Office Vacancy Rate Still Going Up in San Francisco (sales, mortgage)

[mattja]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

No, although housing in SF is essentially what I was speaking to (such as UC Law’s new residential building). If you lived in/near SF, you’d be aware of the plan/goal to bring 30,000 new residents and students to downtown (and Breed’s annual address, for that matter).

The 30x30 Initiative is about parks and open space. It's state-level.

In October 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-82-20 which establishes a state goal of conserving 30% of California’s lands and coastal waters by 2030 – known as 30x30.

https://www.californianature.ca.gov/

I don't see how that relates to downtown SF.

The possible expansion of UC downtown has been discussed here already.

In some cases, it’s why the company mandates were necessary (relative to hybrid scenarios); that said, many of them have not yet taken effect. Ultimately, the employer determines where work will be performed (as is the case relative to the AI job postings I previously mentioned).

Companies forcing their employees to come into work twice-a-week doesn't also force them to move back to SF. It just means they have to come in. And it doesn't mean office leases will increase. It just means those corporate offices will be 1/2 empty instead of 3/4 empty.

A lot of office leases are expiring this year and whether or not they are renewed is anyone's guess.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by mattja

Simple. New land taken off the market permanently can never be developed, ever.

California is 156,000 square miles. Population 39.4 million.

Vietnam, Italy, Norway and the Philippines would roughly fit inside California’s borders with about 20% of the state’s area to spare.
Population of the Philippines is 117,337,368.
Population of Vietnam is 98,858,950.
Italy is 58,870,762
Norway adds only a paltry 5,474,360

Combined, those countries that would take up 80% of California’s area, represent 280,541,440 million people. Which is over 7x more people clogging our highways and byways and beaches than we are already struggling to share with each other.

Just how much more development do you suggest we need?

Personally, I’m voting for more parks.

[M3Guy]

Originally Posted by mattja

You mean the project to increase park and open space in California by as much as 30%, making the housing situation even worse?

How will that get people into the office in downtown San Francisco?



That's the problem. Employees are refusing to return.



Makes no difference. The entire purpose of apps like Zoom and MS Teams is so people can collaborate. Nothing is special about AI that it requires in-office workers.



Really? How so?



Plans, plans, plans.

But no action EXCEPT when the bigwigs are in town, like when Xi came. Then the mayor showed they can ACT quickly when they want to.

No one wants to go downtown as long as it remains a cesspool. And since the Tenderloin bleeds onto Market and Downtown, nothing will change until that's cleaned up as well.

Then maybe people will be interested in going back to the office. Maybe.

Eventually that will balance itself out. I'm going to use example numbers, but if you had 25% of jobs offering fully remote work, and 75% mandating return to the office, 100% of people won't be able to work for the companies offering full remote. Just give it some time. When people get hungry enough and work dries up, they'll commute.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by mattja

The 30x30 Initiative is about parks and open space. It's state-level.

I don't see how that relates to downtown SF.

Wow, lol. Again, you’re speaking to California; I’m discussing Breed’s 30x30 plan (or referendum/initiative measures relative to such). The goal is to attract 30,000 residents and students downtown by 2030.

Originally Posted by mattja

The possible expansion of UC downtown has been discussed here already.

Yes, it’s part of said overall plan re: grad students; that said, the residential building I mentioned, Academe at 198, has already opened.

Originally Posted by mattja

Companies forcing their employees to come into work twice-a-week doesn't also force them to move back to SF. It just means they have to come in. And it doesn't mean office leases will increase.

Hence the point of increasing residential space and not relying on AI growth (alone) i.e. recognizing opportunity relative to its highly-educated talent pool and unparalleled geography.

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Im just going to say, I will gladly leave a job that forces me to return to the office at this point. Don't see the point of returning to those soul sucking commutes and personality-less cubicles all just to have the privilege of being a metric to represent office staffing.

It certainly sounds as though that would be beneficial to both sides.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by mattja

Simple. New land taken off the market permanently can never be developed, ever.

Right now, less than 10% of California's entire land mass is occupied by housing. So even if we set aside 30% of our state for preserving the most beautiful national, state, and regional parks, we would still have built housing on only 16% of the remaining unprotected land. We can well afford to protect the natural wonders that set California apart from most places and preserving our quality of life, without sacrificing opportunities to develop vastly more housing if we want it.

[mattja]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Right now, less than 10% of California's entire land mass is occupied by housing. So even if we set aside 30% of our state for preserving the most beautiful national, state, and regional parks, we would still have built housing on only 16% of the remaining unprotected land. We can well afford to protect the natural wonders that set California apart from most places and preserving our quality of life, without sacrificing opportunities to develop vastly more housing if we want it.

It's not a matter of total land mass, but land mass that as a practical matter, can be developed. It's a matter of geography, economics, resources, and much more.

The only area left that can reasonably be developed large-scale is the central valley, but much of that is farm land.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

It certainly sounds as though that would be beneficial to both sides.

Certainly.

I'll give my perspective of a fare and balanced analysis of this debate.

I agree that in the office it is easy to collaborate with a team and I also agree that it is easier to oversee employees and their performance but all too often the corporate structure is built in such a way as to build social structures in which may collaboratively exist to build upon the company yet deny merit or accomplishment within the group as any grounds for advancement. You will have groups of employees that must uniformly perform, think, collaborate with each member doing either one of two things...

1.) Competing with the corporate structure in a nearly futile attempt to move up to a desirable position within the corporate environment even if that means hiding a few grudges with a fake smile or kissing up to a boss you can't stand or even working behind the back of your coworker peers even if it means getting a few of them terminated so you can reduce competition or better yet, advance on their position.. ..when the corporation itself hires some no name with no experience only because someone with no merit or accomplishments has some inside connections to get whomever he wants whereever he wants to be.

2.) Leaving the company for career progression because it was impossible to achieve internally.

It's a fixed deal built around fixed controls making people who work there believe merit and accomplishment actually means something. Those who make maybe 5% more than everyone else think they've actually accomplished something because they can afford slightly more things from China.

Today it feels like corporations have not awoken to the reality that we live in a much different world today than we did pre-pandemic ... and the new reality is that it is much easier to make money outside of a cubicle than it used to be... no longer are we tied to a corporate mentality (do as I say or lose everything you own (or rent))
The opportunities for self entrepreneurship are endless and no longer do we live in a world where every individual is lucky to work for Fortune 500 (or less) companies.

Some people, who are attached to the system and cannot see around it will certainly return to corporate slavery...

I used the pandemic to pay off all of my cars, my mortgage several years in advance and I simply put will not be in dire straights if I lost my job tomorrow...therefore...I won't be among the folks returning to the office.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Some people, who are attached to the system and cannot see around it will certainly return to corporate slavery...

I’m amused you refer to well-compensated white-collar work as slavery. That said, some folks have mouths to feed and/or genuinely enjoy what they do (and the intellectual stimulation).

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I used the pandemic to pay off all of my cars, my mortgage several years in advance and I simply put will not be in dire straights if I lost my job tomorrow...therefore...I won't be among the folks returning to the office.

Most folks at a certain level (or relative to different types of work) either have to, or want to, engage with others. During the pandemic, many disliked being stuck in their homes; hence, I think most are willing to go to (at least) a hybrid model.

That said, Salesforce, Meta, Google, JP Morgan Chase, several major law firms and so on are all on the long list of those who are committed to bringing employees back (and tracking them) into the office.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

I’m amused you refer to well-compensated white-collar work as slavery. That said, some folks have mouths to feed and/or genuinely enjoy what they do (and the intellectual stimulation).



Most folks at a certain level (or relative to different types of work) either have to, or want to, engage with others. During the pandemic, many disliked being stuck in their homes; hence, I think most are willing to go to (at least) a hybrid model.

That said, Salesforce, Meta, Google, JP Morgan Chase, several major law firms and so on are all on the long list of those who are committed to bringing employees back (and tracking them) into the office.

It depends on what you consider well compensated. I personally make over $400k ... most white collar tech firms are going to pay anywhere between $90k to $150k ... If you're into Software Engineering then increase that to about $250k for a skilled one (although it is unlikely they will be as quick to rush one back into the office), likewise you can make significantly more if you're into STEM or BioTech, but those positions are not exactly the kind that your average commuter is going to be working in.

Lets go with my first salary range and adjust for the CoL of the Bay Area and account for inflation over the past few decades. Currently a $100k salary equates to approximately $50k in year 2000, add the sticker shock of housing prices and the 'un'likely hood that an entry level six figure salary will buy any decent home then the average worker still comes out with nothing but a endless commute with a salary progression that will be inevitably be eclipsed by inflation. Infact many are still forced to rent or even share with roommates. On paper certainly the salary looks good, but how far does it take you today?

Now if you're talking salaries $300k and higher then certainly, but I kind of doubt those are making the bulk of white collar employees.

[colobound65]

My friend has worked for Sales Force for years and has always been 100% remote