Ever since the pandemic, many landlords, mayors, and bosses have been going through what one might call “the five stages of office grief.” First, in 2020, there was denial that working from home would have any lasting impact. Then, in 2021, there was anger at employees who wouldn’t return, followed by bargaining on the exact number of days people would spend at the office. By 2022, depression had set in, and cities seemed ready to accept the need for radical change. Now, however, the country’s economic rebound provides new ammunition for those who wish to slide back into denial.
Our cities will be better served by embracing the transition to a world that is less centered around offices. That will require diversifying their economic base, streamlining the construction and conversion of new housing and mixed-use neighborhoods, enhancing public services, and doubling down on what makes urban life attractive in its own right—not just as an employment destination. And the effort must start with the recognition that, in good times and bad, the relationship between economic activity and office demand has changed forever.
Even as there are good reasons to have districts of business offices, having fewer offices overall means offices might be better served being more spread out throughout a city and region or having more mixed-use neighborhoods. Americans have long separated land uses but fewer offices presents an opportunity to bring other land use into what once were separate business areas.
This might be a more radical idea but what could be possible if some of those office buildings were not there in the future? Could there be other land uses – not just renovated buildings – that future city residents and property owners would desire?
And could fewer offices mean fewer roads or less emphasis on vehicle traffic? If commuting is not happening at the same rate, what could be possible?
Legally Sociable 