• ArdMacha@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    It isn’t, it’s all the office space they own, if people are allowed to keep working from home the retail office market will crash pretty hard.

    • MechanicalJester@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      8 months ago

      Ever see how much real estate companies like Google has? If all those bay area companies said fuckit let’s be remote it would crash the market and rock the economy.

      We should though, if possible.

      • TallonMetroid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m told that office buildings are actually terrible from a housing standpoint. Like, it’s actually easier to just tear the whole thing down and build an entirely new complex than convert it into apartments.

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Perhaps. There are other possible uses, though, such as commons spaces. Also, even housing that has a quirky design may carry value, within the context, in symbolizing transformation away from the old.

          • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            My town has been stuck fighting over rezoning for decades. The urban sprawling is fucked. So many empty lots and buildings while the suburbs fight to keep half acre lots as single family zoning. Add in poor mass transit and it is an ugly mess

            • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              Certainly, it is expected that politicians operate on the same side as developers and owners, and that all such parties insulate themselves from the population through NIMBY.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      No one cares about retail office market. A market bubble crashing is merely an opportunity to earn money for the others. Capitalism doesn’t care about losers.

      • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        America only has capitalism for the poor. For the rich, it’s socialism. You better believe retail office owners stand to be losers, and they have power to fight.

        • ArdMacha@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          There is no money to be earned though if nobody needs office space then all those offices will need to be converted to living space which will reduce the price of domestic homes too.

          • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            The rich want companies to want office space, simply because the rich want their office space to be wanted.

    • Wutangforemer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Few organizations own their own office space, most lease. So it’s not so much “they”, the CEOs that want you to return to work, but “they”, the venture capitalists (whom the CEOs answer to). These investors have a stake not only in the organization, but separately have investments in commercial office real estate that they stand to lose money on if those leases aren’t renewed.

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        In principle, municipalities could gain control of the assets.

        Little doubt, if a course were followed, the previous owners would be compensated at outrageously inflated prices, defended as rescuing the investors, but nevertheless, control by the public, in the sense of genuine control by the public rather than control by corporations pretending to be concerned for the public, could open pathways for many opportunities toward social interests.