay home in the first place, regardless of whether they're actually WFHing, or just binging Netflix on the couch, is still gonna have a very positive impact on less illness spreading in offices.

When companies force sick workers to make the choice of "either you get your ass in your chair at the office or you have to burn a sick day/PTO", WAY too many people tough it out and head into work sick and then get many of their coworkers sick in the process.

I know this because I saw it happen all the time at my old office job.

A more liberal WFH policy will certainly help eliminate some of that.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Except when talking about public budgets, I don't really see how the office slump hurts cities in particular.

I mean, downtown areas will remain highly desirable for uses other than office space (hotels, residential, etc.) Office space will be converted to other uses, and the market will right itself.

I actually think the crisis is significantly worse for suburbs with strong commercial bases, because reusing "office parks" is much more difficult, which in many cases will necessitate total teardown. Plus I remain convinced that the number of positives related to returning to work in person in an office park is far less than a traditional downtown.

Trophy office space in urban centers is now valued higher than pre-pandemic, suggesting that the RE industry and office tenants really believe in Class A office.

Lower-tier office space has gotten killed, but that's overwhelmingly in suburban office parks and in smaller metros. The groupthink appears to be "if you're going into the office, make it nice, make it convenient, and make it count".

I don't think it's a given that transit usage has permanent declines. Most U.S. transit riders aren't choice riders, and the choice riders tend to be in the fancy superstar cities, using the trophy office space that's most in demand. The MTA and other big city agencies are projecting they'll hit pre-pandemic ridership by 2025 or so, which doesn't sound crazy.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ You are essentially a pathological liar, and impossible to conduct meaningful dialogue with.

Literally this is the title of the article that he linked you to:

21 Companies That Now Allow Their Employees to Work From Home Permanently

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.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

This whole time, I've been going into the office, and with my experience, having to communicate with the few people who were/are WFH, I found it frustrating.

It's basically like dealing with people from an office in another city, but they're just down the road.

I just joked this morning (here in the office) that I was going to drive to Louisville and kick someone's ass because he's wasting everyone's time with his incoherent emails.

Someone who keeps avoiding the office by working from home comes across as thought they're hiding from people. Meetings where you've got 5 guys in the office and 2 listening in remotely can work but they shouldn't be the regular thing.

I agree that work from home will help during major snowstorms (assuming the power is still on) and allowing people who are feeling mildly sick to keep contributing. But it shouldn't be the regular thing.

[EastSideHBG]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That link is garbage. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

It claims to show companies "that now allow their employees to work from home permanently". But that isn't what we're talking about. And many of these firms offered such policies pre-pandemic. Google absolutely allowed permanent WFH pre-pandemic. I have neighbors who worked permanent WFH for American Express and Google pre-pandemic. Big companies have done this for years.

The issue is whether companies will no longer require in-office as a rule, not whether they'll have flexible policies for some workers. My firm had permanent WFH pre-pandemic, but used by few. It will have permanent WFH post-pandemic, but still likely used by few.

At this point, I know of no major firm that has permanent WFH for everyone, as a result of the pandemic. Basically all traditional office jobs are transitioning back to the office, mostly in some sort of hybrid format. There are some all-remote jobs, but there were some all-remote jobs pre-pandemic. Companies are still feeling this out.

It has everything to do with what we are talking about and what would you be expecting, companies that had offices would suddenly close them all and shout from the rooftops that we are now a remote only shop? This is going to take time and if they have an office that they are paying for than they will be using it. But let's see what happens when leases are up, as buildings are sold, as more employees never/rarely come into the office (and those that are told that they need to and instead say no thanks and quit), talent is hired well outside of that office's radius...

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ You are essentially a pathological liar, and impossible to conduct meaningful dialogue with.

Literally this is the title of the article that he linked you to:

21 Companies That Now Allow Their Employees to Work From Home Permanently

Which is in response to this idiotic and utterly baseless comment you just made:



I wouldn't say that you need medical attention because you have a behavioral disorder for which there is no cure (or you just suffer from brain damage)

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by EastSideHBG

It has everything to do with what we are talking about and what would you be expecting, companies that had offices would suddenly close them all and shout from the rooftops that we are now a remote only shop?

Obviously, yes. That's the issue.

It's a given that companies will be more flexible post-pandemic, which doesn't mean they'll need any less office space, and which doesn't mean that the vast majority of employees won't be in-office at least part-time. That's very different than claiming that employees won't be in the office at all.

For most office jobs, at least in NYC, pre-pandemic, people were on 4, 4.5 or 5 day schedule (summers were half-day Fridays in every job I've had since college, and Fridays were almost always flexible year-round). At least right now, it seems that most office jobs are back to 2-3 days already, or starting in January. And many are planning to require additional days down the road. That's a very different scenario than what's being claimed.

Class A office rents are now higher than pre-pandemic. That certainly suggests that both landlords and tenants expect employees to be in-office at least part-time.

[mhays]

The OP's "I just don't see this getting better" floors me. A large percentage of the office world is planning to ramp up their offices or is already in the process. Every sign points to more in-office work than there is now. The question is where we'll end up in the continuum between today and the old normal.