An on-line site called the Dumber, er, I mean Intelligancer says that, for cities to survive, developers must be allowed to convert office buildings into housing. There are a lot of problems with this recommendation.
Your former office today. Photo by Tomi Knuutila.
There are a lot of problems with this recommendation. First, both people and jobs are moving away from the cities, so who is going to want to live in former office buildings anyway? Second, office buildings are not designed for human habitation, so converting them will be expensive, probably far more expensive than the single-family homes people are moving to. Third, if cities allow such conversions, and they don’t happen, you know what the next step will be: cities will begin subsidizing such conversions.
All of this is predicated on the idea that cities (meaning dense inner cities, the areas whose office buildings are currently half empty) as opposed to urban areas are somehow vital to society. They aren’t and haven’t been for a century. It is also predicated on the idea that planners know what cities need and can write zoning codes and create tax incentives and subsidies to provide that need.
In fact, urban planners are almost totally clueless about the cities they claim to be planning. They haven’t understood those cities for decades, instead trying to impose their personal preferences and 60-year-old “visions” on other people (even though most planners themselves prefer single-family homes).
An architect — I believe it was Louis Kahn — once advised students, “Let the room be what it wants to be.” Planners should leave cities alone and let them be what they want to be. Someone will figure out a use for those office buildings. Though the owners of those buildings will probably be upset that they aren’t getting the rents they expected before the pandemic, that’s not a problem taxpayers should be required to remedy.
Converting offices to residential space requires walls…. more so needs, privacy. Oh and lots of bathrooms which means reroute miles of plumbing to accommodate sinks, showers,WATER HEATERS and toilets.
Isn’t “allowing” office buildings to be converted to residential the exact thing free market libertarians want? By relaxing zoning and letting a property owner do as they want on their property. AP is acting like Planners are forcing office buildings be converted to residential buildings but actually they are “letting the office building be what it wants to be.”
He did not say not to let them do it but that it was bad idea and the developers who soon demand public money when no one wants to live in such places and are losing money. That is the pattern for Los Angeles. When the public will not live in the mixed use project, the city gives the developers subsidies. That was the pattern with the old CRALA before it was killed off.
Yeah I think you got a little tunnel-visioned here. “Allowing” residential conversion IS letting the cities be what they want to be. It might not be a good idea, and it might later turn into subsidies (I’m sure TIF will be involved very quickly), but developers should be allowed to try and make it work if they want.
Sketter & FantasiaWHT,
My point is that, even if cities allow it, it’s not going to happen unless it is subsidized. Once the cities allow it and it doesn’t happen, they’ll start subsidizing it. Once they start subsidizing it, it will become a huge boondoggle. I’m not arguing against allowing it. I’m arguing against thinking that changing offices to housing is an economically viable idea.
yes. The Antiplanner here is mainly concerned that cities will see the “value” in helping to pay for office–>residential conversions.
Chicago is already offering hundreds of millions in just such subsidies.
However, given the many downsides of highrise/big city living, if jobs are gone, what is the point of living there?
So it seems that your real problem is if they choose (which they likely would, I agree) to subsidize the conversion. You wouldn’t want cities to prohibit conversion or actively try to stop it, would you?
Paris has issues is not to become a frozen museum/tourist mirror of itself. Other destination cities face the same problem, especially as property prices increase and the creative classes must move out. San Francisco, New Orleans, Kyoto, Venice also face the same problem. How to preserve and enhance those historical aspects that make it attractive as a destination while growing a current dynamic living. Post war Paris….needed thousands of homes and the buildings that define it were largely unsuitable, unsafe, claptraps.
Periurbanization or as we in America call it “Urban Sprawl”
anti-sprawl policies have caused a six-fold increase in land prices and significantly increased housing prices.
The population of the city of Paris reached a historic high of 2.9 million in 1921 but then declined; between 1954 and 1999 it declined at every census, to 2.1 million and lost 14,000 a year. Architecture be damned…Paris suburbs are becoming more popular…
– more convenient parking
– better lightning
– better location (financially etc
– reduced congestion
– accessibility to adjacent facilities like pools, lifestyle centers, parks, outdoor recreations, clubs
Urban planners envision cities…then try to impose cities then watch the people flee cities. Economist Thomas Sowell said it ever so nicely. “There are no solutions, only tradeoffs”
Paris is 2.1 million in a nation of 67 million…apparently We are not all Parisians.
Is it even cheaper to convert office buildings?
Even if the cost were cheaper than starting over, the housing would be poor quality and forced to fit into the existing structure, with the wrong elevator system, plumbing, HVAC, windows, etc. for a living space.
In a couple decades, these buildings will be slums.
Here in the Mid-Atlantic we have many industrial and office building conversions to residential or mixed-use. Many are 1920s-1930s beautiful, classic downtown office buildings that have declined to Class B-, or worse, before the conversion. Most assisted by Historic Tax Credits…which have softened the blow of all the challenges inherent in moving from one use to another. Sadly, the 2,000+ units created over the past 5-10 years have not spurred the kind of small-scale commercial uses to serve this new market (my favorite coffee shop in the thick of the conversions is still not open on Saturdays…).
Allowing conversions through zoning, plan review, etc. is a good thing. So is more flexible zoning, reduced parking requirements and other thing that would allow a city “to be what it is.” It’s when we wander into requiring those kinds of elements that we get into trouble. I’ve been a planner for over 40 years and it’s always amazed me that we glom onto the “hot topic du jour” then 10 years later pick another “hot fix.” Generally, the results have been less than optimal on most of the actions taken. We’ve spent most of the last 70 years working against allowing cities to be what they want to be. Providing opportunities to correct that is fine by me…
”
Paris is 2.1 million in a nation of 67 million…apparently We are not all Parisians.
” ~lazy reader
hahaha…. tru dat
”
An architect — I believe it was Louis Kahn — once advised students, “Let the room be what it wants to be.” Planners should leave cities alone and let them be what they want to be. Someone will figure out a use for those office buildings.
” ~The Anti-Planner
That’s my main concern, once converted they won’t go back. The city will just become a bunch of houses, with most folks working outside of the city.
No subsidies. Let the buildings be used for Hydroponic Gardening. Los Angeles has enough empty space to feed all of China. Also, hydroponic gardening requires a lot less water than using dirt. https://bit.ly/3w0dPnH
When DTLA’s offices are used for hydroponic gardening, there will be no rush hour traffic since it requires very few workers