Time to stop building skyscrapers? (Atlanta, Chamblee: lease, townhomes, luxury)

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Sticking it to the Little Man, it sounds like.

Meanwhile, up on the top floor....





[Not blaming you, mark, I know you're just telling it like it is].

Sticking it to the little man, the middle man and the higher but not top man. All it does is eliminate whatever loyalty was left to a company.

[AtlJan]

What percentage of the workforce has these sort of office jobs that can be outsourced/homesourced? On my commute, it seems about half the vehicles are trade-related trucks--trucking, construction, home maintenance. Then there are healthcare workers, educators (not usually wfh!), real estate (need more boots on the ground than you would think), courtroom law, security, police, just to name a few that I doubt will be work-from-home any time soon.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by AtlJan

What percentage of the workforce has these sort of office jobs that can be outsourced/homesourced? On my commute, it seems about half the vehicles are trade-related trucks--trucking, construction, home maintenance. Then there are healthcare workers, educators (not usually wfh!), real estate (need more boots on the ground than you would think), courtroom law, security, police, just to name a few that I doubt will be work-from-home any time soon.

Yep. That sounds right. And, it is no a zero sum game. When I was in law, I could work from fairly often. However, there would be weeks or even months where I had to be in the office with my team. I think many jobs are that way. Work from home when it works for the business. Work in an office when your physical presence is needed. But, I'm not sure what that does or does not do for office demand.

[M3Guy]

Originally Posted by markjames68

1) reduction in middle management, even though there is value (guiding and coaching workers, doing a lot of communication), because they will say that less people can manage more remote employees. This will work short term because companies won't likely be onboarding a lot of new headcount that needs coaching. Over the longer term it will be a disaster because remote work requires more communication, not less.

2) labor arbitrage by replacing departing high cost people with lower cost people, even within the same country. If your employee is remote, do you need someone with a Silicon Valley or NYC salary? Maybe not. Much cheaper to get someone in Omaha or Utah.

3) Reduction in benefits, because, well, you can. So you will see companies "temporarily" suspend the 401k match and other compensation benefits. All while closing facilities and removing other perks. Don't expect them to come back in 2021 either.

4) management by tools such as Sapience (look it up). Some companies are literally tracking key presses now, with the assumption that hourly remote workers have to put in 40 hours of keypresses and mouse clicks a week. Which realistically means 50+ hours in front of a screen doing some kind of work.

Yuuup

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Sticking it to the Little Man, it sounds like.

Meanwhile, up on the top floor....





[Not blaming you, mark, I know you're just telling it like it is].

Well based on your definition it’s not sticking it to the little man since those corporate employees make what you consider rich wages. Sticking it to the middle is more like it.
It’s not surprising as many companies allow you to transfer to other states but adjust your pay to reflect the lower cost of living.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by AtlJan

What percentage of the workforce has these sort of office jobs that can be outsourced/homesourced? On my commute, it seems about half the vehicles are trade-related trucks--trucking, construction, home maintenance. Then there are healthcare workers, educators (not usually wfh!), real estate (need more boots on the ground than you would think), courtroom law, security, police, just to name a few that I doubt will be work-from-home any time soon.

There are a lot. But they are irrelevant to skyscrapers. They weren't working there before.

[JMatl]

Originally Posted by bu2

There are a lot. But they are irrelevant to skyscrapers. They weren't working there before.

Of course they were working there before. Why do you say this?

[architect77]

Originally Posted by recycled

My former employer (before I retired) has a multi-building corporate headquarters complex on the north side of ATL near the Sandy Springs Marta station. They built most of the buildings in the 2013-2018 time frame, and the campus is the office for many thousands of well paid employees. The company owns the complex, so is not paying rent. Trouble is, most of that beautiful new office space has been empty for the past 4 months or so. Nearly all the employees have been WFH since March, and since it is a technology and telecom company, all have adapted well to that situation. I know many who have told me how much they have enjoyed WFH, because there are no more long, slow commutes in heavy ATL traffic. This situation could go on and on for a long time.

I think the appetite for building skyscrapers in many cities will be low for at least several years. Many companies have discovered how to operate with a large percentage of their office staff in WFH mode. I think many companies will try and figure out a future that has more employees WFH, to a bigger extent before Covid arrived. That will make demand for office space go down, so the need for new skyscrapers will drop.

People predicted the end of the skyscraper after 911, stupid to react or make big decisions based on temporary situation.

Many up and coming countries use skyscrapers to convey and assert their might and power to the rest of the world.

Some of the disadvantages to that building type include high cost of construction the higher up due to resisting more powerful wind as well as seismic resilience.

But the advantages are many also: less land, more tax revenue per land parcel, increases walkability and less need for car travel, less infrastructure from less pipe lengths, conduit, etc.

It's safer and sturdier during tornados, natural disasters, more energy efficient because of sharing heat and cooling with adjacent unit and very little exposure to outside elements, services like trash pickup are more efficient, leaves so much land unspoiled compared to single family homes, ride-sharing and consolidated trips are much easier.

Today buildings can generate more power than they use and return it to the grid lessening the strain on the utilities.

And NYC is cool in that where else can you live that's within walking distance of 8.5 million people? The talent and resources and educated workers are more accessible which leads to innovation. Less conducive environment everywhere else in the world.

But your point about enjoyment of them underscores what so many on here value about development which is fine but not a purpose of any project to look cool from afar. No dough to be made from that.

I love tall buildings but do not want to live in one, i can tolerate working in them.

In NYC i lived with a friend in a 32nd floor apt. just a 42" railing separated me falling to my death. What if I was sleepwalking and fell over?

I also find upper floors to be very isolated from the lively city activity on the ground. It makes me feel like a caged bird.

[bellhead]

Originally Posted by AtlJan

What percentage of the workforce has these sort of office jobs that can be outsourced/homesourced? On my commute, it seems about half the vehicles are trade-related trucks--trucking, construction, home maintenance. Then there are healthcare workers, educators (not usually wfh!), real estate (need more boots on the ground than you would think), courtroom law, security, police, just to name a few that I doubt will be work-from-home any time soon.

It isn't what % of the workforce has the ability to work from home, but the % of white collar jobs which pay $60k plus who can work from home. These are the jobs which support customer service, teachers, & other local government jobs. Spreading these jobs out further from the central business district will have an effect on a cities density & in the future contribute to sprawl with people looking for larger homes, more land, & better schools in the suburbs.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by architect77

People predicted the end of the skyscraper after 911, stupid to react or make big decisions based on temporary situation.

Many up and coming countries use skyscrapers to convey and assert their might and power to the rest of the world.

Some of the disadvantages to that building type include high cost of construction the higher up due to resisting more powerful wind as well as seismic resilience.

But the advantages are many also: less land, more tax revenue per land parcel, increases walkability and less need for car travel, less infrastructure from less pipe lengths, conduit, etc.

It's safer and sturdier during tornados, natural disasters, more energy efficient because of sharing heat and cooling with adjacent unit and very little exposure to outside elements, services like trash pickup are more efficient, leaves so much land unspoiled compared to single family homes, ride-sharing and consolidated trips are much easier.

Today buildings can generate more power than they use and return it to the grid lessening the strain on the utilities.

And NYC is cool in that where else can you live that's within walking distance of 8.5 million people? The talent and resources and educated workers are more accessible which leads to innovation. Less conducive environment everywhere else in the world.

But your point about enjoyment of them underscores what so many on here value about development which is fine but not a purpose of any project to look cool from afar. No dough to be made from that.

I love tall buildings but do not want to live in one, i can tolerate working in them.

In NYC i lived with a friend in a 32nd floor apt. just a 42" railing separated me falling to my death. What if I was sleepwalking and fell over?

I also find upper floors to be very isolated from the lively city activity on the ground. It makes me feel like a caged bird.

Well there are a lot of trends. Companies are opting for low rise campuses where people interact more than on small separate floors. That space is also cheaper. Look at the Amazon space in Seattle, which is very close to downtown, but is mostly in small buildings. There is more tele-working and this virus has broken down some resistance by management. Jobs are dispersing out of city centers. Employers want to be near where their workers are and crime and schools continue to drive families out of the city. Some look mainly for young single employees and may still locate in the cities, but the trend is continuing to have most job growth outside the central city. Another trend is that growth is tending to be biggest in "mid-major" metros like Nashville, not in the largest cities.