We had some slight pushing into going into the office more, but instead of firing people, it was decided to switch to a smaller office space, so the people who like to work in an office can do so, and less money is wasted on a mostly empty office
Understandable that this is not an option for all companies, but insane that people are happier losing talent than at least trying to work something out
Then he should act like any other office building owner and rent some space to other companies.
Bonus points if he gets with the future and works to convert some of the building to living space so people don’t have to travel to get to work. Not everybody will want that, but it will appeal to enough to make it worth doing. Shopping malls across the country are being converted to such hybrid spaces so most everything one needs is within a convenient distance.
i think you fundamentally misunderstand the motivations involved that would lead to the CEO owning the office real estate. commercial real estate is a means for them to siphon profits from the business, not a genuine attempt to provide a valuable service to anyone.
Converting office space to residential is costly (if even possible for a given building), and would require a lot of effort. There may be zoning issues in the way as well.
Much easier to just use the CEO hat to keep desks full, and the landlord hat to collect rent.
Then he should act like any other office building owner and rent some space to other companies.
There are more buildings/office spaces to rent than people wanting office space these days. There are LOTS of empty unrented buildings. He would have difficulty even finding a tenant.
Bonus points if he gets with the future and works to convert some of the building to living space so people don’t have to travel to get to work.
An exceptionally small number (we’re talking single digits in the world) of Class A office buildings are good candidates for this, and these are typically done with grants/subsidies from state or local governments. These are only in the most lucrative geographic locations where housing is at an absolute premium regardless of the cost.
For good value of converting office space look at Class C buildings. These are typically older and smaller office buildings (think built in 1910s-1950s). In these, there are ways to make cost effective residential conversions and these are happening by the dozen now.
The class B pic shown in your link would be a perfect candidate to retrofit to housing if it’s unrented. The classifications you’re showing are classes of rentals, not building construction.
The class B pic shown in your link would be a perfect candidate to retrofit to housing if it’s unrented.
According to the architectural studies I’ve read when I looked into this question for myself, you would be incorrect. Open floor plans are apparently pretty horrible for residential conversions. Many residential building codes require each bedroom to have a window with a screen for ventilation. Now look at that picture of the Class B. The only exposed areas that could have a window with a screen would be on the perimeter. Further, codes many have rules that say that you cannot have one bedroom accessible by passing through another, so that would exclude long skinny apartments unless the are a 1 BR. That would leave lots of square footage trapped in the middle unusable for bedrooms. Could you put windowless living rooms and kitchens there? Sure, but even then its very few residences when they could knock that building down and get many more windowed rooms on the same piece of land.
Class C’s don’t have these issues as they were built with small individual offices in mind and not open floorplans, which make for affordable cost effective conversion to residences.
The classifications you’re showing are classes of rentals, not building construction.
I’m no building expert, but I am not aware of a difference in “class of rental” vs “building construction” you’re making the distinction of. The studies I read only referred to them by class letter and never mentioned any distinction that you’re referring to.
As far as the windows, I don’t know that site and the window requirements, but it’s hard to see what’s going on on the sides. The overhead trusses are easily accessible as well. Maybe, maybe not.
I disagree with you on what you think you can do with “Class B” , but I don’t think you’re wrong about anything, if that makes sense.
That looks like a guide on zoning, not on the layout inside office buildings or the age in which they were constructed.
As far as the windows, I don’t know that site and the window requirements, but it’s hard to see what’s going on on the sides. The overhead trusses are easily accessible as well. Maybe, maybe not.
I’m confused. You said this in the prior post:
The class B pic shown in your link would be a perfect candidate to retrofit to housing if it’s unrented.
If you say “its hard to see whats going on” or “maybe, maybe not”, why did you say that picture was the perfect candidate?
Don’t just take my word for it. Go look up the studies actually performed on Office-to-Residential conversion. There was one that evaluated something like 1250 office buildings in North America. Look up your local building codes for residential apartments. Some Class B are good candidates yes, but I doubt the one pictured is for some of the reasons I cited and more.
I disagree with you on what you think you can do with “Class B” , but I don’t think you’re wrong about anything, if that makes sense.
No, that doesn’t make sense to me. I’m no expert in this field. I just read the studies commissioned by the Federal government or articles about those studies. I even replied on Lemmy with this info a few months ago citing those sources. You’re welcome to take a look at it for more info here.
Ours tried full RTO, and then they compromised with hybrid WFH when they lost many skilled people who had been there for 10+ years to remote positions at other companies. Sometimes with little to no warning.
We had some slight pushing into going into the office more, but instead of firing people, it was decided to switch to a smaller office space, so the people who like to work in an office can do so, and less money is wasted on a mostly empty office
Understandable that this is not an option for all companies, but insane that people are happier losing talent than at least trying to work something out
When the CEO personally owns the building and leases the office space to the company, that’s not an option.
Then he should act like any other office building owner and rent some space to other companies.
Bonus points if he gets with the future and works to convert some of the building to living space so people don’t have to travel to get to work. Not everybody will want that, but it will appeal to enough to make it worth doing. Shopping malls across the country are being converted to such hybrid spaces so most everything one needs is within a convenient distance.
i think you fundamentally misunderstand the motivations involved that would lead to the CEO owning the office real estate. commercial real estate is a means for them to siphon profits from the business, not a genuine attempt to provide a valuable service to anyone.
Bold of you to assume he already doesn’t. But WFH across many industries drives down urban office space value overall.
Won’t someone please think of the poor rent-seekers!
I edited the comment to expand more clearly upon what I mean. There are other ways to capitalize on the space.
Converting office space to residential is costly (if even possible for a given building), and would require a lot of effort. There may be zoning issues in the way as well.
Much easier to just use the CEO hat to keep desks full, and the landlord hat to collect rent.
Which is why I gave it “bonus points” for attempting to do so.
There are more buildings/office spaces to rent than people wanting office space these days. There are LOTS of empty unrented buildings. He would have difficulty even finding a tenant.
An exceptionally small number (we’re talking single digits in the world) of Class A office buildings are good candidates for this, and these are typically done with grants/subsidies from state or local governments. These are only in the most lucrative geographic locations where housing is at an absolute premium regardless of the cost.
For good value of converting office space look at Class C buildings. These are typically older and smaller office buildings (think built in 1910s-1950s). In these, there are ways to make cost effective residential conversions and these are happening by the dozen now.
Here’s a guide to the different class of office buildings
The class B pic shown in your link would be a perfect candidate to retrofit to housing if it’s unrented. The classifications you’re showing are classes of rentals, not building construction.
According to the architectural studies I’ve read when I looked into this question for myself, you would be incorrect. Open floor plans are apparently pretty horrible for residential conversions. Many residential building codes require each bedroom to have a window with a screen for ventilation. Now look at that picture of the Class B. The only exposed areas that could have a window with a screen would be on the perimeter. Further, codes many have rules that say that you cannot have one bedroom accessible by passing through another, so that would exclude long skinny apartments unless the are a 1 BR. That would leave lots of square footage trapped in the middle unusable for bedrooms. Could you put windowless living rooms and kitchens there? Sure, but even then its very few residences when they could knock that building down and get many more windowed rooms on the same piece of land.
Class C’s don’t have these issues as they were built with small individual offices in mind and not open floorplans, which make for affordable cost effective conversion to residences.
I’m no building expert, but I am not aware of a difference in “class of rental” vs “building construction” you’re making the distinction of. The studies I read only referred to them by class letter and never mentioned any distinction that you’re referring to.
Here is a better example of the different classes in architecture: https://www.landzero.com/post/understanding-property-zoning-a-comprehensive-guide
As far as the windows, I don’t know that site and the window requirements, but it’s hard to see what’s going on on the sides. The overhead trusses are easily accessible as well. Maybe, maybe not.
I disagree with you on what you think you can do with “Class B” , but I don’t think you’re wrong about anything, if that makes sense.
That looks like a guide on zoning, not on the layout inside office buildings or the age in which they were constructed.
I’m confused. You said this in the prior post:
If you say “its hard to see whats going on” or “maybe, maybe not”, why did you say that picture was the perfect candidate?
Don’t just take my word for it. Go look up the studies actually performed on Office-to-Residential conversion. There was one that evaluated something like 1250 office buildings in North America. Look up your local building codes for residential apartments. Some Class B are good candidates yes, but I doubt the one pictured is for some of the reasons I cited and more.
No, that doesn’t make sense to me. I’m no expert in this field. I just read the studies commissioned by the Federal government or articles about those studies. I even replied on Lemmy with this info a few months ago citing those sources. You’re welcome to take a look at it for more info here.
The other companies that are also doing WFH?
I edited the comment to expand more clearly upon what I mean. There are other ways to capitalize on the space.
then it’s not wasted money is it
Ours tried full RTO, and then they compromised with hybrid WFH when they lost many skilled people who had been there for 10+ years to remote positions at other companies. Sometimes with little to no warning.
Some execs gotta learn the hard way.