Ken McElroy explores the complexities and financial challenges of converting office buildings into residential properties. Delving into practical issues like...
Ok, I watched 3 minutes in and stopped … so basically the reason is “Oh no … my profits!”
Seems to completely miss the point … which is that this is about reshaping the city … a necessarily bigger task.
Also, I’ve said it many times … but this whole office -> residential thing just highlights the robustness issue that the pandemic highlighted. That all of these office buildings are optimised for fitting in as many desk workers as possible and not anything else, to the point that they are problematic and illegal for someone to just live in them, is a huge problem. That the conversion would cost so much money is a design problem, surely, a mistake that someone has to now pay for (sorry landlords!).
The lesson being that there’s probably a decent middle ground … a “generic humane building design” that can work decently well as a residential or working or mixed property … something that isn’t as “efficient” but instead amenable to the flexible needs of a variety of people doing a variety of things.
Yea, they seem to be some sort of investor influencer … which is hilarious because I think they all look like this: middle aged white guy, slighly casual in dress and demeanor, maybe slightly sporty or “fit” too, “just doing the basic math” … basically targeting people’s money anxiety without any real insights on the bigger landscape of things.
Okay, so he’s mostly talking here about older, 1980s or 1990s suburban office park buildings, rather than CBD office towers.
Think large floor plates, large open air car parks, one set of toilets and kitchens per floor.
They were basically designed for one purpose, as @maegul@hachyderm.io pointed out, and that’s to cram in as many desks as possible. People were, of course, expected to drive to work.
From a property investor’s standpoint, it would cost more to buy these buildings and then retrofit them then you would get back by selling or leasing them as apartments.
And even if you did spend the money to renovate (including completely redoing the plumbing and HVAC systems), you’d still be left with crummy apartments with windows that don’t open and bedrooms with no windows.
He argues the best option is to tear it down and start over.
To be fair, he does raise some good points. I can see how a large floorplate would be difficult to subdivide into apartments where every living room and bedroom has a window.
And I don’t think anyone would argue that suburban office parks aren’t hideous places.
My thoughts as follows:
If it doesn’t make commercial sense to retrofit buildings to apartments, perhaps governments need to step in and do it?
I mean, I can’t imagine too many commercial property owners and banks would complain too much right now about a government stepping in and buying up older office buildings.
And even if it doesn’t make commercial sense to retrofit them, it might make social and public policy sense to convert them into public housing, while at the same time avoiding having disused or abandoned office blocks laying around.
Going forward, we have to make sure the buildings we design are reusable, and can support a range of different uses.
That means, in many cases, having buildings that support different uses on different floors (so shops or restaurants on the ground floor, offices or community spaces on the lower floors, apartments above).
More importantly, we need buildings that are designed from the outset to be able to be used for different purposes over time.
I don’t think a generic building that is suitable for all purposes is possible though. Inevitably the needs of a housing unit and an office are fundamentally different, going all he way down to the plumbing. It wouldn’t make sense to build an office building with enough plumbing to easily become an apartment, or vice versa, because taking a down-the-middle approach could just as easily lead to a building that serves no useful purpose at all. It’s not “just” about the money. He goes into the plumbing issue in particular in great depth. I highly recommend watching the whole video
Ok, I watched 3 minutes in and stopped … so basically the reason is “Oh no … my profits!”
Seems to completely miss the point … which is that this is about reshaping the city … a necessarily bigger task.
Also, I’ve said it many times … but this whole office -> residential thing just highlights the robustness issue that the pandemic highlighted. That all of these office buildings are optimised for fitting in as many desk workers as possible and not anything else, to the point that they are problematic and illegal for someone to just live in them, is a huge problem. That the conversion would cost so much money is a design problem, surely, a mistake that someone has to now pay for (sorry landlords!).
The lesson being that there’s probably a decent middle ground … a “generic humane building design” that can work decently well as a residential or working or mixed property … something that isn’t as “efficient” but instead amenable to the flexible needs of a variety of people doing a variety of things.
I kind of figured. The big ask is what needs to be saved exactly? Oh, real estate profits. Lol
Yea, they seem to be some sort of investor influencer … which is hilarious because I think they all look like this: middle aged white guy, slighly casual in dress and demeanor, maybe slightly sporty or “fit” too, “just doing the basic math” … basically targeting people’s money anxiety without any real insights on the bigger landscape of things.
@ohlaph @maegul@lemmy.ml I watched it, so you don’t have to.
Okay, so he’s mostly talking here about older, 1980s or 1990s suburban office park buildings, rather than CBD office towers.
Think large floor plates, large open air car parks, one set of toilets and kitchens per floor.
They were basically designed for one purpose, as @maegul@hachyderm.io pointed out, and that’s to cram in as many desks as possible. People were, of course, expected to drive to work.
From a property investor’s standpoint, it would cost more to buy these buildings and then retrofit them then you would get back by selling or leasing them as apartments.
And even if you did spend the money to renovate (including completely redoing the plumbing and HVAC systems), you’d still be left with crummy apartments with windows that don’t open and bedrooms with no windows.
He argues the best option is to tear it down and start over.
To be fair, he does raise some good points. I can see how a large floorplate would be difficult to subdivide into apartments where every living room and bedroom has a window.
And I don’t think anyone would argue that suburban office parks aren’t hideous places.
My thoughts as follows:
I mean, I can’t imagine too many commercial property owners and banks would complain too much right now about a government stepping in and buying up older office buildings.
And even if it doesn’t make commercial sense to retrofit them, it might make social and public policy sense to convert them into public housing, while at the same time avoiding having disused or abandoned office blocks laying around.
That means, in many cases, having buildings that support different uses on different floors (so shops or restaurants on the ground floor, offices or community spaces on the lower floors, apartments above).
More importantly, we need buildings that are designed from the outset to be able to be used for different purposes over time.
I don’t think a generic building that is suitable for all purposes is possible though. Inevitably the needs of a housing unit and an office are fundamentally different, going all he way down to the plumbing. It wouldn’t make sense to build an office building with enough plumbing to easily become an apartment, or vice versa, because taking a down-the-middle approach could just as easily lead to a building that serves no useful purpose at all. It’s not “just” about the money. He goes into the plumbing issue in particular in great depth. I highly recommend watching the whole video