Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, and there are jobs in areas like dense cities where one doesn't need a car to commute. And many companies are moving downtown to accommodate those people who want that lifestyle. You really need to get out more. Not everyone lives like you do.
Companies don't care about their employees lifestyle.
Companies don't care about their employees lifestyle.
Maybe the company you work for doesn't, but mine does. My team and many other managers and teams take advantage of where we are located. And I care that my team has easy commutes, enjoys the city in the evenings and on weekends, etc. IMO, that's how you get the most out of people and have a great life/work balance. It's another reason that there are a lot of talented people who have been with the company for a long time. Employee retention is better than anyplace I've ever worked. I know I plan to stay.
Maybe the company you work for doesn't, but mine does. My team and many other managers and teams take advantage of where we are located. And I care that my team has easy commutes, enjoys the city in the evenings and on weekends, etc. IMO, that's how you get the most out of people and have a great life/work balance. It's another reason that there are a lot of talented people who have been with the company for a long time. Employee retention is better than anyplace I've ever worked. I know I plan to stay.
Works for you, it works for everyone. One size fits all. Everyone is equal. Circles fit into squares.
Works for you, it works for everyone. One size fits all. Everyone is equal. Circles fit into squares.
You serious? You're the one that said "Companies don't care about their employees lifestyle." As in, "one size fits all", "everyone is equal", "circles fit into squares". I was pointing out that that's not the case across the board by giving you my experience...you know, to show you that you can't just say "companies don't care..." across the board.
You should go back and read it. It's just four posts back. LOL
You serious? You're the one that said "Companies don't care about their employees lifestyle." As in, "one size fits all", "everyone is equal", "circles fit into squares". I was pointing out that that's not the case across the board by giving you my experience...you know, to show you that you can't just say "companies don't care..." across the board.
You should go back and read it. It's just four posts back. LOL
Once again, the world revolves around your experience so everyone else must experience it. I know exactly what I said, I posted it. The post I responded to was nonsense as there is no evidence that companies are moving solely for employees lifestyle. They might means you don't know.
"but..but, you don't have any evidence that companies don't care"
Once again, the world revolves around your experience so everyone else must experience it. I know exactly what I said, I posted it. The post I responded to was nonsense as there is no evidence that companies are moving solely for employees lifestyle. They might means you don't know.
"but..but, you don't have any evidence that companies don't care"
People get fired from their jobs all the time.
When did I ever say the world revolves around my experience? I provided a perspective, that's all. Through anecdotal experience, I've at least provided a real world example where an employer does care. What have you proven? Besides the fact that you're able to be a d***?
Hardly. All suburban office campuses are workplaces; not all workplaces are suburban office campuses. I say that, even though it is obvious, because it is important to take explicit note of; what I described as the thrust of the article are workplaces, but not all workplaces are like those about which the article speaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
Sure, and while I usually call it a battleship, the enormous masonry Manhattan building I work in (built circa 1930) might also be described as "fortresslike". But the article talks about suburbia quite often (including the headlines), refers negatively to the campuses as "isolated, anti-urban", refers to "suburban pastoral settings", complains about parking lots and solo commutes... it's hard to see how it isn't criticizing the suburban placement.
Is it hard to see? Is it? I disagree, clearly. Instead, I see it as describing the development of suburban office parks and campuses and the relationship those places foster between the employer and employee as well as between the company and the community. I see it as attacking the idea that the suburban corporate campus is fundamentally superior to other built forms as well as attacking the idea that modern corporate campuses are somehow fundamentally different to the corporate campuses of the '50s and '60s, but I don't see an attack on suburbia itself, and I didn't see any defenses of the urban corporate skyscraper fortress.
But the article talks about suburbia quite often (including the headlines), refers negatively to the campuses as "isolated, anti-urban", refers to "suburban pastoral settings", complains about parking lots and solo commutes... it's hard to see how it isn't criticizing the suburban placement.
I wanted to be fair, and I had a lazy Sunday morning available, so I re-read the article. It makes one glancing negative reference to the suburbs:
Quote:
Louise Mozingo, the Chair of UC Berkeley’s Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning Department, detailed the origins of these corporate environments in her 2011 book, Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscapes. From the 1930s designs for AT&T Bell Laboratories in New Jersey to Google’s Silicon Valley campus today, Mozingo traced the evolution of suburbia’s “separatist geography.” In contrast with the city, Mozingo writes, “the suburbs were predictable, spacious, segregated, specialized, quiet, new, and easily traversed—a much more promising state of affairs to corporations bent on expansion.” It also didn’t hurt that many top executives often already lived in the affluent, low-density areas near where they wanted their offices built.
That bolded portion is as negative as it gets about the suburbs. The rest of the time, references to the suburbs are in the context of suburban offices. And, really, that makes sense because the main argument of the article is that new suburban campuses are little different from the campuses of the 1940s and 1950s, and in so doing, describes the development of suburban campuses, why companies went that route, the weaknesses of their logic for doing so, and the issues those campuses create for the communities they are a part of. While it's easy to draw parallels to the suburbs, generally, doing so is left entirely up to the reader.
Meanwhile, it barely references cities. It spends one paragraph talking about how major industrial cities changed at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. It also only has one paragraph that talks about cities in the bright light of connectivity and community.
Quote:
“One of the reasons cities function really well,” Mozingo says, “is that in the first few decades of the 20th century, after industry had its way, there was a coalition of progressives who said, ‘We want good lighting, good transportation, and clean water in our cities. We’re going to have sidewalks and streets with orderly traffic, and we’re going to do some zoning so you don’t have a tannery right next to an orphanage.’ They put in big public institutions like museums and theaters and squares with fancy fountains. It cost everybody money, but was agreed on by both the public and private sectors. This is the reason why we still love San Francisco and New York City. Even if we don’t live there, we like going there.
Quote:
Before the development of mid-century suburbia with its isolated residential, retail, civic, and office zones, cities were built with a highly varied, walkable fabric where encountering strangers was the norm. Even in smaller towns, people walked or took transit to work, could grab coffee or lunch at a neighboring restaurant, or pop into a public library, plaza, or park. “You’d have a vastly more complex set of people, places, and experiences to deal with and think about,” Mozingo says.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
