COVID-19 in Boston

KentXie said:
I don't know what happened to the COVID-19 thread for urban impact in general (link doesn't redirect me to that thread) but in Manhattan, several major companies are considering reducing their commercial footprint after finding out WFH doesn't appear to have too much of a negative impact on productivity and would save money on their bottom line

www.boston.com

Manhattan faces a reckoning if working from home becomes the norm

NEW YORK — Before the coronavirus crisis, three of New York City’s largest commercial tenants — Barclays, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley — had tens of thousands of workers in towers across Manhattan. Now, as the city wrestles with when and how to reopen, executives at all three firms have...
www.boston.com

Looking forward, my guess is if this trend continues, a sizable portion of these soon to be less than fully occupied commercial buildings will be converted into residential which may actually contribute to the fall in housing prices and potentially solve our housing crisis.

Frankly I'm all for this. Increasing housing supply by converting commercial supply and the flexibility to work anywhere in the country is incredibly valuable and would level the playing field (in terms of reducing the cost of living) for all major cities across the nation as well as surrounding cities/towns of major urban centers.
Click to expand...


I'm just curious what is the 30+ million unemployed Americans going to pay for rent in these high rise buildings since their are no jobs and Washington DC sold off all all American Manufacturing to a communist regime?
This economic contraction is going to hurt many Americans. Maybe China can buy up the rest of America for peanuts.
 
Last edited:
With more WFH workers, wouldn't you also expect an increase in people looking toward suburban housing options? Apart from the younger people looking to be closer to the city and the things that are "happening," (which won't be for a while anyways, at least "normally"), a lot of people opt to live in cities because of its proximity to their work, despite the higher costs. With increased WFH, not only is there a decreased need to be close to work and thus they can look toward cheaper housing options that are available out in the suburbs, but also an increased demand for more outdoor space since you'd be home more often, also really only found in the suburbs.
 
stefal said:
With more WFH workers, wouldn't you also expect an increase in people looking toward suburban housing options? Apart from the younger people looking to be closer to the city and the things that are "happening," (which won't be for a while anyways, at least "normally"), a lot of people opt to live in cities because of its proximity to their work, despite the higher costs. With increased WFH, not only is there a decreased need to be close to work and thus they can look toward cheaper housing options that are available out in the suburbs, but also an increased demand for more outdoor space since you'd be home more often, also really only found in the suburbs.
Click to expand...
Yup and that's what I meant by leveling the playing field for cities across the nation as well as cities/towns surrounding urban centers. Rent in urban center should drop if this is the future that we are looking at if being close to work is no longer a requirement (suburban and rural will probably increase). Unfortunately this could potentially mean sprawl.

One thing we need to make sure we are looking at is high speed internet coverage as well as good mobile service coverage. Working from home requires high quality internet and high quality cell service to ensure communication lines are still workable. In this case, we may see a movement towards suburban cities/towns but less so in rural areas where coverage for both internet and mobile service is poor.
 
Johnnyrocket891 said:
I'm just curious what is the 30+ million unemployed Americans going to pay for rent in these high rise buildings since their are no jobs and Washington DC sold off all all American Manufacturing to a communist regime?
This economic contraction is going to hurt many Americans. Maybe China can buy up the rest of America for peanuts.
Click to expand...
Well it would depend on how much the commercial real estate market collapses. If commercial property owners goes bankrupt from the drop in commercial demand, most likely, these properties will be sold for a lost. It doesn't matter how valuable these real estates are pre-pandemic if the demand completely dries up post-pandemic. And unlike an under construction building, you can't just cancel an existing building unless you demolish it which is unlikely to happen unless the owner can't even pay to maintain the property. They will have to look at ways to get revenue, even if that means converting them into residential and renting out well below pre-pandemic prices (or sell it at a loss to another property owner who would then be able convert it the residential with the lower price tag). Unfortunately that also mean a decline in property value and real estate taxes as a revenue source for the local government.

Of course, such a future will be absolutely unprecedented. Essentially demands drops abruptly while supply for both commercial and residential skyrockets well above the equilibrium. This would result in a significant drop in housing value and the fear then becomes whether this will collapse the real estate market and start another recession albeit for a much different reason than 2008. Assuming that employment returns to normal, people will be able to pay their mortgage but at a rate much higher than the value of their house. A lot of this is an exaggeration of what could happen but it would be interesting to know where exactly it ends up.
 
Last edited:
stefal said:
With more WFH workers, wouldn't you also expect an increase in people looking toward suburban housing options? Apart from the younger people looking to be closer to the city and the things that are "happening," (which won't be for a while anyways, at least "normally"), a lot of people opt to live in cities because of its proximity to their work, despite the higher costs. With increased WFH, not only is there a decreased need to be close to work and thus they can look toward cheaper housing options that are available out in the suburbs, but also an increased demand for more outdoor space since you'd be home more often, also really only found in the suburbs.
Click to expand...
Commute certainly plays some role in how people determine their best housing option, but I suspect many, perhaps most, who choose to live in the city do it for conveniences within their own neighborhood. If I ended up in a permanent work from home situation, I wouldn't suddenly stop wanting to be able to walk to restaurants and stores. We might see a move to the Parisian ideal, of everything needed being within a 15 minute walk radius, but I doubt people will decide en masse that what they really need is suburban isolation.
 
Yeah. Indications are that the pandemic will be far worse in the US than it needed to be, and it remains to be seen how long it will disrupt 'business-as-usual'. While we don't know what the "new normal" will look like on the other side, I don't think dramatically draining urban spaces of people will be one of them. I'll venture that most businesses that adopt more WFH will be doing it on a voluntary, or alternative day basis of some kind. They'll still need office space of some kind even if it's a smaller floor-plate than they had before. Maybe we see shifts in urban fabric in the less residential parts of cities, such as casual lunch spots in financial districts thinning out if there are fewer daily customers. It's possible that both commercial and residential markets drop, though not precipitously. We might even be able to get a sense of how much the demand-side has been driven by speculators if indeed urban real estate speculation becomes less profitable.

But like I've said before. We don't know. Anyone who says they know is selling something or is high on themselves.
 
George_Apley said:
Yeah. Indications are that the pandemic will be far worse in the US than it needed to be, and it remains to be seen how long it will disrupt 'business-as-usual'. While we don't know what the "new normal" will look like on the other side, I don't think dramatically draining urban spaces of people will be one of them. I'll venture that most businesses that adopt more WFH will be doing it on a voluntary, or alternative day basis of some kind. They'll still need office space of some kind even if it's a smaller floor-plate than they had before. Maybe we see shifts in urban fabric in the less residential parts of cities, such as casual lunch spots in financial districts thinning out if there are fewer daily customers. It's possible that both commercial and residential markets drop, though not precipitously. We might even be able to get a sense of how much the demand-side has been driven by speculators if indeed urban real estate speculation becomes less profitable.

But like I've said before. We don't know. Anyone who says they know is selling something or is high on themselves.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I do think it is a fun little thought experiment though to think about what the "new normal" is.

Arenacale said:
I agree with the sentiments of this tweet:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1260751059586293761
Click to expand...
I feel like the problem solving this tweet is referring to is already here. Increase WFH, decrease the need to come to the office. Truly, there really isn't a need to have everyone commute to the office 5 times a week. It's unproductive, time spent commuting can be spent on something else (even if that something else is picking up an additional hour of sleep), and it's environmentally unfriendly. Think of how much pollution can be reduced by curbing the need to drive cars as well as taking trains and buses, and the reduction in medical cost by limiting the exposure of people working in close environment (the office) for 40 or more hours a week.

One of the very little bright spot this pandemic has put a spotlight on is that there is alternative to our current work system and one that is more efficient and probably more beneficial overall.

HenryAlan said:
Commute certainly plays some role in how people determine their best housing option, but I suspect many, perhaps most, who choose to live in the city do it for conveniences within their own neighborhood. If I ended up in a permanent work from home situation, I wouldn't suddenly stop wanting to be able to walk to restaurants and stores. We might see a move to the Parisian ideal, of everything needed being within a 15 minute walk radius, but I doubt people will decide en masse that what they really need is suburban isolation.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think a good model to look at, and we don't even need to look at the Parisian ideal, is to look at TODs. Assembly is a good example of clustering everything of convenience into a small area. Replicating these near self-sustaining "villages" would also make it much more efficient to track and quarantine residents in case of an outbreak as well and there will be no concern for quarantine residents needing to venture out far as they should be able to pick up whatever they need within walking distance of their condos/apartments.
 
Last edited:
George_Apley said:
Yeah, there's a lot of over-analysis on how this will be the end of the "return to the cities". I don't buy it.
Click to expand...
All of these same sentiments were expressed after 9/11 and we all know just how wrong that was. I suspect a lot of the people suggesting this time is different, just don't remember all the other times that were supposed to be different.
 
The other element to this that matters quite a bit, is that white collar supervisors don't really trust employees to be diligent without some direct supervision. Productivity measurement tools aren't advanced enough to satisfy this concern. And of course, many jobs are only marginally suited for work from home. We accept it right now due to the emergency, but ultimately, a lot of positions are not going to be seen fitting WFH criteria.
 
HenryAlan said:
The other element to this that matters quite a bit, is that white collar supervisors don't really trust employees to be diligent without some direct supervision. Productivity measurement tools aren't advanced enough to satisfy this concern. And of course, many jobs are only marginally suited for work from home. We accept it right now due to the emergency, but ultimately, a lot of positions are not going to be seen fitting WFH criteria.
Click to expand...
That is true but because of the emergency which essentially forced companies to experiment with WFH, many have realized that productivity have not dropped significantly and, in some cases, have actually improved. Hence why there are companies that are looking to allow WFH more often. With how long the pandemic has lasted and the enormous number of companies forced to employ a WFH policy, chances are, by the end of this pandemic, there will be enough data points available to determine whether WFH is a viable alternative. Obviously it's not a one glove fits all but it will be a mistake to think that 40 hours a week working at the office remains the only standard after all this is over.
 
HenryAlan said:
The other element to this that matters quite a bit, is that white collar supervisors don't really trust employees to be diligent without some direct supervision. Productivity measurement tools aren't advanced enough to satisfy this concern. And of course, many jobs are only marginally suited for work from home. We accept it right now due to the emergency, but ultimately, a lot of positions are not going to be seen fitting WFH criteria.
Click to expand...
I'll never get this line of thinking. If you're hitting your deadlines and I'm seeing production out of you, I don't care if you're working from home, the park, Starbucks, or Mars.

I do believe that even if most companies return to office work, there will be an increase in WFH in some form, be it a day or two a week or whatever. Instead of building a new $10m parking garage for your employees, just have 20% of your workforce WFH each day of the week.
 
Arenacale said:
I'll never get this line of thinking. If you're hitting your deadlines and I'm seeing production out of you, I don't care if you're working from home, the park, Starbucks, or Mars.
Click to expand...
That certainly seems logical, but ultimately, I don't think these decisions are made from a purely logic based perspective. I think there may be a move toward greater flexibility, but I also think most companies are going to want people back in the same location for much of their work time. I suspect many employees would prefer that, too. I had a long call with one of my direct reports the other day, and she kept talking about how isolated she feels. Yes, there is the phone, zoom, text messaging, but none of that replaces chatting with the person in the cube next to yours, or face to face time in a conference room.

I have a pretty light handed supervisory style, so on the one hand, I do feel that I can tell from work product whether I'm getting what I need from somebody just as well now as I could before. But on the other hand, I think we lose a lot by not having in person supervision sessions. In the example above, I think a lot of why she felt isolated was that we weren't having the sporadic 5 minute conversations. That's hard to replace.
 
Arenacale said:
I'll never get this line of thinking. If you're hitting your deadlines and I'm seeing production out of you, I don't care if you're working from home, the park, Starbucks, or Mars.
Click to expand...

I can tell you from my business... we don't hire remote work, but we do allow flexible schedules. Meetings, collaboration and whiteboarding sessions are an in-person necessity, and this quarantine has reduced productivity significantly, both internally and with the responsiveness of our customers.

I do agree that deadlines should be the primary success metric, but early-career employees benefit greatly from being in an office environment where they are exposed to experts and adopt professional working habits. We're currently hiring - onboarding remote employees is terrible. I also have a few employees who now work all hours of the night, then are total zombies during customer presentations during the workday.

Lastly, and this somehow has not been brought up - culture is core to attracting and retaining talent. Total compensation includes lifestyle benefits. If you lose the in-person culture benefits (in the form of beautiful office spaces, or camaraderie like team lunches /outings, etc) you must compete only on salary. What is to stop your employees from being interested in looking elsewhere if they have a limited connection to their place of business to begin with?

What do I think? Companies that have invested in office spaces in the city have employees who like the city, and are paying for the talent there, and will stay. Soulless suburban office parks will struggle the most (since the company cheaped out on real estate anyway), and their suburban workers will work from home instead.
 
I hate working at home, which I've been doing for 2 months. I miss the ad-hoc discussions with co-workers about issues that pop up, I miss walking down the hall and seeing people outside of my team, I miss everything about working in an office. The sense of isolation from working at home is still daunting after 2 months, and it sucks. I never realized I was an extrovert in need of people around me until this shitty COVID-19 pandemic happened. At least it's taught me that much.
 
Vagabond said:
I can tell you from my business... we don't hire remote work, but we do allow flexible schedules. Meetings, collaboration and whiteboarding sessions are an in-person necessity, and this quarantine has reduced productivity significantly, both internally and with the responsiveness of our customers.

I do agree that deadlines should be the primary success metric, but early-career employees benefit greatly from being in an office environment where they are exposed to experts and adopt professional working habits. We're currently hiring - onboarding remote employees is terrible. I also have a few employees who now work all hours of the night, then are total zombies during customer presentations during the workday.

Lastly, and this somehow has not been brought up - culture is core to attracting and retaining talent. Total compensation includes lifestyle benefits. If you lose the in-person culture benefits (in the form of beautiful office spaces, or camaraderie like team lunches /outings, etc) you must compete only on salary. What is to stop your employees from being interested in looking elsewhere if they have a limited connection to their place of business to begin with?

What do I think? Companies that have invested in office spaces in the city have employees who like the city, and are paying for the talent there, and will stay. Soulless suburban office parks will struggle the most (since the company cheaped out on real estate anyway), and their suburban workers will work from home instead.
Click to expand...
I do wonder how much of the productivity decline has to do with the WFH aspect and how much of it has to do with working under the stress of the pandemic. I can say for sure that through slack conversations with co-workers, a few have confided with me the mental strain with worrying about family getting sick and the burn out that is associated not because they are feeling isolated working from home, but the fact that they are stuck at home even when they are done with work due to the quarantine.

I think the social isolation aspect is definitely true but I think too much of the blame is placed on the WFH portion and not enough is being placed on being locked down in general. I think a good portion of the socializing issue would be resolved when lock down restrictions are lifted and people are allowed to go out and catch up with friends after work or during the weekend.

I also feel like the decline in productivity would be much less pronounced when people aren't working from home with concerns about the pandemic hanging over their head or having to take care of their kids because schools or daycares are closed.
 
HenryAlan said:
Commute certainly plays some role in how people determine their best housing option, but I suspect many, perhaps most, who choose to live in the city do it for conveniences within their own neighborhood. If I ended up in a permanent work from home situation, I wouldn't suddenly stop wanting to be able to walk to restaurants and stores. We might see a move to the Parisian ideal, of everything needed being within a 15 minute walk radius
Click to expand...

But I'm sure you could find that in some part of the country where housing isn't 800k for a teardown.
 
Good morning, I hope this post finds everyone here in good health and good spirits. I have to admit, among many other very negative aspects of this freakin pandemic, one of the minor ones for me has been I missed the daily pics and comments on all the construction updates in ArchBoston very much, but like everything else, we humans adapt and move forward.
I read that Gov. Baker will announce on Monday, which businesses will be allowed to open. Any speculation about construction in Boston?
Here in Atlanta, even with everything shut down except for the essentials, construction and roadwork in the city has continued, was deemed essential for whatever reason. But I have to say, I always thought that working outdoors, keeping mostly safe distances, that, unlike meatpacking and other close quarter work places, construction and road work seemed fairly safe (granted, there was so much unknown about the virus and transmission at the beginning, still are lots of unknowns). Walking around the city, we saw most construction workers wearing masks, not gathering in groups, signs up reminding about Covid-19 safety.. The city took advantage of practically no traffic to chew up and repave several major roadways in the city which could have caused nightmare traffic jams under normal circumstances.
So, thoughts about construction? Of course, someday it will resume, but with new rules about safety during the pandemic. But will it return next week?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top