The old suburban office park is the new American ghost town | Hacker News Reader

The old suburban office park is the new American ghost town

washingtonpost.com

247 pointschwolfe358 comments

I think this article perhaps misses the real story. That being, office parks first built in 25+ years ago are reaching an age where their long term leases are expiring and they need to be renovated for the first time since being constructed to attract new tenants.

While it makes sense to renovate an old factory and turn it into trendy office space with exposed brick and vintage architectural details from decades past you have to wonder what the fate of more recently constructed buildings will be. It's hard to see any situation where the 90's office park building will ever be valued for it's structural appeal to the extent that people will want to gut and remodel it instead of bulldozing.

Except there aren't tenants to renovate for which is why they are sitting empty and not being renovated. The long term tenants don't want new paint and carpeting, they want to be in the city.

Exactly, I see this as the same situation as shopping centers and big box retailers. The cost of renovation etc, is not low enough compared to the cost of building a new building in a better location for the current times.

On top of that, the DC metro area is becoming very public transit oriented. Most employers consider good access via public transit an important feature when looking for office space.

Being in an outside suburb based upon the current design of the metro transit system means that someone from northern VA will have to travel all the way into DC then transfer back out the Maryland which makes for a significantly longer commute as opposed to an office more centrally located along the metro lines.

> On top of that, the DC metro area is becoming very public transit oriented. Most employers consider good access via public transit an important feature when looking for office space.

While at the same time the Metro is going to hell.

I disagree. With the new funds coming in, improvements are being done on the metro constantly, they seem to be rebuilding tracks every weekend. On top of that, the new 7000 series train cars are a BIG step up from the old ones. I had a chance to ride in one the other day, and it addressed many of he problems of the older cars. Once the roll out of the 7000-series cars is complete and they take the old cars offline, there should be a big reduction in the amount of delays (which are mostly due to cars having issues).

Got kicked off two trains yesterday for doors that would not close and just bout missed my MARC train. I rather walk the 2 miles to Union Station than ride the METRO.

WMATA is improving in some spots but there are still A LOT of problems with the metro as it stands. There are regularly major delays, they still haven't fixed the automated control since the fatal accident in 2009, there have been more reports of smoke in the tunnels since the fatal incident this year, and they're having to deal with a a bunch of financial irregularities.

I hope things improve but as of right now it doesn't look like they've turned the corner.

Exactly, DC is quickly becoming a public transit city.

In this case the building was more than a mile from the closest metro station. Doesn't sound like a lot, but try walking it every day in DC summer heat. Not fun.

One common occurrence where I live is that county and cities are buying up the old office parks and even strip malls to convert them into government buildings. Most are ideally located as well as being offered up for sale cheaply. Seen even a few charitable organizations buy up parts of a strip mall for the cheap space by square foot.

Besides the age a lot of REITs cashed out awhile ago and I am not sure the market is there. Plus people are even further out and those who tended to move had the means to do so and their spending went with them.

Suburbia certainly isn't dieing.

I've seen this also. Also community colleges (for example Austin community college in Austin Texas) are doing the same.

Medical malls, too, perhaps?

Unfortunately for some zoning prevents you from living in those spaces. A friend of mine tried to get a zone variance to turn an office building into essentially a multifamily dwelling and the city turned him down flat. They suggested he could buy the property, tear down the building, get it rezoned, and then build dwellings there. But not go in and convert a perfectly usable space into a livable space. Sigh.

Similar issue here. What I wanted to do was take a warehouse (zoned light industrial), essentially cut it in half, and live next to my workshop.

Explaining that this is common in my home country, it'd take at least one car off the road during commute hours (mine), etc. was in vain.

Lots of people do that type of thing here too, but un-permitted. If you wanted to be really particular, you could probably get a permit for the work itself (plumbing, kitchen, etc) as long as it wasn't specified as residential.

This is what we've come to though - the government has taken away our rights and sell them back to us with permits.

>This is what we've come to though - the government has taken away our rights and sell them back to us with permits.

Perfectly stated. Perhaps especially in this case with "zoning" laws. Dealing with a bunch of crap myself in trying to find commercial properties. Unbelievable the number of codes and rules...

>This is what we've come to though - the government has taken away our rights and sell them back to us with permits.

Ah yes, my inalienable right to zone property as I see fit because I want to redevelop it. So often forgotten.

Yea most local governments are slow and obtuse with zoning, but it's not as if the concept of zoning is a violation of your rights, or even that bad of a thing. Criticism is fine, but using hyperbolic statements about how the government is stealing our rights is just asinine.

The government is telling you that you cannot use your own property as you see fit (with the threat of being kidnapped or stolen from).

Zoning is to prevent a paper factory from opening up shop next to an elementary school, not to give themselves a job by creating arbitrary rules.

So what is it; Can I build whatever I want on any property I own, or can the government stop me from building a paper factory next to an elementary school?

You've thrown out two contradictory statements. If you agree with zoning in certain circumstances then you can't hold that property is a right for use by owner as they see fit(without the threat of being kidnapped or stolen from). Just because the current zoning system in most locales is overly bureaucratic, or even corrupt, doesn't mean the idea of zoning should be done away, or that property is a right the government can't interfere with.

Criticism is one thing, but framing this as an issue about the government taking away our rights is not productive.

Easy, I don't know if any jurisdictions have this notion, but most people would agree that industrial buildings are less pleasant than commercial buildings which are less pleasant than residential.

Forbid people from building factories in commercial zones, or restaurants in residential zones without permits, but don't impede the reverse. If people want to live in an industrial zone, let them.

Sure there are downsides to this, a developer could buy up part of an industrial zone and build houses on it, which might reduce the efficiency of the industry around it, and would require the residents to petition to have their area rezone to avoid someone building a paper factory next to their elementary school. But as discussed, there are downsides of the current approach.

You're still arguing about the details of how zoning should be implemented, not whether it's a fundamental right.

Japan has something similar to this. You can build buildings of a higher restriction (residential being more strict then industrial) in a lower restriction zone.

This article describes it rather well.

http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html

I'm in favor of this, but to play the devil's advocate - what happens to the 20% that remains after 80% of an industrial zone has been converted to residential?

It's going to be like when people buy houses next to the airport then complain about the noise

Being a fundamental right doesn't mean limitless. Free speech is a fundamental right, yet you will get into trouble when you yell fire in a theater. And of course property right is a fundamental right, we just sacrifice some the of the property right in the form of zoning laws to achieve other goals, similar to our other rights. When somebody asked us to sacrifice our rights without enough reason, it is a violation of the rights.

It's called a Variance, and in my county(Marin county) they are never issued anymore. They used to be issued to "good ole boys", but those days are even over.(I'm glad that's the case. Why should just rich boys, or networked boys get what they want?)

If you are living a commercial zoned space; realize that the government can come into your building(at anytime), slap a red tag on it, and the tenant is out. (My father had an illegial mother in-law unit in his garage(done well, even ADA accessible), wasn't even charging rent.

Well this building inspector found out about it. Knocked on my father's door. My father let him in. The guy told my father he needs to tear out the illegial unit. Well my father being the sensible Irishman, took the Inspector, threw him on the ground, frisked him, and called the Cops. My father had no idea these guys had so much authority. He thought he was being set up for a home invasion? No in reality, he just "lost it". He knew--he was in the Trades. He got mad--it happens to the best of us? Well, since this was years ago, and my father had his best friend(an Oakland cop) come to court; my father got off scott free. White privlege? (That day, my father realized too much government power is just wrong. I never heard, "They probally got what they deserved!"

While I'm at it; my rich neighbor, decided to build a three bedroom house on his property. Property his parents bought him 40 years ago. He has 20 acres? It was right after the 2008 crash. He needed rental income to live his lavish lifestyle. He thought he was a Titan, and "More people should get creative in down economies?"

He got all the permits. He spend $850,000 building the place. It was ready to rent! His first renter told him he would gladly move his family in, but there's rent control in detached homes. He could only rent to people at or below the federal poverty level, and rent was tied to this metric in some way? Instead of getting $5000/month---he could only rent it out for around $800. He was floored! Beyond angry. It's still just sitting there. (This is the only rent control we have in Marin County. I'm still a fan of some form of rent control though.) He told his mother she could live in the detached house for free. She said, 'I bought you your mansion, those fancy cars, antiques, and for all your stupid failed businesses(Businesses that kept him thinking he was completely self made? No one helped me out? A real Horato Alger's; I'll sleep in the mansion, and you sleep in the detached house!' Love that mom! Really, she set this dude up for life, why shouldn't she expect to sleep in the mansion? (I don't care if your parents made you wealthy, but admit it, and help needy family members? I've only know a few rich boys who weren't in denial--George Sorrows comes to mind. He frequently states, 'My wealth is completely due to my father's generosity, and connections! He's an interesting man. He's also an author. He believes his wealth prevents people from taking his writing seriously. He might be right?)

Cheers! (Make sure you are not overpaying rent. I know dudes who don't tell tenants about rent control. They wait until the tenant figures it out.)

"He got all the permits. He spend $850,000 building the place. It was ready to rent! His first renter told him he would gladly move his family in, but there's rent control in detached homes. He could only rent to people at or below the federal poverty level, and rent was tied to this metric in some way? Instead of getting $5000/month---he could only rent it out for around $800."

Sounds like, with spending all that money on the building, he could have taken 10 minutes to call a real estate lawyer and find that out.

My dad was on his city's zoning board for a few years. What he learned was that a variance was only supposed to be used in cases where the intent of the zoning ordinance was inapplicable, such as some physical obstacle in your property, or as an extreme case, a person who had no back yard and wanted a fenced-in place for his toddler to play.

But "hardship" cases were supposed to be rejected. What really happened was that the board approved every case, and my dad quit the board after that became apparent.

A current example is video game bars, like Barcade. There are often antiquated restrictions on video game arcades in zoning law that are aimed solely at kids, to prevent truancy. They make no sense in the modern world, in a place aimed at adults. Check out this list of variances this place needs:

"Variances to allow 50 game machines were a maximum of three are permitted, 2 game machines per 100sf of area where a maximum of 1 is permitted, no side or front clearance for game machines where 3ft and 8ft respectively are required, no attendant for 50 game machines where 4 are required and no off-street bicycle stalls where 24 stalls are required for a 100 seat Café with 50 game machines. A"

That's certainly valid. I'd suggest it's a case where the remedy would be to update the zoning laws, so it's done in a somewhat more transparent fashion.

A developer just got my state to pass a law saying that a particular property in my neighborhood is exempt from our city zoning laws.

An argument for that idea of making laws expire by default unless renewed.

Taking your description literally, there is no legal way under any reasonable zoning code that a zoning department could issue a variance to allow a prohibited residential use on a property zoned and currently occupied by an office building. The variance is a mechanism for relieving a hardship that runs with the land by allowing limited non-conformity (e.g. setbacks on a non-conforming lot or the continuation of a previously legal but currently non-conforming use).

On the other hand, though local regulations can vary, it is unlikely that tearing down the building would be a prerequisite for a rezoning application. It sounds more like just ordinary planners doing their job and seeing what they can get a developer to do...their job is a bit like a cop trying to get a confession: they're allowed to mislead to maximize results. In fairness, an office building probably puts more money into the city coffers [the term of art is "highest and best use"] than a residential development and thus discouraging downzoning is not unreasonable.

Finally, planning departments are a bit like compilers: using the right or wrong terms to describe something is often the difference between being able to do something by right and flat out denial. Every city seems to have their pitbull real-estate attorney who gets stuff through the planning commission via their craft where out of towners and novices will fail. The public access channel makes them easy to identify.

Agreed. I spent two years getting a piece of property split in an unusual way. It was totally legal, just weird enough that it encountered friction at every imaginable level. Everyone at the city, county level, even attorneys that should have understood reacted with "whoa, wait a minute" at each stage.

At the end it was worth it, a nice return for the time spent. But not easy, and certainly not clearly understood.

Care to elaborate?

I'd love to know more about what you did, if you'd be willing to share the story? Sounds fascinating.

I had a 6.2 acre lot in an area that was zoned for 3.3 acre lots. I could not get a variance, so I purchased a tiny sliver of useless land from a neighbor. It was a strip of land on a gas line easement and thus totally unusable. It only connected to my property for 10 feet of property line, but I was able to purchase the neighbors unusable land (he had 4.5 acres to start with, losing .4 left him with 4.1 and still over the 3.3 minimum). So I combined the 6.2 and .4 acre lots into one and then re-split them.

So the order of operations was: 1 Buy 6.2 acre lot 2 buy .4 acre slice of easement 3 get lots surveyed and combined 4 survey lots again for split 5 apply to county for split 6 get split but have to sell both halves on the same day because mortgage company would not release the lien on only one half of original property. 7 $$Profit$$

about 2 years and made about $100,000 net. Total sale was $440,000 of both properties and one house.

I think you mean "any American zoning code", not "any reasonable code". In Japan, zones are additive: if commercial use is permitted, residential use is also permitted.

http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/japanese-zoning.h...

That said, in Japan the idea of converting a building from one use to another is virtually unknown. Buildings aren't built to last, so it's cheaper and easier to tear them down and rebuild to your liking.

Stacked zoning exists in the US and was very common in the wave of local zoning adoptions in the 1920's. Over time, other forms have tended to replace it or be selected for initial ordinances. I suspect Japan's history of zoning like many of it's political institutions arose under rather different circumstances in the 1940's, hence it is national law rather than local.

Anyway, I qualified "residential" with "prohibited".

Even without zoning it's not entirely straightforward, although at least possible. Houston has no formal zoning, but there are building/safety codes, so you can't just live in part of a warehouse as-is. You have to redo the whole thing to be up to residential code.

>dieing

Just curious, this is the second time I see this today. Is this a mistake, or is it a regional alternate form from somewhere?

> county and cities are buying up the old office parks and even strip malls to convert them into government buildings. Most are ideally located as well as being offered up for sale cheaply.

The point of the grandparent comment is that these buildings are old and in need of expensive maintenance. Why should any government body move in such a building? Can they provide the needed maintenance cheaper that the current owner would do? Or will they move their offices in a decrepit building?

Maybe it's hard to see, but these things have a way of coming back around. In 50-60 years the office parks that still exist might very well be where all the hip YC startups of 2066 want to be.

Or they'll be vast wastelands, with YC startups employing remote workers scattered across the globe working from their homes over their high speed Internet connections.

Maybe they will bulldoze them and build parks in their place.

I can dream.

I too hope for that future. Megacities for some, sustainable homes for others, the rest of the world returned to the wild.

Unfortunately, I think the more realistic outcome would be that the rest of the world would be turned into farmland or pastureland.

Possibly. We're already providing more than enough food in the US with existing farmland (although the problem is it isn't distributed properly to people who need said food). Pastureland could be reduced with meat grown in vats instead of raised on farms (or people simply shifting from a meat-heavy diet).

The population trajectory appears to be ballistic, with us hitting the apex in the next 5-15 years (educated women have less children and prolong having children until later in life; almost all first world countries are already below replacement rate, India and China won't be far behind).

In fact everywhere of any significance except Africa is already at or bellow fertility rates of 2. As you say education and low child mortality creates smaller families.

The problem is not population (or even food production) but energy consumption. But that effects our first world lifestyle so no one in the first world wants to take it seriously.

> The problem is not population (or even food production) but energy consumption. But that effects our first world lifestyle so no one in the first world wants to take it seriously.

The first world is rapidly getting more efficient with regards to energy usage, and while I can't speak to the rest of the world, the US is quickly deploying renewables. With wind generation alone, we can supply 10x our annual energy consumption.

Enough sunlight hits the earth ever 5 minutes to power the entire world for a year. Its not an energy problem, its a capture and distribution problem.

Sustainable homes are a joke in poor taste. Cities are vastly better for the environment than the same number of people in so called ‘green’ homes in low density areas.

Nothing wrong with low density areas if the homes are sustainable and transportation is electrified.

Sure, you can minimize global harm from pollution etc., but locally even something as simple as a house cat can have large scale impacts. Further, people want large changes like dams to reduce flooding, drainage etc.

Aesthetically, it might seem more natural than asphalt, but lawns are a long way from ‘nature’. Realistically to have anything close to 'nature' assuming zero farming you’re looking at ~1 person per square mile if that.

> Aesthetically, it might seem more natural than asphalt, but lawns are a long way from ‘nature’. Realistically to have anything close to 'nature' assuming zero farming you’re looking at ~1 person per square mile if that.

Not sure I terribly agree with your person per square mile argument. Yes, lawns are a terrible waste (footnote: did you know that lawns trace back to medievel times? How much land you could afford to grow lawn on was a measure of wealth) and should be heavily disincentivized. But at the same time, if my house is zero net energy (solar power, solar thermal for water, tight envelope), and the transportation of myself and the goods I acquire are provided via renewable energy (electric cars/trucks powered by clean renewables), there isn't a strong argument against rural living.

Roads in low population areas take up a lot of space and kill a lot of wildlife.

The buildings weren't built robustly enough for that. They're cheap crap and often have horrible lighting and energy efficiency. (Not to mention that if you must drive to it, it's inherently bad for the environment.)

Also, no quality lunch spots nearby. You're probably limited to things like Applebee's and Subway.

Most of them will probably go away, but I wouldn't scratch them off. Things have an uncanny way of coming back when people stop trying to make something of them, when they become abandoned and creative folks are allowed to do as they wish to the structure.

No one wants to work in these builds right now because (as you pointed out), e.g. horrible lighting and ambiance. But if you came back to it, and knocked some holes in the roof (easy to do, because, again, they're cheap crap), then suddenly, it could actually turn into the sort of dorm that we'd actually wanted to be in.

More like 5-6 years. As Gen Y goes through their 30s, forms households and has children they will value these places more.

I don't think so. This quote is key: “I now say that brainy youngsters are trending urban and urbane, away from your grandfather’s office parks.”

Real estate analysis is showing that for the first time since it's been measuring more people are looking for housing in denser, more urban environments than in the traditional suburbs.

An enormous number of people, especially young people, are looking to avoid spending their lives in cars. Comparing these quiet & dull campuses to a vibrant city really makes it hard to imagine working in them any more.

People follow the jobs, jobs don't follow people. A more likely scenario is that those jobs are just gone, not that they moved downtown to catch the special snowflakes. Or downtown addresses have replaced campuses whenever executives get together to dick wave.

>An enormous number of people, especially young people, are looking to avoid spending their lives in cars.

Young people never wanted to spend their lives in cars. What's different with this generation is they don't seem to have much interest in forming families, so they move to the trendier areas and spend all their money instead of living in a cheaper area, commuting, and saving for a situation that would be good for raising children.

The other difference is big US cities are quite a bit cleaner and safer than they were a generation ago. In the last few years the federal government has been moving subsidized housing to he suburbs, and with it has gone a lot of the crime.

> What's different with this generation is they don't seem to have much interest in forming families, so they move to the trendier areas and spend all their money instead of living in a cheaper area, commuting, and saving for a situation that would be good for raising children.

I think it might be simpler than this. They just can't afford to raise a family as easily as their parents and grandparents could, so many choose not to, not because they legitimately have no interest but because they don't see the numbers adding up. On top of that, it's often no more expensive to rent a small apartment in the city vs. a large house in a suburb. And that large house with its tiring commute is just a burden to someone without kids.

As someone a bit over 30; exactly this.

The numbers do NOT add up and haven't at any point in my life. Then there's also the job stability issue as well; who wants to buy a house or start a family when you don't know you'll be somewhere for years? Also with many family units having two workers, what happens when one doesn't have a job?

None of our social structures (including laws and tax incentives/disincentives) or market valuations reflect the necessary liquidity imposed by current job market.

I happen to think that more nicely constructed MDUs are a good housing option (insulation could always be better).

>Then there's also the job stability issue as well; who wants to buy a house or start a family when you don't know you'll be somewhere for years?

I can't help but feel that you're describing some mythical ideal that never really existed for most people. Yes, for a long time, a lot of manufacturing jobs were pretty stable and people worked for IBM for a long time. But, even in that case, even if the jobs were stable, people tended to move around the company a lot. The military, which has always been a large employer, is an even more extreme example of jobs being relatively stable but mobile.

By the way, according to this Economist article from a couple years back, US workforce mobility has actually gone down significantly to a degree not explained by demographics: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/07/labour-m...

>Also with many family units having two workers, what happens when one doesn't have a job?

And what happened when there was more typically one worker and he (the common case) lost his job?

But that's the point - workers mostly didn't lose their jobs.

Some computer companies - DEC especially - made it a point of honour not to lay off or fire employees unless the circumstances were exceptional.

I don't think people "moved around the company a lot" either. Certainly not any more than they do today.

Mobility has gone down because only exceptional jobs pay relocation expenses, and the areas that offer the highest income also have the least affordable housing.

So there's less disposable income around than there was in the 50s-70s, and that makes people much warier of starting a family.

>They just can't afford to raise a family as easily as their parents and grandparents could, so many choose not to, not because they legitimately have no interest but because they don't see the numbers adding up.

That's the conventional wisdom, but I don't buy it. Raising a family was always tough - when I was young my parents scrimped and saved in a way that I've never seen among millennials. Everybody did, and it was considered just part of parenthood, especially in the beginning.

It's not that younger people can't raise a family as easily as their parents and grandparents, it's that either they don't realize how tough it was back then or they're just not interested in making the same sacrifices.

>On top of that, it's often no more expensive to rent a small apartment in the city vs. a large house in a suburb. And that large house with its tiring commute is just a burden to someone without kids.

Sure, but it's far cheaper to rent a small apartment in the suburbs and commute than it is to rent in the city.

Yes, commuting sucks. But it sucked in the 20th century as well. My dad spent more than an hour on the road each way. Every day. That't the kind of sacrifice I'm talking about. In addition to the commute my dad brown bagged his lunch every day, made his own coffee (Folgers), drank PBR non-ironically, did his own plumbing, painted what needed painting, mowed his own lawn, and fixed the family car himself when it broke down. If you live that kind of lifestyle today you can afford a family in the same way my parents did.

I'm not making a moral judgement on the other peoples' procreation choices. All I'm saying is family was a priority for previous generations in a way that it isn't today. It was part of being an adult.

>...in a way that it isn't today.

I submit that you're comparing unmarried and childless people of today with married and child-bearing people of yesteryear.

Do the other comparisons and you'll find that you are off base -- people today do make enormous sacrifices to start families at a young age, and people in the 50s to 80s who were single with no children did live lavish lifestyles.

To the extent that there are differences between the primary peer comparison -- married couples raising children -- it's mostly a byproduct of the fact that people wait longer and have smaller families.

Waiting longer is some combination of less social pressure to pop out kids (a good thing! Having kids because of an obnoxious parent's pestering is how you end up with broken families, divorced or otherwise) and a better understanding of fertility/access to medical care (also a good thing).

Smaller family sizes are, IMO and as someone who grew up in a large family, a good thing as well. Keeping the size of one's family manageable means having the time to both build up a career and also heavily invest in the upbringing of each child.

I think that's far more commendable than the "pop 'em out, pay for shit, parent on the weekends and leave wifey in the kitchen the rest of the time" mentality of a huge portion of the baby boom generation. And also more commendable than leaving yourself penniless and jobless in old age for your children to take care of you.

It's possible to raise one or two or maybe three kids well. Doing a good job at raising five or six means someone has to give up a career, and even then you're probably just barely keeping up (i.e., not doing the best possible job at fostering intellectual and emotional health.)

>Do the other comparisons and you'll find that you are off base -- people today do make enormous sacrifices to start families at a young age, and people in the 50s to 80s who were single with no children did live lavish lifestyles.

... which was my point. People in their 20s today have it no harder than their parents and grandparents. They're simply choosing not to have families in larger numbers.

The quoted comment does not contain the concession you seem to think it does. On the contrary, the quoted section of my previous comment simply states that people in their 20s today have it at least as hard as their parents and grandparents. I'm silent (here) on the question of whether it's harder today.

> They're simply choosing not to have families in larger numbers.

This is only meaningfully entailed by the data if you believe that, historically, everyone who had kids "chose" to do so. I don't think that's accurate, especially if we go back past 1970-1980 or so.

Remember that birth control has only been universally legal in the US for barely a half century. And normalized for a far shorter period of time. In fact, I'd argue that in a huge portion of the country, it's still something of a dirty secret in that you wouldn't necessarily want your employer or extended family to know about it (and we've recently had a supreme court case about this...)

Birth control was readily available by 1970. Presumably you've heard about "free love" and all that?

> Birth control was readily available by 1970.

1. Singling out access to birth control is a red herring. Mainstream gender norms and mainstream social pressure to have a family have changed a lot since the 1970s. Especially in more conservative parts of the country.

2. Birth control was fully legalized in the US in 1964 by Supreme Court mandate; 2015 - 1964 = 51 years (barely a half century, exactly as I stated above...).

3. There's a difference between legal and available.

4. There's a difference between available and socially acceptable. Although things have gotten significantly better over time, stigma and conservative views on sex outside of marriage continues to prevent contraceptive use among significant populations (most significantly anyone under 18 with conservative parents, but IME even married people into their 20s who had a conservative upbringing). In many ways, we are STILL fighting the battle against stigma associated with use of contraceptives. See the debate surrounding contraceptives and the ACA, or sex education in public schools. Or ask a Catholic priest.

Again, things have improved significantly and continue to improve. But assuming that 1964 or the wave in the 1970s were watershed events across the country is a bit niave.

5. Again, singling out birth control is a red herring. It is no doubt an important contributing factor in both the time to first child and the size of families. But the social norms surrounding women -- especially in conservative parts of the country -- have changed significantly since the 1970s, and that's also an important contributing factor.

Concretely, I'm not sure that "subjected to coercive social pressure and not provided with a college education because they're already married and that's the point" exactly counts as "choice". That might not have been common in the Chicago suburbs in the 1970s, but it definitely was in rural Georgia...

I think a lot of people are REALLY underestimating the 'access to birth control' part of the equation. People wait longer today to have kids because they can CHOOSE to wait.

Indeed! That's (part of) what I meant by access to medical care. I think that people also tend to not view having a child in your mid 30s as unnecessarily risky, which I think 20,30,40 years ago was a more common belief/concern.

The combination of the ability to choose to wait and the belief that you can wait and still have a family is, I think, a potent one.

> That's the conventional wisdom, but I don't buy it. Raising a family was always tough.

I'm not saying it wasn't tough, but housing prices were much lower relative to incomes in the 50s and 60s, even in a place like San Francisco. Several of my relatives own million dollar homes there, and none of them are college educated or had spectacular careers or anything. Their only advantage is they were part of previous generations. Not a single one of them could hope to buy their current homes if they were starting their career from scratch today. Relative to housing costs, they enjoyed incomes that today would be in the range of a $300k+ base salary.

We look back on their lives and don't see them as particularly posh because we're blinded by the astounding pace of technological growth. You could make a million dollars a year but you couldn't have a microwave oven before it was invented.

> Yes, commuting sucks. But it sucked in the 20th century as well.

Sure it did, but it's a lot worse today because traffic congestion has progressed to unprecedented levels. It's not just about time spent commuting -- it's also about how stressful the commute itself is. Whenever my dad visits here in Houston, who used to do a big city commute in the 70s and 80s in Dallas with no problem, he freaks out because of how bad the traffic is.

relative to housing costs, they enjoyed incomes that today would be in the range of a $300k+ base salary.

Do you have a source for that? I can believe it in certain cities (like SF), but then again, SF wasn't as desirable a place to live either (SF population was dropping in the 60's and 70's).

>I'm not saying it wasn't tough, but housing prices were much lower relative to incomes in the 50s and 60s, even in a place like San Francisco.

What do you mean even? San Francisco has to be in the top five in terms of growth in the value of property over that time period. There's no way incomes could keep up. But that's an outlier. Housing in the East Bay is very affordable.

>Sure it did, but it's a lot worse today because traffic congestion has progressed to unprecedented levels.

That's kind of an uneven thing. As I pointed out in another comment, the traffic in Southern California is better today than it was in the '70s. Texas has gotten the lion's share of the country's growth in recent years - I'm not surprised Houston is bad.

>The other difference is big US cities are quite a bit cleaner and safer than they were a generation ago.

While it's not universal, there are large areas of major coastal cities (among others) that middle-class+ people would have hesitated or flat-out typically not have lived in 30 years ago that are now considered highly desirable.

That said, it's easy to overstate the US Millennials want to all live in the city trend. FiveThirtyEight had a piece a while back that basically concluded the urbanization trend is largely exaggerated. The more accurate statement is that college-educated millennials are slightly more likely to live in a handful of particularly dense urban locations (think Brooklyn).[1]

In fact, they say that, among all adults 25-34 the percentage in urban locations overall has actually declined a little. The data is complicated to interpret but their bottom line was that: "Millennials overall, therefore, are not increasingly living in urban neighborhoods. Rather, the most educated one-third of young adults are increasingly likely to live in the densest urban neighborhoods. That’s great news for cities trying to attract young graduates and a sign that urban neighborhoods have become more desirable for those who can afford them. But the presence of more smart young things in Brooklyn is not evidence that millennials are a more urban generation."

There are a lot of trends going on in parallel that make it hard to draw clear non-anecdotal conclusions about where people prefer to live. I also think a lot of people on this board probably find it easier to work remotely or to cherry-pick a job in easy commuting distance (whatever their preferred mode of commuting) than is the norm. Furthermore, in many cases, preferences for dense cities, suburbs, and the country are sufficiently deep-rooted that a lot of folks have trouble understanding how anyone could see things differently.

[1] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-millennials-are-less...

> Young people never wanted to spend their lives in cars.

Actually, many of them did. Talk to some old people in the US suburbs about what life was like when they were young in the '50s and '60s. Most grew up in a dense city and then voluntarily left it for the suburbs. Most of them thought spending their life in a car was great -- certainly way better than having to take the bus or the train. It was a sign of success. When cars went mass-market as America suburbanized, densely built urban areas and the use of public transport were increasingly associated with poverty and being trapped in the archaic past.

If you lived in the suburbs and commuted by car, it was prestigious, it was modern; it meant you were doing well for yourself financially, and were forward-looking to a brighter future with new and better ways of doing things. It was the 1950s cultural equivalent of working at a startup and living in a gentrifying hipster neighborhood in San Francisco today.

No doubt someone will reply that these perceptions was all manufactured merely due to General Motors malfeasance and marketing campaigns. That may be true, but that's entirely beside the point. Those campaigns worked because many young people then actually did agree with their content, and were very happy to drive everywhere.

>Most of them thought spending their life in a car was great -- certainly way better than having to take the bus or the train. It was a sign of success.

You're overstating that quite a bit. Sure, driving for twenty minutes beats taking public transportation. But sitting in stop and go traffic for a couple hours every day is awful and people always realized it.

How much stop and go traffic was there in the 50s?

I don't know about the 50s, but by the sixties traffic was as bad in some places as it is today. Traffic in Southern California, where I grew up, is actually better today than it was in the 70s.

That's about when it started getting bad. The term "Sig Alert", for an unplanned lane closure, originated in LA in 1955. It takes its name from Loyd C. "Sig" Sigmon, who created a radio-based notification system for the California Highway Patrol:

Sigmon developed a specialized radio receiver and reel-to-reel tape recorder. When the receiver picked up a particular tone, it would record the subsequent bulletin. The device cost about $600. The LAPD's chief, William H. Parker, was interested, though skeptical, warning the inventor, "We're going to name this damn thing Sigalert." More practically, he refused to use it unless the receivers were made available to all Los Angeles radio stations — it could not be a KMPC monopoly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sig_Alert#The_origin_of_the_Si...

Bad traffic was mostly limited to a few large cities such as LA then. In most of the US, it was not nearly as bad.

It was also believed that traffic was a fairly minor infrastructure problem that could easily be resolved by widening the highways, adding a few more lanes here and there. (Turns out that when you add lanes, it just causes that many more people to drive on that road, but this was not yet widely apparent at the time.)

>In the last few years the federal government has been moving subsidized housing to he suburbs, and with it has gone a lot of the crime.

Thank you Obama and HUD. My nice, small city has had several gang-related murders in the last few years, all within subsidized housing.

Yeah sure. The real story is that the younger kids have lousier paying jobs and items like cars are prohibitively expensive.

My dad had a loaded up Mustang that cost like $2500 in the late 60s, at 19 or 20, paid for by bartending. The equivalent car today is probably 2x-2.5x more in real terms.

The city is coming back because it's the undervalued and people are priced out of the newer suburbs. People end up reproducing, so the permanent underclass and garbage schools will probably send most of these folks to the older suburbs.

I remember paying over a dollar a minute in the '80s for a phone call to my sister in the same state. Air fare was crazy expensive compared to today, as was anything electronic.

Some things have gotten more expensive, and other things have gotten cheaper. Overall it's a wash. If it seems like life is more expensive it's because people buy a lot of things today that we didn't have back then. Things you don't really need, like cable TV and $5 coffee.

It's not "a wash". Housing and education are dramatically more expensive than they were a few generations ago. Gone are the days of paying for your degree waiting tables with enough left over to put a down payment on a house. Now you can look forward to a mountain of debt for an education and mortgage that you might never pay off in your life time.

It might be "a wash". Housing and education are more expensive, but food and entertainment costs are way lower. The cost of most things inside your home, like appliances and televisions is cheaper. Tools, hardware, and common home repairs are also cheaper.

It's very hard to get an exact 1:1 ratio, as many of us spend hundreds of dollars on cell phones that didn't exist back then, or thousands on computers, but naming two economic things that have gotten more expensive doesn't invalidate the myriad of things that have gotten commensurately cheaper.

For the bottom 50% of earners, real wages are more or less the same now as they were in 1970. They went up for a bit from the 90s to 08, but they are back at 1970 levels now. Because wages have recently fallen, people in this group feel very poor right now.

For the top 50% of earners (increasing the closer to the top you get), real wages have increased a lot since the 1970s.

Between 1940 and 1985, most people were able to save about 5% of their income. Between 1985 and 2012, this decreased to become negative (i.e. most people live on debt).

Medical care, education, and energy have increased in cost several times over since 1970, and these costs are not captured in the real wages I quoted. It may be these costs explain why people have a lower disposable income, demonstrated by decreased savings rate.

> Housing and education are more expensive, but food and entertainment costs are way lower.

While that's true, it's certainly not "a wash." Housing and education are probably people's two biggest lifetime expenses. Even if housing prices doubled and food prices were cut by two thirds, the outcome would be higher overall expenses.

Personally, rent in a small apartment is more than all my other expenses combined.

The problem is that, based on the factual numbers, this isn't true -- it's not a wash.

Housing, Education, and Healthcare (things everyone bought "back then") have gotten dramatically more expensive, far more than the other categories have dropped. It's not a wash, and the numbers back that up :

"The current average family of four spends: - 21% less on clothing - 44% less on major appliances - 69% more on housing - 90% more on health care Than the average family spent in 1970's.

http://www.yale.edu/law/leo/052005/papers/Warren.pdf (these numbers are graphed on page 16)

Things like education, health care, and rent are all baked into the inflation numbers. If inflation and income growth are relatively constant (and they have been) then, yes, it is a wash. All she's proving here is people have more money to spend on the things that matter to them.

> What's different with this generation is they don't seem to have much interest in forming families

Do you have any evidence to support that, or are you just engaged in standard Millennial-bashing?

Most people in my peer group certainly plan to raise a family in the future, they're just being responsible and waiting to have kids until they are at a good place career-wise.

There are two factors that determine how much money you have. Being "at a good place career-wise" is only half the equation. Your career better be going to a really, really good place if it requires living in an area with $4500/month rent.

> Your career better be going to a really, really good place if it requires living in an area with $4500/month rent.

There's no requirement that you stay in the same place which made your career.

My personal plan is to work in NYC for the next ten years and then take the accumulated savings to buy a house outright in a nice town.

A few years ago, I was quite surprised by the number of younger co-workers who lived in the city instead of the burbs.

Anyway, it didn't last. In every case except one (confirmed bachelor), they moved out to the burbs as soon as they our spouse got mugged or were going to have kids and realized they needed to be in a district with decent schools.

Would they still prefer the burbs if those issues weren't issues? They're just the hipsters who jumped ship (I mean no disrespect; they selflessly gave up the city life they otherwise wanted) before it got cool (and conditions improved).

While I don't doubt your story, here in Brisbane living in Fortitude Valley is safe, close to everything, and quite fun all things considered. Multiple new residential apartment buildings have gone up or are going up (driving my rent down, which is brilliant for me), and there are numerous families that live here too, interestingly.

Everything I just said actually agrees with your main point however, as the best schools are just up the road from here, and it's much safer than I've heard a lot of big cities in the US are. It's interesting to see so many people move into this area now, as I've been here for years and love it; it's great for me, more development of better facilities have seen this grow by leaps and bounds.

Could they be converted into cheap housing?

I've seen one building like this in watertown ma. I think it was converted during a downturn. I used to walk by it, "riverbank lofts"

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.368276,-71.198303,3a,90y,169...

But while it could be done, most offices don't have the insides separated out (wiring,plumbing) installed and non-opening windows. And zoning.

It can be done, but it might not end up being cheap.

This is not usually possible because of the cost to run plumbing. You have to gut the entire facility in order to put kitchens and bathrooms in every apartment and it just isn't (usually) cost effective.

True in practice, though shared bathrooms & kitchens are no impossibility.

Yes, it costs some money, but it's been done countless times in old warehouses in cities and towns around the world.

Of course, I don't think modern office buildings will have the appeal of "exposed brick" and "thick wooden support beams", but maybe the people of 100 years ago would have thought the same about those buildings.

These places have slab floors, and jackhammering sucks, but that isn't the end of the discussion. They typically have really high ceilings, so false floors aren't impossible. Clever architecting can group plumbing-required rooms together. Also, if we're talking about low-income, alternative housing for singles and couples, is a janitor-included shared bathroom down the hall even a problem? Many of the old hotels that are used for this purpose also have this.

Lack of opening windows is a bigger deal. Replacing all the curtain walls and stripping the place down to concrete gets suspiciously close to new construction costs. The land had better be worth it.

I've seen in down quite successfully in dense urban locations for condos but that only worked because the land was highly valuable and the building had grandfathered exemption from zoning / sightline laws for height.

The insides of most office buildings would need a lot of rework before they were acceptable housing. And the end result would be ugly on the outside , and it'd be located in a deserted office park.

It seems like in most cases it'd be cheaper to either tear them down before rebuilding, or to just start building from scratch in a more desirable location.

Office buildings can be very hard to convert to residential uses.

Office tenants want large, unbroken floorplans, so most office buildings built in the last few decades have a lot of interior space that's far from any windows. Residential uses need windows for every unit.

Adding plumbing for individual kitchens and baths, creating separate HVAC zones, etc. adds more costs and complications.

>old factory and turn it into trendy office space with exposed brick and vintage architectural details

That's not why we renovate factories. We renovate them because they are in a location we desire (big city centers). The suburbs are a cultural and transportation wasteland for the most part and have nothing but cheap land. Its just unpleasant real estate. Sadly, a lot of smaller companies migrated out to the suburbs because the CEO could simply make a call to move the business closer to his house. This land just makes more sense as residential, or at best retail, and really should have never been turned into offices in the first place.

Yeah it is. If there weren't anything desirable about the existing structure it would just be torn down and rebuilt. You are confusing the location decision with the decision to demolish vs. renovate.

>Sadly, a lot of smaller companies migrated out to the suburbs because the CEO could simply make a call to move the business closer to his house.

Perhaps. But it's probably also where most of the employees lived. If you're talking the 80s, for example, very few of my co-workers lived in Boston/Cambridge and commuted out to our offices on 495 about an hour away. I'm quite confident that, had there been a vote to move the company offices into the city, the answer would have been a resounding no.

I think it is all about location. East German concrete slab highrisers[0] are being renovated into fashionable lofts, despite their unfashionable image and continuous deterioration - where they are placed in the city centers that is.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattenbau

I've noticed that many buildings built during particularly faddish architectural trends tend to very quickly become maintenance nightmares, with repairs costing more than a tear-down and rebuild. It seems lots of these office buildings all over the country were built quickly, to low quality and now nobody wants to move into them. It's not just SV that has this problem.

The J. Edgar Hoover Building the FBI is currently HQ'd out of is 40 years old, and by all accounts should have been razed to the ground 10-15 years ago, only slow government processes keeping the Bureau in it at all.

It's expected to cost $850m-$1.1b to renovate and fix all the problems in the building and bring it up to Class A space (with inflation over time the total number would creep towards $2b). The government has decided that it would be cheaper to move the entire Bureau HQ to another site and build an entirely new building than fix this one.

I think suburbia might be a victim of its own success.

As people moved out to more widely-dispersed communities, that caused commuting all the way downtown for work to be increasingly problematic. So of course that encouraged demand for business to also move out to the suburbs.

Eventually things got so dispersed that people had to start driving everywhere. Roads got congested. It became increasingly common for people to spend 1/5 or more of their free time behind the wheel. Attempts to relieve the congestion inevitably require frequent road construction projects, which only increases everyone's sense of frustration.

I think it's pretty plain to see that nobody actually likes this state of affairs, and also that continuing the suburbanization trend would only continue to make it worse. Maybe there was a period back during the baby boom when the suburban lifestyle worked out really well (from a happiness perspective; let's forget about the economic and environmental cost for the sake of argument) for the first people to adopt it, but it's a lot harder to see the attraction now that the wide open spaces have become crowded with cars and parking lots.

We've seen the reverse of this now. Everything I've seen has shown that newer generations are moving more into the cities, back to closer to their employers.

Have to factor in population density and massive increases in the population overall. US pop in 1950 was less than half of what it is now. So I could see why it would work out back then.

I wonder if increased urban demand pushing up housing costs in metro areas will eventually cause a reverse migration back to the suburbs (facilitated by telecommuting).

Increase telecommuting would solve a lot of the transportation problems. I've been full-time remote for awhile now. I turned down an offer that was almost double my current salary because I don't want to commute.

Agree, I'm the same way. I insist on being paid the same as people who live in the city though. My value doesn't change just because I live in a cheaper place.

I believe I'm paid a similar rate to other people in my city but I also believe I'm still underpaid. The market for my specific skills is starting to open up though and there is much more demand than there is supply of workers right now. I don't like when companies think they can get away with 1/2 salary for an expert just because it's a remote position.

There's also increased demand for "walkable" neighborhoods in suburban areas. Higher density housing with grocery stores, doctor's offices, restaurants, and bars all in a single development.

I think there's potential for all of that to come into the suburbs since it will eventually be so cheap to live there. Artists and squatters can turn these abandon office parks into co-ops and urban farms :)

I know they were building that in the early 60s because that's where I grew up and where I live today. Well, I grew up in a 1930 house in a suburb, but same zoning.

Also I know there were awful exurbs built during the peak of the bubble, say a decade ago. Sometime between 1960 and "now" suburb designs went badly downhill.

I have observed over my life that suburb street layout corresponds with this zoning trend. If you live in a subdivision/burb with straight lines and many connections to the arterial road, you probably have a grocery store, dentist, bars, and restaurants within short walking distance, but if you live in "bowl of spaghetti" subdivision/burb with exactly one connection to exactly one arterial road, then you probably need to drive at least five miles to buy a gallon of milk.

They always have.

Then they have kids.

I've heard that my entire life. "The city is coming back". "Its not like ten years ago when the cities were dead" I'm in my 40s. Same message for the last four decades. Think about that, four times in a row, the city has always been dead a decade ago but now its returned, no really, this time its true.

I'm told by elders that sloganeering about urban renewal and return began around 1955, about 5 years after the burbs started getting built out.

Yep. They used to say every generation thinks they're the first to discover sex, but as I get older it seems like that applies to many, many things.

Since 2010, population growth has either restarted in many cities that lost inhabitants for decades, or has accelerated for cities that never stopped growing. New York, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, D.C., Minneapolis, Miami, Philadelphia, Denver, and Chicago have all experienced this phenomenon, not to mention others, I'm sure. It's a huge trend.

City populations can grow without an actual trend of increasing desire to live in the city. It's the percentage that matters, not the absolute number.

Some cities are growing a bit, but far more people, proportionally, are heading to the suburbs, which is where all the fastest-growing places in the US are.

For example, between 2000 and 2014, SF added about 75,000 residents. In that same period, Irvine, CA added about 150,000 residents, and one quadrant of the Dallas suburbs, Collin County, TX (the northern suburbs) added about 400,000 residents. All of NYC put together in the same period added 500,000 residents, slightly beating out this one part of suburban Dallas.

I personally like living in dense urban areas, but for there to be a sea change in that direction on the scale of overall American trends, people need to be moving into cities in much larger numbers. Here's a modest goal that would represent an undeniable change, even if still only for a small minority of the population: over the next 10 years, 2-3% more Americans live in dense urban areas than currently. That's ~6-9 million more people in dense urban areas. As far as I can tell, we're nowhere near being on track for that to happen.

I'm not sure anyone really loves suburbia, but once in place, car oriented development has a way of being self sustaining.

This "Cycle of automobile dependency" image shows it pretty well. http://imgur.com/Y9vxbNN

Only recently, with huge effort and many setbacks, are we starting to see cities break out of car oriented development and this endless suburban sprawl creating loop.

I'm a bit concerned that the advent of the self driving car could take us backward to more car oriented development and suburbia.

I'm not sure anyone really loves suburbia

I would guess that has a lot to do with how one defines the term.

I love living outside of the city. I wouldn't have it any other way. When I'm ready to retire, I plan to move even further away from the city.

I grew up in the suburbs. I am raising my children in the suburbs. I detest going into the city. The traffic, the parking, the population density and the crammed nature of city living all irritate me to no end.

Unfortunately, I have to go into the city for work. That is the primary reason why I'm waiting until retirement to move further away.

Within the last 10 years we have had a real problem in the area. The gentrification of certain inner-city areas has made it impossible for the low income residents to remain there, so they've been moving out to the suburbs and bringing a lot of crime with them.

Try as we might to escape the problems of city living that drove us out two generations ago, the city keeps sending its problems our way.

Yeah absolutely I'm critical of suburbia as I see it currently implemented.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of living outside of the city, but the problem is the design and form of development that many suburban cities have taken.

> The traffic, the parking,

That's the result of a poorly planned city, not intrinsic to cities. If you've been to Europe, or even NYC, you might have experienced the freedom of jumping on a train to downtown and back, with enough exercise to keep you healthy.

Freedom isn't the word that I would associate with being bound by train schedules and routes.

Old cities, like NYC or London were established before the existence of the automobile. It makes sense that they were designed to move large numbers of people without automobiles. I don't live near such a city.

The geography of my area prevents the kind of mass transit system that exists in NYC.

Would you rather be bound by rush hour, car accidents, and highway routes?

No matter what you choose, you're bound by something.

Agreed, it's a trade off.

Here, yes. I prefer those things over the list of things that I mentioned previously.

I have arranged my work schedule to miss the worst of both inbound and outbound rush hour.

When I'm outside of my regular work hours, on evenings and weekends, there is much more freedom in driving one's self as opposed to waiting for public transportation.

For those of us who are so inclined, public transportation is still an option.

I can sympathize, Austin TX is built upon a giant rock of limestone which extremely difficult to develop into. All of our mass transit options that have come up connect to no-where.

As a former tunnel boring engineer, I can attest that mining tunnels through consistent rock is vastly easier than through mixed geologies such as Manhattan island. Also there is less stuff (utilities, metal debris, etc) underground in Austin. There are undoubtedly historical reasons why Austin lacks sane transit but technical difficulties while boring is almost certainly not one of them.

Sounds like you've identified a geological startup opportunity in Austin :)

How about a monorail or short distance hyperloop?

And I can pretty much guarantee you that people in London and New York bitch about their public transportation systems all the time. Maybe people in Singapore don't but they're probably a pretty rare exception. And don't get even think about getting residents of Boston started on the performance of the MBTA and commuter rail last winter--and that's one of the better US public transit systems.

I like cities with good public transit systems but they're not nirvana. And for cities that are just so-so, like SF, the people I know there who don't own cars use Uber, Zipcar, and conventional rentals plenty.

People bitch about public transport all the time because, like the weather, it is an ubiquitous shared experience. It's something that we all experience more or less the same way. This makes it an easy topic to establish social contact on.

As I mentioned, it doesn't sound like you've been to Europe. In a larger city in Germany for example, trains are running up to every two minutes around town, while long distance trains to other cities are every hour.

The traffic and parking problems are there due to the lack of public transit, which is in part due to the spending of transportation funds on subsidizing you in the suburbs instead of building public transit.

The city in no way subsidizes us. Unless, of course, you mean that because we have the option of not living in the city then they don't get our property tax dollars because we chose to live somewhere else.

I pay taxes to my county and my suburban municipality. The city-proper does virtually nothing for me.

The city is not entitled to any of my money.

There's also the roads which allow you to get from point A to point B which are subsidizing you, and there's the federal gas subsidy which is also subsidizing your lifestyle.

And if the city proper really did nothing for you, then why would you be working there?

There's also the roads which allow you to get from point A to point B which are subsidizing you

Most of which are maintained by the county, to which I pay taxes.

and there's the federal gas subsidy which is also subsidizing your lifestyle.

From the FEDERAL government, to which I also pay taxes.

Much of the road maintenance is also done by the state government, to which I pay taxes as well.

And if the city proper really did nothing for you, then why would you be working there?

Because decades ago, my employer put offices in the city and it's more expensive to move them than it is to stay put.

Not all of us are working for start-ups. Some of us have employers that predate the interstate highway system.

As telecommuting becomes more of a factor, I will spend less and less time in the city. Hopefully, it'll get to the point where I spend one day here every five years.

Honest question. Why should low income residents remain in inner cities? If they can afford it, why should they be discouraged from moving to suburbs if suburbs suit them, the same way suburbs suit you?

For those who can afford it, it's not a problem. I'm more opposed to how we subsidize it through programs like "Section 8".

yeah. lived in a city a long time, but living in a va suburb now is bliss by comparison. trees, peace and quiet. walkable groceries were great, but choice from top grocers within a few minutes by car is even better - wegmans, whole foods, even harris teeters.

not to mention getting anywhere takes like 5-10 minutes.

what do i miss? a great modern restaurant experience, but classic ethnic is great out here - indian, chinese, mexican etc.

factor in better schools for your children for "free" and i can't see a reason to live in a city.

In what VA suburb can you get anywhere in a few minutes by car? In most of Fairfax County you have to drive 10-15 minutes just to get to a drug store. The only exception is the satellite cities (Vienna, Reston, etc). And what's the commute look like for you and your spouse?

Based on being ten minutes or less from a Wegman's, I'm going to guess Fairfax or Alexandria.

Both are cities...

I love suburbia. Living in a city is stressful and crowded. I'd like to live in a rural environment, but then I'd have to drive a very long way to get to work, stores, and entertainment. Living in a quiet suburb gives me the best of both worlds. It's only a 10 minute drive to the downtown library, good restaurants, and other fun stuff. Since I picked a job that's located near my suburb, my commute is also short and avoids highways. And I don't have to fight city traffic or interact with lots of surrounding people in my everyday life.

Sure, I can't walk to ten different restaurants and an art museum, but that's pretty low on my list of wants.

You're doing it right by living close to your work. Suburbs work well when they're really just small complete cities. Nothing wrong with that.

What I was thinking when I when I wrote "I'm not sure anyone loves suburbia" was that I'm not sure anyone loves that big suburban commute to the city. If that's eliminated, or mitigated by excellent transit connections (ie. pre-automobile street car suburbs), then a lot of negatives go away.

Oh, yeah. I definitely agree with that.

One of the chief advantages of suburban life is cost. I don't like suburbia, but I deal with it because I'm not rich enough to live close to work. Sure, I have the additional cost of maintaining and fueling a vehicle[1], and the stress of a 2+ hour commute each way, but that's far outweighed by housing being 3X cheaper, and the decent public schools (I don't have to pay for private schooling for the kid).

1: which is, really, not THAT much more in terms of cost per mile than using public transportation

> One of the chief advantages of suburban life is cost.

And that's entirely a function of bad city design. When I lived in New York, I lived in a Westchester suburb satellite city over 20 miles away from the city. I had a 35 minute commute by train right to Manhattan. There are tons of such suburbs in Westchester, because they have train lines running through the whole area.

Meanwhile, my parents live in D.C. suburbs that are similarly priced, half the distance out of the city, but where the commuting options are a 1-1.5+ hour drive. In Westchester you've got a little downtown and can walk to shops and restaurants. In the D.C. suburbs you have to drive 20 minutes just to get to the drug store.

It's all about city design.

Indeed, prewar Westchester is one of the few suburbs that isn't an utter abomination, both architecturally and land-use-planning wise. I think that's because they built them before the current bad ideas were in vogue.

And governance. The additional cost of trying to live in a city (Detroit, Baltimore, ...) that is poorly governed is quite high. Most suburbs haven't had the time to become as poorly governed as the cities, so associated costs tend to be lower.

I would not under estimate transportation costs.

Metro Vancouver recently did a study comparing affordability combining both housing and transportation costs. Once transportation was considered, Vancouver City proper dropped to one of the 3 most affordable Metro Vancouver cities, whereas outlying suburbs rose to least affordable. The gap in transportation costs between the cheapest and most expensive areas was several thousand dollars a year, possibly as high as $12k a year.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/Pla...

Might depend on the particular metro area. The cost difference between where I live, in the bumblefuck outer suburbs of the Bay Area, vs. a comparable (yet smaller) place closer to most usual tech businesses (either in SF or the Peninsula), is about $3-4K monthly. I've got cost/mile and cost/month records for my car(s) going back 15 years, including purchase price, insurance, fuel, and all maintenance, and it's not even close to $3K/month.

Exactly. It's similar in the Tri-State Area of the Mid-South. Most people in middle class to rich live in the suburbs. Reduces crime, headaches, property costs, etc with only a bit of commute on good Interstates and highways. I paid $550 a month plus $100 utilities for a good, 2-bedroom house that was 20 minutes away from city jobs or fun with 30-40 min away from downtown. Not a bad trade.

I'd argue that for most, living in a suburb is in fact the worst of both worlds. You are neither rural nor city. You have none of the benefits and many of the drawbacks.

For me my decision to live in the city is one of safety (driving cars is dangerous) and time. When I lived in the burbs I spent something like 30-40 full days a year sitting in my car. That's 10% of each year in my car. That's just not a trade I'm willing to make anymore.

Funny you mention safety in the city, I often hear about moving to the burbs for safe neighborhoods with sidewalks.

My suburban neighborhood growing up did not have sidewalks; not sure if that was unusual. Overall it's my impression that urban areas are much more walkable/bikeable than suburban ones. At the very least, it's difficult to leave or enter individual subdivisions in the suburbs on foot (by design).

Sidewalks have been a feature of every city center neighborhood I've lived in (and I've lived in many). Cities can be safer in that I rarely drive and there are visible and predictable pedestrian street crossing everywhere. While pedestrians do get run over, it's at a far less frequent rate than car-on-car accidents happen.

Try going to the grocery store in the suburbs on a bike. Sidewalks are great for walking your dog. But in the suburbs, you are trapped to your car.

You can't walk, take the bus, or ride a bike anywhere. Not only because it's 10 miles away, but because there simply is no safe way to get there without a car.

I live in the suburbs. I ride my bike to work. It's safe enough. People are just scared.

If you're young and reasonably fit, you can pretty much get anywhere. But most people would never consider riding on high speed roads or where there isn't a bike lane.

What is the definition of a suburb to you? There are no areas around nyc considered suburbs where a grocery store is 10 miles away.

The key word in your statement is "drive". I don't want to drive. I want to walk/bike. Driving means I have to get gas, I have to deal with traffic, and I have to find a place to park. I don't want to do any of that.

I'll second that. The mtn biking trails start at the end of my street and I can bike to town on them. Kayaking is a 1 minute drive. My office is 10 minutes away. I saw a raccoon in my neighbors driveway yesterday and deer in my backyard last fall. It's not a bad life...

The Car was supposed to kill The Landlord by increasing the supply of adequate housing and driving residential land prices near zero. It didn't work, for the reasons you described. First, driving itself is very expensive, especially if you include parking the damn thing. Second, the few suburbs that are desirable at all (near major cities, good public schools) are often similar in price to city housing-- and NIMBY laws keep housing scarce in them. Third, cars scale poorly (congestion). So none of that actually happened, and we're stuck with this ugly, polluting infrastructure.

Spot on. I live in a suburban town that is unique for my metro area in that it has a nice thriving downtown, great schools, 10 minutes from the downtown exit on the freeway, and really great quality of life. I have friends who want to move here and there are developers champing at the bit right to take some polluted and therefore useless and undeveloped property and clean it up to turn it into some nice condos.. it got shut down in a public vote. New houses haven't been built in the city in about 20 years, and the ones that are here are starting to show their age. The city has been in a boom, but that cycle is going to end if we don't get fresh money and new houses. The developers are moving further up the main artery to other, smaller towns, which leads to more congestion on the main roads. It used to be that the traffic started at my town, now it's starting at the next town up. But everyone is worried that their house value will go down if there is more availability. They don't realize the value will go down if the property becomes undesirable as well.

Sounds like that situation isn't going to change soon, and you should probably sell out earlier rather than later.

Isn't this one of the goals of self-driving cars?

Having vehicles that don't require human operation means that cars can spend less time in parking lots as depreciating assets and more time filling transportation demand. By reducing inefficiencies, it should free up traffic congestion and make it easier to commute to these office parks, right?

Even supposing a high amount of self driving car sharing rather than ownership, you still run into the issue that cars fundamentally require a lot of space both in roads and parking and the sprawl creating results of accommodating this fact.

Self driving cars are an example of doing the wrong thing (automobile oriented development) better. The right thing is developing cities around people, not cars. This means creating walkable spaces with cycling and public transit prioritized above automobiles.

Automated cars require less parking than the manual cars we drive now, especially since they don't require to be parked near their passengers during off hours and can spend most of their product lives on the road.

I'm not saying we shouldn't develop cities with pedestrians in mind, just that it's much easier to adapt a fleet of cars than rebuild an entire city.

This seems commonly stated but not actually examined.

> "especially since they don't require to be parked near their passengers during off hours and can spend most of their product lives on the road."

I'd argue that both of these points aren't actually true.

The nature of on-demand cars (human-driven or otherwise) is that they be quickly available. Automated cars might eliminate the need for the car to be figuratively outside the door like they are today, but they still need to be nearby. Making cars automated will let you stretch out the distance between user and car a bit, but there will still be plenty of infrastructure necessary to ensure cars are near their potential users.

Ditto the "spend most of their productive lives on the road" thing. This claim will likely be not true at all, considering how bursty transportation usage is. Figuratively every single mode of transportation (cars, trains, buses, you name it) is planned around massive bursts of usage, usually surrounding the working day. Automated cars are still subject to this - the reality is that if we move towards fleets of automated cars, they will be idle 80% of the time. So do you want rush-hour-traffic volumes of cars circling aimlessly for most of the day, or do you want to park them somewhere during non-peak hours? If the latter, you're back to the problem of provisioning tons of infrastructure for storing them...

IMO the most likely consequence of moving to self-driving on-demand cars is that we eliminate large parking lots in front of stores (yay!) but in exchange we get massive parking structures tying up a lot of space, and not as far from people as we'd probably like.

Height limits in construction for low-density areas will probably increase the amount of land these parking structures cover, and they'll likely be traditional ramp-based instead of some fancy robotics (that are way less reliable and can process less volume). In a sci-fi novel we'd stuff cars into hyper-efficient low-footprint parking structures when not in use, in reality we're probably just going to get gigantic, enormous versions of multi-floor parking garages in the center of the city.

> there will still be plenty of infrastructure necessary to ensure cars are near their potential users.

Ubers are rarely parked when on-duty and in a city this doesn't seem to be an issue.

> considering how bursty transportation usage is

I would like to introduce you to the Bay Area and LA freeways, where there is a lull from approx. 11am-2pm, and the roads are fairly packed until 8pm. In large metros the traffic is less bursty than you think.

> in exchange we get massive parking structures tying up a lot of space

We're already doing automated stacked parking in some high-density areas (I've personally seen it in Berkeley and NYC). It could become the norm: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Multi-le...

Trains and buses are somewhat "bursty" because... they're trains and buses. Lots of people have to be riding to make it worth the trip. Robocars will work for the single-traveller-at-1AM case. But they also work for the 2-miles-from-the-metro-station-to-the-office case, so they'll make public transport more useful. Robocar owners can optimize rush-hour pricing to emphasize lots of valuable low-speed quick-turnaround trips to and from the dedicated lane in front of the train station. They'll sell a long trip through thick traffic in five outlying suburbs, but it will cost you.

Not every Uber arrives inside five minutes, so I think travelers will be similarly understanding of robocars. That means the fleet doesn't need a giant parking structure anywhere, they just need to keep a few units in every sector (either cruising or parked in surplus spots at the remote edge of store parking), with other units near enough to fill in when demand spikes in a given sector. Lots of existing parking lot owners will make a little more money when the algorithms determine they're optimally located for overnights. It's not like the supermarket needs all its parking spaces outside normal shopping hours. Robocars probably won't typically park on the street, because it's not secure, especially against taggers.

I do expect that robocruising (driving slowly in a parking-limited area while waiting for customers) will be decried as the greatest scourge to afflict red-blooded single-occupancy commuters since the bicycle. I don't expect anyone important will care.

I wonder if there could be optimizations built-in. If I'm on the way of several other passengers going the same direction, I can just be another passenger in a larger (van?) auto. Essentially a customized bus route every day. With Wi-Fi on board, this wouldn't be too bad of an option.

However, the demand at off-commuting times is much smaller than at-commuting times

It is much easier when you can commute later or earlier than most people (but still, few people would work, let's say 12am to 8pm)

> Self driving cars are an example of doing the wrong thing (automobile oriented development) better. The right thing is developing cities around people, not cars. This means creating walkable spaces with cycling and public transit prioritized above automobiles.

Shared automated cars are public transit.

I live an hour outside of Chicago and mostly work from home; I'm in the city maybe 1 day per week. I fought moving out of the city for a while, but I have really come to love it, especially when it comes to raising kids. When I have to head into Chicago, I take the train. It is weird how quickly you can go from yuppie to suburbanite. My property taxes are high, but my overall cost (and quality) of living is better than if I was living in Chicago.

The housing market by me has been stable with small (tiny) growth and consistent demand. Turnover for new construction has been solid.

Retail & office space, however, is suffering. If you're close to small downtowns with character, the story is different, but strip malls and shopping centers are amazingly screwed. Great example is the Charlestowne Mall in St. Charles. Just the anchors and a movie theater remain.

That said, I look at that excess capacity and see opportunity more than peril. And, it is worth noting, that excess capacity for office/retail space is an issue in city centers as well. This phenomenon is as much a result of changes in consumer behavior as it is subprime aftershocks. It is reductionist to claim otherwise.

Good point. I've grown rather used to seeing mostly-vacant floors in office buildings in the Loop.

I wonder if perhaps we're seeing the results of a shift to the service economy in addition to the shift back to the cities. If we need fewer people to manually perform clerical work in offices, and more people to run the restaurants that we increasingly eat at, then that's going to create a definite shift in demand for different kinds of commercial space.

> different kinds of commercial space.

And different uses for existing space. I'm not a big believer in any economic theory, but I see supply-side drivers abound. Case in point, there are so many vacant ex-Dominick's you can rent/buy for a song.

While those ex-Dominicks buildings are for lease ("rent/buy for a song"), I have yet to see anyone acquire them at their old Bartlett, Schaumburg, or Algonquin locations.

Head up to Milwaukee and you'll see plenty of old Kohl's supermarkets that have all been sitting vacant ever since the chain shut down over a decade ago.

Oh wow, did all of your Milwaukee's Kohl's shut down? We have them here (Puget Sound area) still, and when we left Missouri in 2008 they were still there doing fine.

Kohl's Grocery Stores (defunct) is different than the department store chain, which incidentally is headquartered in the Milwaukee suburbs.

And the only reason Kohl's the department store chain still has its HQ in Wisconsin is due to extremely generous tax breaks from Scott Walker.

Not entirely; they were both run by the same parent company.

The grocery stores were vacant for a few years but I can't think of any since I left Milwaukee last year that were still dormant. Office Max, Joanne Fabrics, those types of retail took over most of them that weren't leveled.

I think changes in reproduction (and expectations to reproduce) may be driving a lot of the shift. Millenials have a relatively low birth rate compared to the Gen Xers at the same age, due, perhaps, to the economic situation. If you are not raising kids, you have a lot more free time and energy to pour into other things.

You also don't care about being in a good school district if you don't have and don't plan to soon have kids.

Yes - School quality and mass transportation were the defining variables in my apartment acquisition. Had I not had to worry about schooling, there are plenty of lively "bad" places where I would have been very happy for much less money - and the potential for speculative gain would have been greater.

> Millenials have a relatively low birth rate compared to the Gen Xers at the same age, due, perhaps, to the economic situation. If you are not raising kids, you have a lot more free time and energy to pour into other things.

So many activities to do in this day and age and in this economy. You can surf the Web so much..!

Have you noticed how desperate the Charlestowne real estate owner is that they're tearing up the surrounding parking lot to make pads available for tenants outside of the mall?

I heard they sold it recently; supposedly, they're going to remodel.

I like the natural prairie landscaping (weeds) by Von Mauer ;)

I'll caution that the situation that we came out of in the 1950s and today are very different. There are many things that are driving the congestion of the roadways in the US. One is, for sure, the move to more urban environments. Why that is depends on a multitude of factors. I'll caution that we have significantly more people in the US than we did when the Levitt-towns were being made. In `950, ~150 million americans were alive, today there are ~320 million, a 110% increase [0]. I'll also say that anecdotally, people are congregating in urban areas because there is more flexibility and agility there. You used to be able to live in a small rural town and work there just fine. Now, if that steel mill or logging operation goes out, you have to move very far. In a city, you can find another job somewhere, and possible through referrals.

[0]http://www.demographia.com/db-uspop1900.htm

Perhaps the problem is less suburbia, more "hyperbia." Mid century planners focused heavily on recreating mini-cities to feed expansion from a central core. Everything you'd need (hospitals, schools, etc) should be within the city limits.

Reston, VA is a great example of this. Much of the workforce holds jobs elsewhere but the suburb is a community unto itself. One doesn't need to live in DC or make a long commute for a night on the town. Perhaps we can find in Reston a happy medium between distant exurbs and everybody on earth living in Manhattan.

The problem with places like Reston is that if you're a typical two-worker couple there is little chance you're both going to find work in the same suburb. And if that doesn't happen, you're stuck commuting between suburbs, which is usually the worst possible scenario (and a major reason why traffic in the DC metro is worse than in bigger cities). Better to have bedroom cities with stores and shops and shuttle everyone into the core city via regional rail.

Reston would be a great bedroom city if DC had proper regional rail. Standing room only in the Silver line for 45 minutes sucks compared to regional express trains in places like Chicago or NYC.

For a whole bunch of suburbanites of those early years (50's-70's) the "happiness" they derived came primarily from not having to send their children to integrated schools.

It used to be, the further you lived from the city, the better off you were. Mostly because the city had scary dark skinned people, little space, and pollution.

Now, while I'm definitely a suburbanite, I'd take the 15 minute commute any day over having extra lawn to mow.

I wonder how much of this is related to the increase of two-income households coupled with overall wage stagnation? I mean, if a family only has one breadwinner, and work is in the suburbs, it becomes trivial to find a location close to work. But it's harder for a family to live on one income now. If both spouses want to work or need to work to get by (and I'm not talking about a small part-time job on the side), it is plausibly more difficult for both to find substantial work in the same suburb, depending on their industry, demand, and so forth. Such people may only find work in distant suburbs, causing a long commute for one or to live in a place in between to share the commute time.

I'm not claiming this is the cause of frustration, or even a significant factor. Just a thought I had.

Underrated comment right here.

It should come as no surprise that it takes two solid incomes in the Bay Area to buy housing close to work, because that's what the market supports. Families didn't become "better off" when two incomes became the norm -- everything just got more expensive.

I think this is one of the nasty secrets why remote work and public transit hasn't taken off like it should; who would support the crazy real estate prices if people could (more easily) choose where they live?

It should come as no surprise that it takes two solid incomes in the Bay Area to buy housing close to work, because that's what the market supports

Sort of, but not really. The market can't provide lower-priced housing because of intensive zoning restrictions: http://www.amazon.com/Rent-Too-Damn-High-Matters-ebook/dp/B0... or http://www.voxeu.org/article/causes-and-consequences-land-us.... This: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/10/san-francisco-exodus/... pertains specifically to San Francisco and environs.

Rally? I always thought of large cities as victims of their own success. You get some good businesses going, they attract more people, they attract more businesses... and then you get overpopulation, air pollution, traffic jams and high prices. And difficulty of finding affordable housing.

> nobody actually likes this state of affairs

Car dealers.

Great post. Regarding the horrors of driving and especially commuting, the New Yorker's article "There and back again: Soul of a commuter" is excellent: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/04/16/there-and-back-....

My girlfriend worked for a 'beltway bandit' in Rockville Maryland for a while after college, exactly in the midst of the office parks described in this article. Everything about the environment of metro-DC suburban Maryland was absolutely repellent to me. Miles and miles of office parks, housing developments and strip malls, over and over and over.

I couldn't stand the idea of having a daily routine of sitting in 8 lanes of traffic, finding a spot in a sea of parked cars and spending the day in a faceless office building, surrounded by other faceless office buildings yet entirely isolated in a corporate campus. I definitely see the appeal of suburbs for certain lifestyles, but I think that a suburban home with a commute into an urban office would be very preferable to working in an office park.

The only redeeming feature of my girlfriend's office park workplace was that she, as a very junior employee, had a private office to herself. I've dealt with the frustration of a number of loud open offices at NYC tech companies, but I'd never give up a downtown office space explicitly for a private space in a giant soulless office building in the suburbs.

> exactly in the midst of the office parks described in this article. Everything about the environment of metro-DC suburban Maryland was absolutely repellent to me. Miles and miles of office parks, housing developments and strip malls, over and over and over.

What boggles my mind is that the people here have money and choose to live this way.

Because the parts of DC that you can safely, raise a family in are either:

1) Really expensive

2) Essentially suburban anyway. Most of NW is suburban.

3) both 1 & 2

Another cause is that until 10 years ago most of the city was considered to be too unsafe. Gentrification has gone into overdrive and has greatly expanded the area middle class and UMC people will live. But even then a lot of that area is still pretty crazy in terms of cultural stuff. And it isn't as safe as people claim. There has been a recently uptick in violence. People getting murdered on the metro. A home invasion that led to a family getting massacred. A guy got shot in a luxury high rise in NOMA.

Safety is relative. Consider that by living in a walkable area avoiding driving, you may be reducing your risk of being one of the ~40 automobile-related deaths a year in the DC region.

(Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a2.htm)

Also, by including walking in your commute, you are reducing your risk of death from obesity and diabetes, among other factors.

(Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2736383/)

I wonder if anyone has ever attempted to do the math to rationally compare these sort of offsetting risks?

You don't have to just worry about murder. You have to worry about rapes, muggings, and property crime. Nobody wants to live in a place where you have to "watch out" or stay inside at night.

Luckily DC has some pretty urban suburbs like Arlington and Alexandia. They are more urban than most of the district. I don't have to worry about my car getting broken into and I can take the blueline to work.

I'd prefer to live in Georgetown or DuPont but that stuff is insanely priced.

What NOVA and Maryland need are more and better commuter rails to DC. The VRE is awful.

Some quick googling for supporting studies:

http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases2002/lucy-april-30-2...

I'd argue that the "faceless office building" portion isn't really an issue. They're nice enough on the inside, and when you're deep in work you probably don't notice too often.

The worst part is probably the typical lack of anything around those office parks except for...more office parks. At least if you're downtown or in some more commercial-heavy area, there are places to go and eat! :)

> there are places to go and eat!

And visit the dentist, buy a shirt, get a gift for a kid's birthday party: all the things that are hard to do on a weekday if you are stranded out of town.

And go to the cobbler. I didn't even realize cobblers still existed until I worked in downtown Boston. Yes, you can still get your shoes fixed! And it's cheap and easy and you can do it on your lunch break.

I've been all over the US for consulting work and this scene is everywhere you go.

The problem in Maryland is that the urban office spaces in DC are essentially just big ass office parks. Just a bunch of ugly ass 12 story, monstrosities.

I guess you get better lunch options. But personally I'd rather live in a cool place and commute to some boring ass office park.

That said--the cool areas in DC are pretty small and expensive. The average worker can't afford that with a family.

I want both. I want to live and work in a cool place. Especially if it means I don't have to commute.

FWIW, a LOT of San Jose is exactly like this. We call it "Suburbia on Steroids".

> Everything about the environment of metro-DC suburban Maryland was absolutely repellent to me. Miles and miles of office parks, housing developments and strip malls, over and over and over.

I feel like you didn't actually explore much of the region, then... there are some fantastic natural areas here.

Thomas Jefferson is to blame and not one mention of taxes? I would be really surprised that some research wouldn't find that many of these office parks are built outside of the borders of major cities to avoid paying taxes, or were provided incentives by neighbouring municipalities to build further out and pay lower tax. The lower cost is attractive and allows the company to operate in a big shiny building that immediately lends credibility to the company. Further, there is no mention of ample amounts of free parking. I think this article is very lacking, the for lease signs on suburban office parks across much of North America isn't really a mystery.

You can also blame subsidies and zoning laws. Free highway and road construction counted as a massive subsidy for sprawl, and zoning laws force sprawl in many cases by outright prohibiting the location of any place of business where people live or any mixed-use development.

Excessive sprawl is not a result of pure free market activity. The 'burbs are heavily subsidized, legally encouraged, and heavily regulated. My personal hypothesis is that the 'burbs served (intentionally or not) as a massive post-WWII work project to employ vast numbers of people in construction and real estate.

(Not necessarily a free market fundamentalist ideologue, but this is one thing you can't blame on them.)

I do agree with the article to a point though. America certainly has a nostalgic preoccupation with agrarian and rural life that has been used to sell the faux-ruralism pastiche of suburbia. It's a contributing factor in that it makes these ridiculous wastelands marketable.

I agree with part of your post, but not all of it. Subsidies and zoning laws? Definitely. Suburban land was cheap, automobiles and fuel were cheap, hence Suburbia. The post-war US economy was booming, so you had families with higher-than-now purchasing power.

Are people moving to cities because fuel and automobiles are more expensive compared to stagnant incomes? In some cases. It probably also helps that people value their time more (commute time/distance to services and social venues) and that there are more opportunities for work in cities than suburban and rural areas.

I am curious to see what happens with remote work; I see a big push happening right now, at least in the tech sector. Not everything can be done remotely, but if the advantages are truly great enough, companies will compete against each other to hire quality remote workers (who can live anywhere its convenient for them).

I think api's post is pretty accurate. This book has a lot more detail:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0078XGJXO/ref=as_li_tl?ie=...

I wish Hacker News would strip out affiliate codes.

We're capitalists here, mostly, so people don't mind. People who are just here to spam get turfed out pretty quickly. I don't recommend stuff that I don't think is pertinent to a conversation.

> We're capitalists here, mostly, so people don't mind.

I have never thought [citation required] was more necessary than with this comment.

We're technology professionals or enthusiasts primarily here.

I didn't mean capitalists in terms of a job - I'm a tech guy too - but in terms of being ok with capitalism and making money.

> but in terms of being ok with capitalism and making money.

That's exactly what I mean as well. I'm a socialist looking to replace jobs with cheap renewable energy, software, and robotics automation. Definitely not a capitalist. To each their own.

If you prefer, you can think of the referral link as a way to redistribute some wealth from billionaire Jeff Bezos to not at all bad off, but certainly not even millionaire davidw.

Y Combinator embodies the very definition of capitalism, and they host this site. While the community seems more diverse than that, its fair to say there is a capitalist bent.

> Y Combinator embodies the very definition of capitalism

Y Combinator also donates to efficient non-profits in the tech space, no strings attached. That's not traditionally capitalistic.

Philanthropy is a lot harder without capitalism. "I should be the one who decides where the money I worked so hard to make gets donated." Besides, it's good advertising.

I look forward to this industry realizing everything doesn't have to happen in SF.

Network effects are powerful. Silicon Valley largely runs (today) on monetizing network effects, and network effects are also why Silicon Valley is all concentrated in the Bay Area.

The primary factor is concentration of capital: it is exponentially easier to raise money in the Bay. The second is concentration of talent and peers -- early customers, beta testers, development partners.

The Internet was supposed to make place less relevant, but as far as I can tell it's had a paradoxically opposite effect. When I was younger, I didn't have such a strong sense that you must be in one of maybe ten urban areas (but preferably SF) to do anything. Today it feels a bit like things happen in one of maybe ten cities, and everywhere else doesn't exist. Americans have always joked about the "flyover country," but I've distinctly noticed a massive increase in this effect since circa 2000.

I've noticed the same thing, but interpreted it as an effect of political alienation during the Bush years. The post-9/11 freakout and series of military misadventures left me feeling like there is really no such thing as America; the America I live in consists of its high-density coastal cities and nothing more, all the rest being driven by a foreign culture I don't like or belong to.

Really? I've seen the opposite. The downtowns of places like Indianpolis, Cleveland, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville, etc. were underinvested wastelands not too long ago. Now a lot of young people want to live in these places. Not to mention the hipster paradises of Portland, Austin, etc.

SF, Seattle, NYC, DC, Boston, etc., are still the major magnets, but "hip" urban living isn't as confined to the coasts as it used to be IMO.

Those cities are becoming great places to live, but if you work in tech the opportunities in the bay area still dwarf everything else.

Some industries are very centralized in one city - tech in the bay area, finance in NYC, entertainment in LA, etc.

This

It's frankly pathetic that the so-called "biggest innovators" and people who "get the internet" feel the need to be constrained in an already crowded city.

Face to face communication is important, but there are tools to help with day to day communication

The Linux world knows much better how to deal with this then your average "Web 2.0" company

This concurs with the arguments a very liberal city planner once convinced me with. His preference for a solution, of course, was different government pressure on where people live and work, rather than my preference of less pressure, but he was convincing on the nature of the problem.

Also as a way to racially and economically segregate the population. Office park connect to residential suburbs where little Johnny and Lisa can get good schools and other white upper middle-class friends to play with.

How does that explain that these low tax buildings are now being left empty in favor of options in the higher tax cities? If they were so desirable they wouldn't be sitting empty.

There are a lot of empty old buildings downtown, too. I don't remember seeing any comparative data in the article beyond that employers seem to be reducing space/employee (they are of course also reducing the number of employees). Of course it makes sense to contract toward the center, that has nothing to do with preferences, it's just economic geography 101.

With respect to the particular building mentioned in the article, it is hardly surprising at all that the NIH is contracting its footprint given recent funding history.

Edit: As mentioned by another commenter, it turns out the NIH didn't move things downtown. Instead, it's just opened a brand new campus that's even further away.

I would also add why big corporations are staring to build NEW multi-million dollar campuses instead of renovating a lot of these office parks.

I live in Minnesota and United Health Care has done both. they've bought newer buildings that were vacated and just built a huge (72 acres) campus on the outskirts of the city: http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/print-edition/2011/09/...

Cargill several years ago built a huge new campus at an abandoned Super Value production plant:

http://www.opus-group.com/OurWork/Excelsior-Crossings

Also, I've seen older 1970's corporate buildings demolished and there's an area in a nearby suburb where they're trying to rejuvenate the area where nearly all the buildings are empty with a $500 million project plan:

Demolition: http://hillcrestdevelopment.com/pentagon-park-south-tower-de...

Renovation of area buildings: http://hillcrestdevelopment.com/renovation/pentagon-park/

Redevelopment Plan: http://www.startribune.com/edina-aims-at-a-signature-project...

The beltway has a vacancy rate of 17.1%, within the city it's 12.3%. Not that different, especially when you consider that DC has an artificially low vacancy rate due to height restrictions.

And anyway, Montgomery County, MD, is an unusual case. There was a lot of speculative building going on there due to rumors that the city of DC was going to put in a subway line through the country (going back to 2003). That dream has evaporated, with current estimates putting the project out to 2030 and later, so you have a lot of speculators left holding the bag.

I would call a 40% difference in vacancy quite significant.

40% of a small number is still a small number. Lightening strikes 100% more men than women.

17% is not a small vacancy rate. It's a fairly high vacancy rate.

I don't know where you are, but in the US that's just about average --http://m.nreionline.com/office/once-again-office-vacancy-rat...

"I would be really surprised that some research wouldn't find that many of these office parks are built outside of the borders of major cities to avoid paying taxes"

If you were gonna throw out a spitball estimate for the 3 numbers:

1) Tax impact in city vs burbs

2) Cost of land / lease in city vs burbs

3) Company payroll/benefits

What would you guess the ratio of #1 to #2 + #3 is?

Their total value is irrelevant; what matters is the ROI you get from increasing or reducing each of them. I submit that taxes offer the lowest ROI of the three from the perspective of most businesses (but I admit that paying taxes to be in a good location can deliver ROI).

So as a business manager you ask: what do we lose by exiting this tax jurisdiction and what do we gain? And most importantly, what's the ROI? If my margins are tiny (say, most retail and restaurants) then saving 2% of my budget per year on taxes can mean the difference between a 4% and 6% ROI if the other factors remain equal.

That may sound like a small difference but it is not: it is as large as the spread between equities and bonds at most points in time (so if I'm only going to make 4% why be in business at all?) Why not just fire all my employees, use my budget to buy Walmart corp bonds, get 4%/year, and not have any management headaches or employer liabilities?

As economists say, most decisions are made "on the margin"; so the total amount that goes into tax is not as relevant as how much can be gained or lost by shaving off tax liability vs other kinds of costs.

Nobody cares about free parking unless they have a car. Nobody cares about having a 'big shiny building' as credibility often comes from having things like a solid product, or capital in the bank.

The 1960s are over. Nobody cares about your crappy office tower in the middle of nowhere. The ones that did are retired.

However, fitting the amount of people you need when you're successful is a problem with town offices (especially in Europe)

Suburban office parks may have a lot of issues but it's where you can have lots of space for cheap (and sometimes you need this)

I think a lot of people would rather work in a busy, noisy coffee shop than commute to or live in the suburbs to enjoy lots of cheap office space.

The entire social structure that produced these towers, a well-paid, conservative, culturally unambitious middle class, is imploding.

Now you have Millenials who value living and working closer to interesting coffee shops, restaurants, clubs, and bars than living in Nowhereville which has a Denny's, a Subway and a Dunkin Donuts as the only options. Plus they're so deep in student debt that buying a suburban house or leasing a car is not an option. They're stuck living in a cheap apartment that's typically in an urban area and living a more thrifty lifestyle. What little money they have goes towards entertainment and social activities.

I'd rather work in a condemned office in the right location than some suburban hellhole where I had to drive a minimum of a half hour to and from work. At least the office in the right location could be renovated and spruced up. The suburban office will always be in the wrong spot.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but being able to work in a noisy coffee shop is an entitlement that not all are able to

This is only possible for "knowledge workers".

- You can't do this, for example, if you're a doctor/nurse

- You can't do this if your job has a high level of secrecy required (that is, no peering eyes)

- You can't do that if you require special equipment to do your job (think lab or shop). You can't take your big screen Mac with your fancy Wacom tablet there as well

Also most work requires a collaboration level that's still not supported by infrastructure. It is possible but the companies haven't adapted

Not to mention, remote work gets old. Quickly

Oh, it does, but those traditional jobs, doctor, factory worker, they're harder and harder to get. The bulk of the jobs are less dependent on those factors.

What's left? The sorts of jobs where a personal office is a luxury that few companies are willing to pay for. You get a desk, at best, and a laptop.

Still, as difficult as it is to purchase office space in some markets, it's not impossible. You just need to make do with less. No on-site parking, no gigantic health-club facility or cafeteria.

It's cyclical. One day (sooner than you think)those millennials are going to be 30, with families and they won't care nearly so much about clubs and bars. They're going to start wanting to grow gardens and have a safe place for their children to play.

Plus they're so deep in student debt that buying a suburban house or leasing a car is not an option.

I guess that it's just a function of the local real estate market but my suburban mortgage payment is lower than the urban rent that one would pay in any decent part of this town.

The suburban office will always be in the wrong spot.

Don't be so sure about that. One day, you're not going to be the hip youngster anymore. One day, sooner than you think, you're going to be annoyed by the stupid nonsense that the kids of the day are doing. One day, you'll have a lot more fun in your house than out on the town.

  > Nobody cares about having a 'big shiny building'

Apple does.

> There are 71.5 million square feet of vacant office space in the Washington region, much of it piled in office parks.

> Last year, federal agencies vacated 7,315 buildings, abandoning 47 million square feet of office and warehouse space, Federal News Radio says.

So the amount of vacant space in the area tripled last year, going from 24 million SQFT to 71.5 million SQFT?

---

> Another 1 million square feet of office space will flow onto the market over the next seven years, as Marriott International moves out of its Bethesda office park

Where are these companies moving to? Are they moving out of these office parks and into city centers? This article only tells half of the story.

---

> With its space-hungry bureaucracies and contractors, Washington became a colossal hive of office parks, especially during years of government expansion — most recently the post-Sept. 11, 2001 period, when the military ramped up and the national-security apparatus spread along the Dulles Corridor.

> The U.S. government hasn’t signed any major leases this year, ... but it maintains 98 million square feet in the District alone (411 million if you throw in Maryland and Virginia).

Is the government portion of this solely from governmental contraction and shrinking of programs?

> Is the government portion of this solely from governmental contraction and shrinking of programs?

Not necessarily. The Department of Defense, for example, has been making a concerted push over the last few years to disperse a bunch of offices that used to all be clustered in the D.C. metro area out across the country at large. As a result, neighborhoods in Northern Virginia like Pentagon City and Crystal City that used to be nothing but endless blocks of government-leased office space have started shifting towards more high-end residential development and the lifestyle businesses that high-end residential development attracts -- trendy restaurants and bars and so forth.

This has led to the somewhat bizarre sight of Crystal City, which was built in the '60s as a sort of dystopian Brutalist Disneyworld of giant, blank office towers connected by a warren of underground tunnels, suddenly looming down disapprovingly on outdoor concerts and tapas joints.

The DOD also abandoned and tore down a couple buildings in Arlington in order to make space for an expansion of Arlington National Cemetery.

The article doesn't have any concrete numbers for where companies are moving, but it does offer this:

"People telecommute. People move into the city or into faux-urban areas that are friendlier to pedestrians, that aren’t barnacled on a highway. Younger generations don’t want to be stranded in a “Dilbert” cartoon. They want cozy nooks and nap spaces, walkable commutes, the tastes and conveniences of the city."

The article does suggest that more people are telecommuting, but given the amount of resistance that all employers have to telecommuting, I'm hesitant to believe. I really doubt that, all of a sudden, tens of thousands of federal employees are working from home.

I'm betting they're using smaller offices closer to downtown or urban centers. Mainly because I can't imagine the same large scale offices being cheap for any company downtown.

Actually, teleworking is definitely pushed as an option in the federal government. Not least of which through the "Telework Enhancement Act of 2010"

The current administration is big on it, partly for office space savings, partly to apologize for the paycut most government workers take over the private sector (I suspect, anyhow).

In practice, it looks a lot like hot desking, because you have to show up in the office once a week, and teleworkers usually end up sharing a desk amongst themselves. It allows workers in the DC area to live in affordable West Virginia :D or Fredricksburg or wherever and not kill themselves commuting

I suspect it is driven partly (mostly?) by a reduction in square footage per employee, as a cost-cutting measure. Companies either downsize the space without downsizing their workforce, or do not upsize their space when hiring after they downsized both workforce and space during the recession.

> Younger generations don’t want to be stranded in a “Dilbert” cartoon.

That's funny because Dilbert now almost exclusively deals with tech. This is from the Dilbert's author's blog http://scottadams-tttt.tumblr.com/post/124285032091/top-tech...

Marriott International plans to relocate within the general area, though it seems the exact location is still up in the air, with a focus on somewhere more urban and accessible via public transit. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/digger/wp/2015/03/01/marr...

The US Federal government is not shrinking and they are not moving into cities.

If you were the newly confirmed head of the Fish and Wildlife Service would you want to stay in some dingy, 30 year old office building, or build a brand new office farther out from the city?

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/breaking_ground/2015/0...

5 of the 6 highest average income counties in the US are in the suburbs and exurbs around Washington DC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_countie...

So...they're moving from these office parks...to other, more distant office parks?

Here in Raleigh/Durham, home of Research Triangle Park, a business park that historically housed IBM, GSK, and tons of other big companies, and which was founded to take advantage of the three major universities: NC State, UNC and Duke, by locating itself in the middle of all three (and next to none), we are seeing many companies build large downtown office buildings in Raleigh, rather than The Park. These include RedHat and Ipreo.

Where are these companies moving to? In some cases, shiny new office buildings that are going up in more "hip" and metro-accessible areas like Tyson's Corner. Commuting in DC is absolute hell so companies combat it by either moving to luxe new office buildings close to public transportation or moving out of the area entirely.

Don't try and ascribe a single reason here. Architecture, urban planning, the rise of the creative class, high-speed internet, remote work and America's burgeoning reckoning with it's awful racial history are all at play here. The life and death of an American city can have no single story, because a city is only a composite of American stories

I'm curious amongst urbanite hackers here:

How many would turn down a job at Facebook, Google, Apple or any other company primarily due to their suburban office park nature?

Could you see yourself choosing a poorer quality job from an urban company over a better suburban company?

Right now I'm a 15 minute bike ride away from my downtown employer. It'd be pretty hard to convince me to give that up. I've done a 30 minute bus commute to the suburbs and that wasn't very fun. I can't imagine doing a 1 hour plus commute.

Urbanite here (Manhattan),

Have turned down offers/interviews at many companies because of non-urban location. FB/GOOG at least have urban offices, Apple does not, as much as I admire their products and would like to work on them.

Even when I lived in SF I'd routinely turn down interviews for peninsula/south bay companies because of the location. Fortunately there is no shortage of good quality jobs in my specialty in both SF proper and NYC, so I don't think I've ever been in the position of choosing a poor job in an urban area vs. a great job in a suburb.

The fact that it's in a suburb is less of a factor than the commute. Even with fancy-schmancy shuttle buses delivering you from the city it's still a giant pain in the ass. Right now my commute is a 15-minute walk where I can pick up coffee along the way, or drop into the gym which is midway between work and home. Spending 1+ hrs cooped up on a bus, even a nice bus, sounds downright nightmarish.

I already work full-time, I want the remainder of my time to be my own to do with as my please, as much as humanly possible, and long commutes are the antithesis of this (and yes, save the "but I'm productive on my laptop on the bus!" or "podcasts! audio books!" arguments, I've heard them all).

Forget the suburbs, people turn down jobs in Jersey City and Brooklyn to stay in Manhattan (avoiding reverse commute).

> "people turn down jobs in Jersey City and Brooklyn to stay in Manhattan (avoiding reverse commute)."

Sometimes, but also sometimes to avoid a double-commute.

I used to work in Brooklyn (Dumbo) while living in Manhattan, the reverse commute was actually really nice. The trains were mostly empty every single day, both going to work and leaving!

But it was also very restrictive in terms of where you can live to get a decent commute - for Dumbo you had to live along the F train, otherwise it's multiple transfers to get where you need to go. Not fun.

Coworkers from Queens had it worst - they had a regular old commute into Manhattan, and then a second commute out of it into Brooklyn.

There is an unfortunately pretty good reason for companies to stay in Manhattan, the transit infrastructure just isn't set up well for anything else.

I'm a 5 minute bike ride away from Facebook. Gotta choose your suburbs wisely!

Your question highlights one thing I've always found bizarre about the tech industry. In most professional industries, having an office in the suburbs is a mark of being second-rate. Can you imagine Goldman or McKinsey trading their midtown Manhattan digs for an office park in New Jersey?

Goldman does have an office in Jersey City, they put "backoffice" functions there and have a water taxi between the two. Anyhow, context is key. I think if I lived on the west coast I'd like an office campus nestled amongst nature with lots of open space between buildings. SF is not a great "big city" compared to NY. In NY I want to be in the urban core. People want the best of wherever they are.

> Goldman does have an office in Jersey City, they put "backoffice" functions there

But they'd never put investment bankers and traders out there. I have always interpreted suburban tech office parks as a hold-over from the days of engineers being considered "back office" cost-center workers, rather than "front office" revenue-generating talent.

I think another factor has been the university-campus or "research lab" type of aesthetic that companies have cultivated for engineering, especially the more prestigious parts of their engineering organization. For example the old Amoco had its clerical, business, and "regular" engineering workers in the Chicago loop [1], but the PhDs in the research division were on a separate campus, with lakes and stuff, out in Naperville [2]. I think things like the Bell Labs [3] and IBM TJ Watson [4] style of "campus" have also influenced companies like Google, who idolize the environment/culture of those research centers.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aon_Center_%28Chicago%29

[2] http://grummanbutkus.com/assets/uploads/projects/232/bpamoco...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs_Holmdel_Complex

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson_Research_Cent...

Here's a NYT article about the water taxis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/nyregion/public-may-use-ne...

I'm kind of the reverse. Went from living in Chicago and commuting within the city out to the Bay Area.

I ended up in Mountain View commuting < 10 min. and 1.2mi away via bike or car which was extremely lucky. Now I moved to Redwood City and I'm 30 min. and ~15.5 miles away, but at least I can take 280.

I definitely hate the longer commute, doubly so because I have to drive and actively focus vs. be on my phone, read a book, etc.

Barring the fact that most of those companies have urban satellite offices, I think I'd probably go to a small suburb with good job opportunities in the surrounding area over a city any day. Every time I drive up to SF, I'm reminded how much of a nightmare city driving/parking are. And I'm also reminded of how insanely safe I feel in the suburbs compared to the city (I'm in one of the nicest parts of RWC so others closer to El Camino/101 might feel differently there).

Mountain View (Googleplex) is pretty much the only large Google office that's suburban. San Francisco, New York, Dublin, London, Zurich, Tokyo, Sydney are all urban. I gather the same is basically true for Facebook as well.

It is my number one concern. If I have to drive a car, or commute for more than 45min, the answer is no. I wish recruiters could get this through their thick skulls.

My ideal would be a house on a lake, it would have a sufficient space for my son to play outside, and It would also have a high speed internet connection, which I could use to work etc.

Before there was telecommuting, there was commuting. What people with families ultimately want is more space. Grilling out, kids in the sandbox, etc. It's all focused on spending time with kids.

Commuting enabled this "country like lifestyle", while keeping the "city benefits" of a good job, and easy access to decent restaurants. As traffic grew though, the definition of commuting changed. This is where office parts came from, and it's also where chain restaurants came from. Going downtown was not an option any more for shopping (parking!? argh). But there's this mall just a mile up the road. Of course with a limited audience of families (the single people still saw the benefit of living in a city), with limited time and money. Chains are great answers.

Nice article, but the jab at Jefferson is completely inane. Soooo many other nascent societal/cultural forces at work in the 1800s/early 1900s that coalesced into the suburban office park. Without knowing the context of the quote, it seems even Jefferson was off in directly equating corruption with the centerpiece of human civilization. It's also a seemingly colloquial letter to a friend. I'm also probably reading too much into this now.

It's just a framing device for the article. Office parks are a very American thing so why not work in a founding father somehow. You could swap out the whole bit with a quote and vignette from the life and work of Henry Ford. Perhaps it could have been related to the lingering notion of Manifest Destiny. I could go on and on.

I see lots of suburb-bashing on this thread. Lots of people like having their own yards, where they can garden, have a barbecue, put a swimming pool, or simply have some space of their own. When you have little kids it's a relief to have your own home and not have complaints from your neighbor downstairs that your kids are making too much noise.

Speaking as a former Bostonian, it's also nice to have a fenced yard to let your dog out in the winter instead of bundling up to walk him around icy sidewalks.

I would love to see stats on where these companies are moving to. Are many of them transitioning into remote teams? Did some go out of business? Are they moving elsewhere?

Does anyone have stats on this?

New business formations are on the decline (http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/009854.html) and more businesses are closing shop each year than are forming (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/05/u...).

Are these some of the reasons we are seeing vacant commercial buildings in a lot of areas?

"I think, as with many other things, our younger folks are more inclined to be Metro-accessible and more urban"

I do believe that to be true. I wonder if some of these can be turned into more modern co-working spaces that can be rented by the desk. Add a coffee shop, gym, etc into them and I think they would appeal to the younger generation, smaller service type businesses and start-ups. Just a thought.

> I wonder if some of these can be turned into more modern co-working spaces that can be rented by the desk.

It would depend on where the commercial building is. WeWork locations in the city are convenient and fantastic, but even a very, very cool WeWork location with all the bells and whistles wouldn't get me to commute out of the city to some suburban hell. It's just not worth it.

Great point! WeWork looks awesome.

It's hinted at in the article:

"This past quarter, Northern Virginia gained more leases than it lost for the first time since 2013, mostly because of the magnetic powers of Metro’s new Silver Line, according to realty company CBRE Group."

There's much more demand for commercial properties in transit oriented developments.

Yep and this hints that a transit strategy is a good way to revitalize some of these development. Especially if the transit line will attract mixed-use and residential developments.

You have to get there. Which means jumping in a car and driving on the freeway for a while. I really can't see myself doing that ever.

My employer ran out of space in our downtown office and we bought a building out in a suburban area and I flat out told my boss that I'll quit if forced to move there. The quality of life issue for me would've been overwhelming. An extra 2 hours of commute every day so my employer can pay 40% of the rent I cost them downtown? No! I liked my 20 minutes subway and walk commute.

In fact, the only people I work with that moved to that boring office park all lived within a 15 minutes drive of it and used to drive in to the downtown office. It's kind of a white elephant, there's room for all the Montreal employees in there but there's really like 60. Quite a few of them hired after the purchase of the building and not given the choice.

Where do you live?

Now? I remote work, then, Montreal (hochelaga to be precise.)

Saw an article a while ago that about how one of the big retail/office buildings in St Louis has emptied out almost completely, and now there's just a tech incubator sitting on 12 abandoned floors:

http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/2013/07/lots-of-entrepreneursh...

Never can build where there's demand, though.

Then how come office vacancy rates are way down and rents way up?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/01/property-usa-offic...

U.S. office vacancy rate fell to 16.6 percent in the first quarter from 16.7 in the fourth, the lowest since the third quarter of 2009

Washington D.C. remained the tightest market, with a vacancy rate of 9.3 percent. New York followed at 9.6 percent.

What happened at 6116 Executive Blvd in Rockville, MD is that the big fat Federal client moved even farther outside the beltway to new digs in Gaithersburg, Maryland (to another, newer office complex.)

New place is one of those "faux green" buildings where everything like the light switches, blinds, faucets and toilets don't work intuitively if they even work at all. They have to mow the roof so at least you can feel Eco-conscious as you flush 3 times.

Old place was close to Whole Foods and walkable to the metro(subway). New place is close to Subway(sandwich shop).

If the Washington Press wants to bemoan the old office space situation at NIH (National Institutes of Health), then they should ask about having NIH tear down the fortified walls they built around their beautiful Bethesda campus because of "9-11 terrorist threats". The old NIH used to look like a friendly college campus. Now it looks like a gated community with TSA style security theater.

I see this as a buy low opportunity for those that could afford such a thing. Let me paint a picture of the future:

- In five to ten years, 20 and 30 somethings of today who have mostly flocked to metropolitan areas don't leave when they are at the age of starting a family. The lack of space is still trumped by the a near zero commute and the cultural landscape that surrounds them.

- Right around that time, self-driving car services (Uber sans drivers) have started making serious headway in metropolitan areas. Traffic within the cities have drastically reduced due to less cars on the road and less need for parking. (So that cab ride across town that once took 35 minutes, now takes nine).

- With the reduction in traffic, corporations never changing urn to save a buck, and the next crop of 20 and 30 somethings that want to create their own identity, businesses start snatching up these industrial park cemetaries. More space, less money, room to grow. They no longer have to worry about employee parking. The commute out to the building is only 15 minutes (where it used to be a full hour +). AND YOU GET YOUR OWN OFFICE!!!!

In a sea of community work spaces, "YOUR OWN OFFICE" is the shiney fish.

- And of course, once one business successfully implements this strategy, the rest of sure to follow.

Brass tacks, these office parks are dying because of increasing traffic and fuel costs...and that's really it. If we do wind up living in a world where people don't own cars and the self-driving car startups of today eliminate tomorrow's traffic, no doubt these cemeteries will see a second coming. If I had the funds, I'd wait for the industrial park real estate market to bottom and then start snatching up property.

The office parks are still out in the middle of nowhere with nothing around them for errand running or stuff to eat at lunch besides a McDonalds.

But that will change too. Within miles - actually within about 1500 feet (http://www.pikeandrose.com/) of the property mentioned in the article, trendy new town centers are cropping up. Let's face it, those office parks are just recycle material. Some are in very good locations, particularly Executive Blvd, and they will be torn down or redeveloped for these new "life-style" communities.

Bit unrelated, but this website crashes Chrome on my Android phone, crashes the WebView inside my HN reader app, and brings my aged netbook to its knees. Oh, and my company MBP's fans blast on full until I close the page.

What the fucking fuck is this thing doing with the RAM/CPU of my system? For heaven's sake, it's a load of text with a couple of pictures.

Huh, it works fine for me on Android Chrome (Nexus 5) and on PC (Dell Inspiron/Windows 8.1/Chrome).

I work at one. A nice one. Honestly it's all because of the drive and location.

- Office parks are usually built away from people and this creates a "long drive to work". Americans are tired of driving and traffic. Office parks are not usually built near busy residential areas, they're built farther out on empty or industrial or rezoned land. No one is going to pay $30-75 million dollars to buy up 120-300 homes (average going price is $250,000 offered per every $190,000 home to get the owners out), then pay millions to bulldoze the homes, then pay millions to build the office park. No. They will go out in the middle of no-where and offer $5-10 million to a farmer and build on his land instead. It's cheaper but this creates quite a drive.

I also used to work as a courier and I -> HATED <- industrial/office park runs. They used up a ton of gas, a lot of cul de sacs, endless stop signs, and made me drive out in the middle of no-where. Most industrial/office parks of them are like that. It can't be helped due to regulations and zoning. Office parks aren't as bad and usually closer to civilization.

- The cost, how does $7,000 a month sound for an office space smaller than a 2 bedroom house?

- The US recession shut down a lot of businesses in premium locations and this opens up opportunities for new tenants to replace them and start their business closer to their homes, instead of paying exuberant prices to rent space in an office park.

- They are soulless. Bland. Grey. Corporate. You will feel like a drone working in one. They do not allow the type of customization and construction that people take on when they own a building.

===== Office parks are great if... =====

- The city expands and engulfs the office park, surrounding it with residential areas, apartments, and hotels.

- They're located near a highway AND near a residential area. This makes them accessible to both local residents and distant workers..

All of this works in cycles. There once was a time when people were flocking to the suburbs. Now, it is fashionable to live in the city. This too will pass when people (a generation maybe) comes to understand the little value obtained from all the chaos and activity.

What are people chasing? Technology has made it easier to be in touch and socialize w/ people beyond physical geography. Transportation is getting better. Yet, people are centered on cramming into cities. The concrete jungle... Living among all the action but having no time to enjoy it because you're too busy busting your ass to pay for the insane cost of the 'privilege'.

I used to live in Mountain View, CA and knew more about San Francisco and the cool things than most of my friends who lived in the city. Many times, I could get to places in the city faster than friends living in it.

What's the allure? When I think of California, I think of the beautiful outdoors and geography... Not cramming into a concrete jungle.

Hey look, I live in the city. I don't have a car. I pay a company to clean my place. I pay a company to do my laundry. There is no parking available for friends visiting me. I can't host anything at my place because its so small. I have to do all of my get together events 'out'.

The city generally provides the illusion that you are part of something that's bigger than you really are. Young people haven't formed a clear definition of this. So, they flock to the city which provides it in 'instant' form. This changes when a generation after realizes the cons of one thing and seeks out the pros in another. Or, when you get older and wiser.

As the saying goes, a smart investor is selling when everyone is buying and buying when everyone is selling. With all of the distractions of technology around me, I desire peace and quiet when i am at home. When I want noise and chaos, I go to the city. The big thing is, I have a choice in the matter and live by the beat of my own drum.

When you are young, you have no sense of this 'beat'. The city provides a steady one. Will the youth be able to maintain affordability of the city? How long will this cycle last?

https://resilienceeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/40-y...

Arcade Fire - Album (The Suburbs) 2010

Choice song (Suburban war)

When I think of California, I think of the beautiful outdoors and geography...

Which an office park isn't, either.

Of course the outdoors and mountains are very attractive but they're not a viable workplace. While many of your city complaints are valid, it's not as if the suburbs solves all of them.

"There is no parking available for friends visiting me."

Sure, and if you live in the suburbs there is plenty of parking but nothing to do.

Taking the bay area as an example, living further towards south bay allows me to shoot out to the outdoors much quicker than being in the city. Office park? When I'm at work, I want to be focused on my work .. Not distracted by the noise of a city.

As for the city, when I want to go there and enjoy something in particular, that's what I do. You can list off every music venue, club, restaurant, cultural event, park event in the city .. I've probably been to the majority of them. It's called getting off your bum, and going to where you want to be. I can jump on 280 and can get to many places in the city (40-45 min) a lot faster than my friends who live in it.

Weekend in the city? Jump on BART and go explore. Bike around the city? Jump on BART and bike around the city. Uber/public transportation are there for me just like it is for people in the city.

The thing is : When i want peace and quiet I can get it. When I want to focus in my own space, I can have it....

The noise/chaos is attractive when you're young and have not found your own sound. When you have, the city becomes a lot less attractive. More interestingly, the city doesn't necessarily help you find yourself any faster.

Absolutes like this don't really help. That may be true for you, but it isn't for all of us.

Of course the outdoors and mountains are very attractive but they're not a viable workplace. While many of your city complaints are valid, it's not as if the suburbs solves all of them.

Given all the technology that supports remote working, it's a terrible shame that we still take this for granted.

>Sure, and if you live in the suburbs there is plenty of parking but nothing to do.

It all depends on the person. When I was younger I enjoyed city life, but now that I am older and have kids I prefer hanging out with them at the park near my suburban dwelling.

The city offers certain people plenty to do, and the suburbs offers other people plenty to do. Finding out which one appeals to you and getting there is one of the tricks to enjoying life.

100% agreed. That being said, there are larger trends beyond an individual. Dominant ideology exists beyond my experience and your experience. When I was younger, I had a blast in SF. I wanted to be seen. I wanted to be discovered. I wanted to discover. Then you find out the truth and grow beyond it.

Some generations grow up believing they need to be in the city .. Some generations grow up believing the city offers nothing but noise. A more external generation loves the idea of a dense city. A more internal generation sees it as a chaotic detraction. This sets the tone beyond our anecdotes. Right now the tone is : external (city). This larger trend will change. It already has been demonstrated by the huge suburban dwellings that built en masse and the multiple generations who grew up in them w/ no desire for the city. I developed lasting relationships .. What did I do as a kid in the suburbs? LOL, I got an education and enjoyed an innocent and beautiful childhood. College/20's .. I enjoyed the city but never frothed over it (I was part of the suburban generation). There's a new wave that feels that no life exists beyond the city ... It's a cycle.. A trend ..

Side note, living in a concentrated city is better for the environment since there's less human sprawl.

Actually it isn't (several studies have highlighted this). The reason why a lot of cities aren't better for the environment is that the insane cost force many people out to the cities edge who then have to commute in... negating a good deal of the concentration benefits.

Further, cities can wreak havoc on health due to the concentration of pollution, noise, etc ... Increase mental health issues due to stress/etc.

Human beings weren't meant to be crammed into concrete jungles in shoe boxes filled with noise and chaos.

Your data must be from the industrial revolution.

We have decades of data from dense European cities that indicate better health and quality of life. Also just look at the health of rural people versus urban people in the US--the obesity crisis ain't happening in cities.

>The reason why a lot of cities aren't better for the environment is that the insane cost force many people out to the cities edge who then have to commute in

That's not urbanization. Urbanization is where people live densely, removing the need for so much driving. Half of a suburban family's energy use is devoted to driving.

> Also just look at the health of rural people versus urban people in the US

The rural/urban comparison (most studies of which include suburbs in the "urban" side) is a very different thing from the suburban/urban comparison.

> --the obesity crisis ain't happening in cities.

Yes, it is -- sure, its higher in rural areas, but the urban rate is quite high, too.

My data is on the analysis of U.S cities. Please use Google. That's what were talking about right?

Dense European cities are not designed like U.S cities namely in way of transportation systems... That's the number one point you're missing. Europe != US. Europe has tons of suburbs btw. You should travel outside city cores the next time you're there. Europe's transportation network doesn't revolve around highways and individual vehicle transport. Thus, they don't have the problem the U.S has in way of how people get into city cores.

Not to mention, you're missing a huge difference w.r.t to how jobs are scattered throughout the U.S vs europe and the affordability of housing therein.

Since the U.S's transportation system is not like Europe's nor are the city centers, the U.S's cities are most definitely not more efficient when you consider the total cost (the huge pollution cost, the time cost, and inefficiency of people who can't afford/fit in the city commuting in)

I really wish people would do more research before down voting people's comments and rebutting commentary with unsound rebuttals .. Downvotting is not for voting down comments you don't favor. You express that in comments and allow for responses to clear the air... which I have

>Now, it is fashionable to live in the city. This too will pass

Yes, when you decide to have children.

Or, when a generation who flocked to it, realizes it wasn't all that instrumental to their formation .. Just served as years of noise and chaos. So, they'll flee the city in droves , set up in the suburbs and then suburbs will be all the rage for young people hoping to have a more peaceful (involved) experience beyond the hustle and bustle of the city...

You say that will never happen? It already has and will again. It's the reason why there are seas of built up suburbs and a generation of kids and their kids who grew up in them.

There are cycles that exist beyond you... And sure, when you age and have had all your 'experiences', you get to reflect on which ones were of most value and you try to provide those for your kids. Of all my years of partying/being in the city and living it to its fullest, my biggest take-a-way was : I'm glad I experienced it enough to know I have no grand desire for what a city has to offer.

I'm skeptical that you can call this a cycle when we have no idea what's going to happen... Suburbanization isn't some recurring thing that's happened countlessly throughout history.

It's also possible to have urban, walkable neighborhoods where parking isn't extremely difficult or expensive. SF is pretty atypical in the US when it comes to population density.

This is not a cycle. What happened to urban development in the mid 20th century was a historical anomaly. People have always lived closely. Look at any historic town; they were designed for walking. And if you lived outside of a town or city, it was because you farmed the land.

Cities grew for thousands of years. Suburbs have had a 50 year run. Maybe it's oscillation on a exponentially increasing frequency, but I'm more inclined to think that suburbs were a temporary aberration.

People seem to like to be together, and throughout technological history the infrastructure scales better in cities as well, so even if people were indifferent to isolation vs. socialization the economics would favor urban development.

> All of this works in cycles. There once was a time when people were flocking to the suburbs. Now, it is fashionable to live in the city.

American suburbs are something of an anomaly. They've existed for a relatively brief period of time, and they seem to be waning now after a few generations. I think you may be conflating "small town" and "suburb" to some degree, when I wouldn't consider those things to be exactly the same. Towns have more centralization and more personality. Suburbs are characterized by sprawl and you tend to end up with chains and nothing really unique or notable.

> Hey look, I live in the city. I don't have a car. I pay a company to clean my place. I pay a company to do my laundry. There is no parking available for friends visiting me. I can't host anything at my place because its so small. I have to do all of my get together events 'out'.

I don't have a car payment, or a car insurance payment, and I don't have to deal with maintenance (cost or time associated with sitting at the mechanic). I actually do clean my own place and do my own laundry, but I've considered paying for these things to free up more of my time. I don't see essentially buying more time as a bad thing. I frequently host things at my place, but then I prefer smaller gatherings anyway. We cook, we drink, we talk, we play games. There's plenty of room for that.

> The city generally provides the illusion that you are part of something that's bigger than you really are. Young people haven't formed a clear definition of this. So, they flock to the city which provides it in 'instant' form. This changes when a generation after realizes the cons of one thing and seeks out the pros in another. Or, when you get older and wiser.

This seems like maybe a weird over-generalization of personal experience. I don't think I know anyone that's moved to the city to "feel like part of something bigger". There are a ton of good jobs here. I rarely have to leave a 2 mile radius because my favorite restaurants, doctor's office, grocery store, parks, museums and stores are all right here. I live a pretty quiet, comfortable life where a lot of nice things are very convenient.

> I have a choice in the matter and live by the beat of my own drum. When you are young, you have no sense of this 'beat'.

I honestly don't even know what you're talking about here, maybe another generalization of personal experience. I didn't move to a city to "find the beat of my drum" or learn who I am as a person or any of those things. I've lived in rural, suburban, small urban and massive urban areas. Both urban areas were far and away more enjoyable than the suburbs or rural.

I visited a friend out in suburbia recently and found the identical office parks full of identical grey rectangular prisms and identical houses and Chipotle after Chipotle depressing. All there seemed to be to do was drink shitty beer at depressing "Irish" pubs. She complains that my city is too dirty and requires too much walking. To each their own, I guess. But I don't think your change in personal preference is indicative of any massive cyclical shifts. I'd also argue that it's not neccisarily indicative of being "older and wiser".

> Suburbs are not an anomaly. They even exist in Europe in good numbers if you get outside city centers. The biggest reason why this is not so apparent to tourist is that they never go outside city centers. Many people commute and Europe has a good transportation network as the U.S will soon have to? Then what .... then city centers become less attractive as you can more easily get to where the action is without living a stone's throw from it.

Suburbs are not characterized by sprawl. There can be some suburbs that have sprawl. Others that don't. You're saying that the majority of the bay area is an anomaly? San Francisco is not the center of life. It used to be an average neighborhood with lots of poverty..(Cycle) ..

Most of the good restaurants are outside of it.. This clamoring to live in the city core is a new thing sparked by a generation in search of an advertised lifestyle of activity... The bay area's layout flies in the face of your sentiment.

> I live in the bay area too. I spend lots of time in the city. There are pros and cons. I have lived in both dense urban areas and suburbs. As such, I am not disillusioned about either.

> It's the stuff of million dollar research studies. There are macro social trends that function beyond your or my specific experiences. I am speaking about those and I am speaking about the general drivers that compel a whole generation to seek out things beyond a previous generation. It is a generational trend... One that will be cut short by the insane costs, the true economic correction, and technology that better improves transportation and telecommuting. And again, i have lived in dense cities and have been in every corner in SF.. I hear you. It's just not that serious. Take a look around you.. The majority of tech companies aren't in San Francisco. You think that's an anomaly? It's not. Start thinking beyond your own experience. Just because a bunch of social app companies are in the city and some scattered tech companies doesn't make for a big macro trend. The majority are outside of cities in suburbs.

> Your lack of understanding of what I'm talking about speaks to either your lack of experience outside of a city core (urban) area, lack of experience due to age, or bad experiences in Podunk suburbs. The majority of the bay area is a suburb. Get out of SF and talk to the people who live in it...

The majority of the bay area is a suburb. Get out of the city sometimes. It is most definitely not marked by shitty beers and chipotle. Some of my worst eating experiences have been in the city .. Some of the best restaurants are outside of it.

The bay area isn't some podunk suburb or rural area.. That's the big difference.. If you came from middle of nowhere suburbs to the bay area (straight to San Francisco), I'd question your 'experience' a little more and suggest you ask others for details about things you don't understand.

> Suburbs are not an anomaly and exist all over the world. The world outside city cores are not marked by chipotle and shitty beer. If you've traveled places and gone outside tourist areas or even explored the bay area beyond San Francisco, you'd know this.

The night-life in the city is unbeatable. That gets old as you age and desire more engaging experiences. Most things in the city can be enjoyed without having to live there. Insane costs push out culture anyway... A lot of the attractive/cool things in SF went to Oakland in search of a more affordable foundation... The upcoming generation isn't doing too hot in way of wealth.. As a result, interesting things are popping up in lower-cost areas.

Look up the demographic change that has happened in San Francisco in the last decade. The writing is all around you regarding cycles... Whether or not you're seeing it or not is another thing and you can live a long and enjoyable life not seeing any of it. To each their own w.r.t to personal happiness. Beyond that, you're going to have to dig a little deeper and draw from more varied experiences if you feel you want to chime in on such matters.

> Many people commute and Europe has a good transportation network as the U.S will soon have to? Then what .... then city centers become less attractive as you can more easily get to where the action is without living a stone's throw from it.

This is the crux of the issue. Cities were built around different modes of transportation (walking, biking, driving, trains) whereas suburbs were built up entirely around the automobile. This aversion to driving is something unique to Millenials; owning a car meant freedom and marked success to previous generations. These days, young people are comfortable with streaming services and the new shared economy, so "owning" something isn't important as it once was. Additionally, we face economic concerns (we're making less money and cars are expensive), political concerns (oil, in many cases, directly supports oppressive regimes), and ecological concerns.

In a generation or two, suburbs will have had to adapt to this change in lifestyle and commuter rail/light rail projects are already underway to connect the first ring to the urban cores. Additionally, I think more emphasis will be placed on rebuilding a town center/main street in the areas that can support it. Finally, self-driving electric cars will calm traffic immensely (imagine if all vehicles report to a centralized dispatch AI that can calculate the most efficient routes available, knowing exactly when to turn, stop, accelerate, etc using computer vision, path finding and flocking algorithms.) Cities and suburbs around the country are already adding bike lanes and pedestrian to roads.

From what you've said, it sounds like SF and the Bay Area may be more of an exception than the rule for the US as a whole. My only experience with it is one trip to Santa Clara, so SF is not what I'm basing my opinion on. Most suburbs that are not immediately outside of a major city are probably what you'd consider pretty podunk.

I've lived in places that really ran the gamut from middle-of-nowhere bible belt where we shared a party line with the few other trailers, podunk suburbs, to a small city, to NYC.

I don't do night-life, and I know a number of other people that don't really do the club/nightlife thing either. So maybe the whole find the beat of your drum/chaos/excitement thing is more referring to that. I have a pretty quiet, boring life in the big city and I love it. I'm a short walk away from a great greenmarket, tons of parks, a great bookstore, tons of good food, coffee, beer, etc., etc. And I never have to drive or sit in traffic.

These emptying office parks presents an opportunity. Certainly the larger ones contain infrastructure that can be repurposed, and the asking prices is decreasing. In the next downturn, the cost of purchasing a park will go down even more.

Perhaps the larger parks can be repurposed into something akin to a village. Reformat the buildings into something more traditional, apartments on the upper floors, offices and stores in the bottom, etc. Add more buildings to create more continuity. Let people be creative, let the fabric emerge.

Now in any given area, each of these potential villages is quite isolated from another. Still, pedestrian connections can be forged and inter-village transportation arranged.

Over time, we can heal this anomaly.

This is the right answer. Instead of letting suburbs rot, we select some for renovation and reuse. With a little work, we can make suburbs more walkable, bikeable, and environmentally friendly.

A book on the subject: http://www.sprawlrepair.com/index.html

Great Illustrations: http://inhabitat.com/urban-sprawl-repair-kit-offers-simple-p...

Those illustrations are great!

Stuart Brand's "How Buildings Learn" also provides some theoretical background on buildings as infrastructure and can inform how a property may be improved with an eye to the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Buildings_Learn

http://www.amazon.com/How-Buildings-Learn-Happens-Theyre/dp/...

There's a whole video series as well, this segment discusses the advantages of loose zoning at the docks in Sausalito:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuKPknFLHno

It's definitely a chicken and egg problem. Part of why these office parks are rotting is that no one really wants to be there, usually due to the fact that there's nothing there.

The building featured here seems like a false example of blight, since it's in an area that's seeing major redevelopment. The same is true of the mall alongside it, which has been reckoned as a 'dead mall' in other articles, but only because it's being rebuilt into a urban neighborhood: https://b256ec319b64095c3d1d-e19f06f73efdb5028989d1916204cd7...

I would guess that the owners of the office buildings in question here are warehousing it until the area becomes more desirable.

The only walkable food options in an office park might be a cafeteria, which I find to be depressing, more often than not.

The only option is to get in your car and drive somewhere, just like everyone else does, which means the lunch rush is just more sitting in traffic.

Even Silicon Valley has these abandoned SOPs, just look at South San Jose. Most of these offices have been vacant for years.

After the IBM factory in south SJ closed down, the whole area just seems so sleepy, new shopping complex or not (http://preservation.org/projects/ibm25/ibm25_background.html).

It's articles like these that make me wonder if the current paradigm of centralized production in general is a fluke. Before the industrial revolution there were a handful of cities that were big and mostly for political (cities where the sovereign reigned) or economic reasons (trading). But now, we seem to be overbuilding because that's what we're use to. The suburbs are just an extension of the same phenomenon where the ability to subsidize transportation costs via centralization of production has made this possible. Obviously, the steadily rising price of oil is slowing the growth, but in many ways if the societies before the industrial revolution could have kept the same inventions of production at the local level perhaps things wouldn't be as disjointed as they are. Imagine smaller towns and cities with the same tools of production, but not to the current scale as we experience. Only a handful of modern situations would warrant a big foot print (datacenters and certain factories come to mind), but those would exist in the regions and cities that make economic sense. Today, it just seems like everyone wants to go Stalinist/Soviet big with everything.

Hah! I had a gig in that building (6116 Executive) when I was a consultant... writing billing systems for a phone company right after the Bell breakup.

I apologize for a bit of a rambling response here - this article struck a chord with me.

I hardly think there is a universal trend away from the suburbs. Its a matter of personal preference. Washington DC is highly unique however in the sense that one can easily commute from the suburbs into most parts of the city with a minimal drive to the Metro station. So you can have it both ways with a house/yard and an urban lifestyle when you need it. Old office parks out in MD are unnecessary, particularly because more of DC is safe than 5-10 years ago. My wife worked on U Street and I worked in Gallery Place, two areas you wouldn't be caught dead in 10-15 years ago.

But... not all cities unfortunately offer this type of luxury. Having grown up and lived in NYC for almost 30 years, I see people wrestling with the following:

1) People want to "escape" the city either because costs are prohibitively high for a reasonable amount of square footage or simply to have the chance to decompress away from the people/activity/etc. As for costs, you only really begin to save when you get further and further away from the city, and your commute becomes soul-sucking. Parents of my friends growing up spent 3 hours in a car each day to be able to provide a good day in a safe community. That is a death sentence literally and psychically. If costs are less of an issue but you don't like the city, the added commute just makes you less productive. NJ Transit/LIRR are not quite at the point where people can be fully productive and extend the workday.

2)People who love the city and never want to leave: to make this possible, you have to prioritize the energy and conveniences of the city over your own personal comfort except in a few rare circumstances.

I hope these unnecessary offices parks are replaced by more modern co-working spaces in smaller cities that provide employees optionality. NYC and SF are bursting at the seams and the sprawl will just continue.

A little more about Marriott's move:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/digger/wp/2015/03/01/marr...

> “I think it’s essential we be accessible to Metro and that limits the options. I think as with many other things our younger folks are more inclined to be Metro-accessible and more urban. That doesn’t necessarily mean we will move to downtown Washington, but we will move someplace.”

Sounds like the trick is to try and get a sweetheart incentive package by a town that is close to the Metro.

I wonder if any of the real estate owners have considered applying for a dual-zone - residential and commerical. Then rehab the building into part offices for smaller businesses and apartments of some kind.

If you get enough of these clustered together then you start to have little urban-like communities instead of miles of office parks. Sprinkle in restaurants, dry cleaner, gym, etc. and you might attract enough tenants to turn it around. Better than being vacant.

Those buildings may be practically abandoned, but the new Pike & Rose development only two blocks away appears to be doing quite nicely, and work has already begun on a new development project near what used to be White Flint mall. I live right on the edge of this area, and it seems far from being a ghost town.

The Valley will be the next great ghost town. 30 years from now, most of the current offices in SJ, Mountain View, and Palo Alto will be abandoned because people will be sick of the suburban lifestyle.

Plus earthquakes.

I'm looking forward to random shots of wildlife from the marshes infesting FB's abandoned old Sun campus in 2050.

Where will they live? Legitimate question; there's no room in SF. Are they going to build some new mega-metropolis and get the water from... somewhere?

US manufacturing employment peaked in 1977. When do we hit "peak office"? With all this IT technology, office employment ought to start declining at some point.

Crashes Safari on my iPhone 6 Plus (iOS 9.0). But have experienced it on more site recently. Is it all the JavaScript libraries?

Sad when I wanted to read it..

Same for Chrome on Android and on an old-ish netbook. Doesn't anyone test their websites with hardware below $2K?!

Oddly enough, this page was gobbling up around 900Mb of RAM under Firefox 39.0 on Linux on a laptop with 1Gb. Firefox quit. Reloading with noscript active allowed the page to load but I was seeing something like 650Mb of RAM which is a record!

What has the page got in it?

(I resorted to elinks in a terminal to be able to read the text until I installed noscript).

EDIT: Swapped another Gb of RAM in and still crashes Firefox with noscript disabled. Can read with noscript on.

So I have an anecdote here.

I work for Google in the New York office. For those of you that don't know, several years ago Google bought the former Port Authority building in Chelsea for ~$1.9B. It is I believe the second largest office building in Manhattan by square footage of usable area.

Google's presence here has steadily grown in the almost 5 years I've been here at least tripling in size. I live in the area and honestly it's amazing. Having no commute of any kind (unless you count a 5 minute walk a commute) is life-changing. Being in a dynamic, interesting area is a gift.

For those that want more suburban lifestyles, there are a plethora of options <1 hour from the office in Long Island, New Jersey and Westchester. Most people I know who are married and do this have just one car since public transit is sufficient to get to and from work (only a madman would choose to drive into Manhattan).

Contrast this with our headquarters in Mountain View. Actually, it's not even accurate to say that anymore as it now encompasses some of Sunnyvale and I believe we have or will have a presence in Redwood City and other places.

All of this is essentially low-to-medium density office parks surrounded by a sea of parking space.

Some commute in on Google buses. Those who want a more urban lifestyle life in SF and spend as many as 3 hours a day or more on the bus for the privilege.

Living near campus is expensive and, well, boring. There are no cheap options. Compare this to NYC where you could buy a cheap (<$200k) apartment in say Jackson Heights or Sunnyside (in Queens) and be 30-40 minutes from the office.

Because there are thousands of people in the NYC office, certain things become possible. You get a wider range of cafes (there are more in MTV but they're far more spread apart). Certain social activities can thrive within the office that seem to falter in MTV due to the much lower density.

So it's actually an amazing office to work in and honestly I'd probably have to kill myself if I were forced to relocate to MTV (well OK, maybe I'd just quit...).

My point here though is that office parks are a depressing and unsatisfying experience for any company or employee. They're not desirable in any way, even the high end tech campuses of Silicon Valley are just glorified office parks when it comes down to it.

Honestly I don't know how any in the Valley does it. Maybe it's different if you get to work in SF but even then you have to contend with finding and paying for a place in SF. And if you need a bigger place (eg you have a family) then you just don't have the options you do in NYC.

As for the lower end of office parks, technology has to be a factor here. With the ever-cheapening cost of bandwidth it becomes even easier to chase ever-cheaper real estate with ever-more-mobile low-paid office jobs doesn't it?

One of the worst working experiences I've had in recent years was working in a first ring suburb in one of those office parks. Everything was falling apart. Even the nicer parts of the building had a strong "faux-opulence" feel. The firm was a publicly traded tech company. About a year after I left their biggest customer left and eventually they were delisted. Coincidence?

anyone else notice this page is 12MB because the two thumbnails images are 6MB each

Needs more vertical farms.

On Silicon Valley:

Yet Facebook, Apple and Google — companies that brag about their forward thinking — are trying to reinvent this template of the past. They have commissioned high-profile architects to design versions of the ultimate office park in Silicon Valley, an hour-plus shuttle ride from San Francisco. [...] They will be movable, lightweight structures instead of blocky concrete buildings. Anything to attract brilliant minds and assure employees that they’re living in the future, not a glorified version of the past.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com