this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
690 points (96.1% liked)

World News

32352 readers
412 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 206 points 1 year ago (12 children)

The reason for high cost of living in cities was that's where the offices were...

Now we don't need offices. So convert them to apartments to lower housing costs in the short term, and telework means people won't move to cities as much in the long term.

This is actually a good idea...

But the White House initiative will make more than $35 billion available from existing federal programs in the form of grants and low-interest loans to encourage developers to convert offices into residential.

Developers will do this anyway if the offices are empty, why not use that money for a government program to guarantee down payments of first time home buyers?

The developers are doing fine, it's the average American that's struggling, stop funneling money to the people who already have a shit ton of it, trickle down doesn't fucking work

[–] 353247532631@lemmy.world 107 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Agreed. This is a good idea overall, but the implementation smells like a bailout of commercial real estate developers to me.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ComfortablyGlum@sh.itjust.works 70 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

if the offices are empty, why not use that money for a government program to guarantee down payments of first time home buyers?

The Biden administration is doing that also, it just doesn't make as good a headline.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/10/16/white-house-announces-new-actions-on-homeownership/

[–] Tak@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The President has also proposed a $10 billion down payment assistance program that would ensure first-time homebuyers whose parents do not own a home can access homeownership alongside a $100 million down payment assistance pilot to expand homeownership opportunities for first-generation and/or low wealth first-time homebuyers.

I don't think what they are doing is as strong as you imply.

"Sorry your parents have a home they got in 1996 for basically nothing"

[–] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

There's nothing wrong with favoring the people with the least generational wealth first and foremost

[–] Tak@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago

That is a major assumption there is generational wealth. ESPECIALLY with trans/gay people being family-less in many situations. The down payment could easily be collected via estate tax to where everyone had the option of it but the wealthy paid more in. It can also completely ignore a lack of generational wealth like parents so wealthy they only rent multi million dollar apartments in Manhattan.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Always happy to be pleasantly surprised.

Even tho it's half what developers are getting, it's better than nothing.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Refitting office space to make it liveable is actually super expensive. Commercial spaces don't have the electric, plumbing, or insulation typically required or expected by residents. It can be cheaper to gut or even tear down the building in order to add the necessary MEP and framing, which is why you see developers are still building new rather than converting old commercial spaces. The money will encourage redevelopment which is far less wasteful and combats sprawl.

That said, I agree with you that you could make the money available to buyers instead of developers, but developers are the ones ~~paying the bribes~~donating to campaigns.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Then those millionaire (from the examples in the link, billionaire) developers can let their building sit empty...

This is America, where a single cancer diagnosis can bankrupt a family for generations. If we were a civilized country, sure, bail everyone out.

But I don't have sympathy for them when normal people are in such a tight spot.

Like if you're a cardiologist and you're helping someone you saw sprain their ankle, you'd be an idiot to keep helping them when there's five people having heart attacks in the same room.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] authed@lemmy.ml 70 points 1 year ago (9 children)

mixed offices and apartments in the same building sounds good... would cut the commute

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 64 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I lived in a building thay was mixed residential/office space in Buenos Aires. It was really good, during the week you saw movement in and out so it felt alive, ar night and weekends was pretty empty and calm, and you could throw parties without bothering the neighbors.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 55 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I think that at least one should be saved for just paintball.

[–] lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

One floor should reserved for roller skating.

[–] quaddo@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

One floor should be reserved for running around barefoot on broken glass while bad guys chase after you to keep you from interfering with their elaborate heist.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 55 points 1 year ago

Yes please. Let's give corporations a reason to convert their office buildings into apartments so we can all go back to WFH. Plus, the more housing we have in the city the cheaper it gets.

I'm hopeful that a lot of these will turn into condos so people can get into ownership instead of renting.

[–] Brkdncr@artemis.camp 43 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All high rise office buildings should be incentivized to have residential space. Let’s try and fix the housing issues and reduce cars/traffic at the same time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I like how this is finally acknowledging WFH as something that is here to stay but I'm not sure I understand the connection with the housing crisis. From the article:

New York's famous Flatiron Building will soon be converted from empty offices into luxury residences

Luxury apartments in premium locations is the first thing I would think of too if I were a developer, but their target buyers don't sound like the sort of people who currently suffer from the housing crisis. But maybe I'm wrong and there will also be developers converting less prestigious office space into affordable housing...

The other thing I don't get is this: I don't know Manhattan but I did work in some (I assume) similar business hubs in the middle of overpriced cities and I wonder: are many people going to want to live in expensive converted office spaces if they don't work near there any longer? I mean if they were given the chance to WFH from anywhere would they still choose Manhattan? Honest question and maybe the answer is yes, because of the restaurants, culture, good schools or whatever... I would personally make different life choices if I could work completely remote, though.

[–] David_Eight@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

uxury apartments in premium locations is the first thing I would think of too if I were a developer, but their target buyers don't sound like the sort of people who currently suffer from the housing crisis.

It'll have a domino effect, more apartments in Manhattan means less people in Brooklyn, Queens, etc. meaning prices go down in the latter boroughs. I live in Jersey City across the Hudson from Manhattan and a large part of the residents here are just people who can't afford to live in Manhattan.

are many people going to want to live in expensive converted office spaces if they don't work near there any longer?

Yes, I used to live in a converted office building in Newark NJ (not far from Manhattan) and really loved it. And yes people will always want to live in NYC and especially Manhattan. Many people, myself included simply prefer living in cities. I've also looked for apartments in Manhattan and it's completely different than anywhere else.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 16 points 1 year ago

Former Commercial Zoning = Inner City

People are going to fight bare knuckle for that kind of residence at a reasonable price. They charge out the wazoo for small apartments in that area.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago (6 children)

There are sometimes some strange issues with office construction.

There might be no plumbing in the locations people will want for toilets and baths and kitchens in the individual suites away from the core of the building. Same goes for retrofitted laundry facilities.

HVAC systems (in the US anyways) are often centrallized and might need a lot of retrofitting to make it work like a condo/apartment.

Kitchen ventilation

Windows might not open, can't get to a fresh air source

Aside from that stuff, the issue of empty office buildings while we are experiencing unsustainable housing markets is begging for a solution to address the demand.

There will probably be a handy sum to be earned for construction companies who get efficient at conversions.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's not that there might not be plumbing, it's that there is zero plumbing in most office buildings aside from one clustered section for floor where there's 5 to 10 toilets for each gender.

On top of that, you have completely different mechanical systems. An office building for instance may have one single mechanical system for the entire building, whereas an apartment would need separate mechanical systems for each individual apartment.

Then you have the kitchens, bedrooms and interior partition walls that are vastly different than an office building, plus the requirements for exterior windows which precludes larger office buildings with deeper floor plates from being converted at all without demolishing the interior portion of the building. Curtain wall systems that may or may not be compatible between an office and residential building (non-operating windows)... Not to mention the stair and elevator systems are probably not going to work either.

So in the end you're probably looking at gutting the building down to the structure and removing every piece of the building including the outer envelope, roof, all of the electrical plumbing and mechanical systems... In the end it may or may not be cheaper just to build a new building from the ground up.

Source: am architect. And yes, I have done conversions like this in the past.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] favrion@lemmy.ml 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Offices are actually chill if you take out the cubicles and stuff. They are spacious, neutral, and have a bathroom and roof access.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (8 children)

There are 16,000,000 empty homes and 500,000 homeless. Office buildings aren't going to be solving any real problem other than the people who own the building being shit out of luck

[–] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

More supply is more supply. It'll probably drive rent down a bit, assuming the plan works. This makes little difference to unemployed homeless people and does nothing to address the fact that many wealthy people see homes as a tool to secure their capital, but it's not nothing. Hopefully it will help some people who are on the brink be a bit more secure in their housing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@lemmy.ml 32 points 1 year ago

Can we finally get mixed zoning??

[–] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 29 points 1 year ago (13 children)

How about instead of giving money to private companies in the hopes that they build housing you give that money to people so they can afford to live in all the housing that already exists.

Why do libs always make this shit more complicated than it needs to be

[–] barrbaric@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago

Because they don't actually support doing things to help people, they just want to give more money to the rich.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Spyd3r@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (5 children)

And I want politicians to start living in trailer parks, projects, and section 8 housing in the parts of town that their policies are destroying.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And take public transportation!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 29 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Fuck yes. As a libertarian it bothers me that I can’t make my home in any space I can own.

I understand not building rendering plants next to houses. Some zoning is okay. But there is zero reason why I shouldn’t be able to run a 7-Eleven and sleep on a cot in the back if I so choose.

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 37 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Libertarians: Always finding the rarest of occurrences to continue their dismantling of government and the systems that gave them everything they have. lmao

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] TAG@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

But there is zero reason why I shouldn’t be able to run a 7-Eleven and sleep on a cot in the back if I so choose.

Why can't you? I don't believe that there is any law saying you need to have a home in a residential zoned area (anti-homeless laws say that you cannot use public space as a home).

As far as I know, zoning laws just say that you cannot sell or rent out a property in a commercial district as residential. That is a false advertising/minimum allowable quality law, much like you cannot sell the meat of an a diseased animal. Commercial areas likely don't have the infrastructure (schools, utilities, safety) for people to live in.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Biden wants to give money to wealthy landlords so they can build luxury apartments using our tax dollars, so they can rent them out and increase their wealth.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mub@lemmy.zip 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is another proof that office buildings are an anachronism.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A million Grenfell Towers, coming right up

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] notannpc@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Think of the real estate investors! /s

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] unsaid0415@szmer.info 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I like Biden. Giving taxpayer money to developers is another thing, but I'm happy to hear that the US govt is off the RTO madness train, at least in this particular situation. There were those articles about Biden wanting federal workers to return though...

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] blazera@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It all sounds good, but im so jaded now all i can think about is how will the rich find a way to make sure this doesnt lower cost of living for the lower class.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ComfortablyGlum@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago

If utilized as it should be, this Is a really good idea. It creates desperately needed housing, indirectly supports work from home, rescues downtowns struggling from customer loss, helps prevent default on tons of property loans (and preventing something akin to the 2008 crash).

load more comments
view more: next ›