Rethinking office space • Hacker News Board

Re: Rethinking office space

#111

Post by fsk » Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 1:31 AM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #54

UhUhUhUh wrote: post #4

I'd work in a filthy basement in the middle of Kansas for a company/project that’s worth it.

Uhm, well, you might think so, but it does get really old. I worked at a place that was doing important work, and when I started I had a nice office on the 5th floor. It had a beautiful view. A couple of months later I, and the rest of the group, was moved to an underground office. Now, I don't mean basement. I mean the "company" had emptied out a huge underground oil bunker[1], built a false floor and interior walls…

When I worked for a large financial institution as a contractor, they moved me to floor negative 2. A few weeks later, they announced that my contract was ending. Then, a new project came up, it was un-cancelled, and I was moved back to being with the rest of the group.

A year later, they moved me to floor negative 3. A few weeks later, they announced my contract was ending.

So, being moved to the basement is a clear sign you are not getting respect. The next time I'm moved to the basement, I immediately start actively looking.

Re: Rethinking office space

#112

Post by kansface » Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 2:35 AM UTC

msandford wrote: post #62

toast0 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question, how does prop 13 increase the cost of living?

I would guess that by reducing property tax you've made it possible for housing prices to go ever higher. This makes housing SEEM less affordable for sure (since the prices can continue to rise higher), and might also actually make it less affordable too as people are happy to build ever more expensive housing since the property tax rates are lower. A certain niceness of a house in a certain market will tend to sell/…

edit: moved up a level

Re: Rethinking office space

#113

Post by kansface » Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 2:38 AM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #42

kansface wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mountain View (all of Silicon Valley, really) has the bad habit of approving anything that brings in new jobs while simultaneously rejected housing commensurate to the number of jobs added. Many of the residents of the valley want their cities to remain de facto suburbs (designed for cars). Throw in prop 13, a substantial number of well paid transplants, and you have a recipe for the extreme cost of living in the Bay…

Honest question, how does prop 13 increase the cost of living?

Home owners have the perverse incentive to stop all new construction to the detriment of their community. Their net worth continually increases so long as the price of real estate increases. There is no downside!

Furthermore, property taxes normally force some people out of their homes; this isn't as bad as it sounds - in SF at least, they would get a hefty windfall. On average, the property would be used more efficiently by the new owner.

NIMBYism is the biggest problem in SF. Every year, 20K people or so move into the city while we only build enough housing for roughly one tenth of them. Housing has increased by ~10-15% a year for the past decade or so.

Re: Rethinking office space

#114

Post by kansface » Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 2:41 AM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #110

smokinn wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prop 13 limits property tax to the value of the house when you bought it unlike most places where you pay property tax on the current value. So what happens in other locations is that demand for locations starts going up, housing prices go up, taxes go up and people who can't pay those taxes get displaced. Developers buy those houses, raze them in favor of apartment complexes and eventually you get density. If people…

dragonwriter covered most of the details, but they key one he missed in Prop 13 is that every other homestead law I am aware of has an owner occupancy requirement that Prop 13 lacks. In Florida, which has a very generous homestead law, the ad valorem tax limits apply to the owner-occupied primary residence. You move and rent the place, your valuation spikes up to market rate. Own two houses? Pick one, because the oth…

Those older than 55 can also apply their previous tax to any home they buy of equal or lesser value when they move.

Re: Rethinking office space

#115

Post by shortsleeves » Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 3:14 AM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #70

jasonkester wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, MTV doesn't mean Mountain View to anybody who doesn't live or work in Mountain View. To everybody else it means MTV, making the things you say very confusing.

For what it’s worth, I live on the east coast, am not particularly keyed in to the Silicon Valley world like most HN readers, and knew (assumed) immediately that MTV = Mountain View based on the context of the article and the comment. I think it’s pretty obvious given the overall context here.

it's also the abbreviation used on the coaches going from San Francisco to "MTV"

Re: Rethinking office space

#116

Post by robotresearcher » Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 3:41 AM UTC

It's hot in Mountain View for several months a year. How are they going to cool these greenhouses?

Re: Rethinking office space

#117

Post by Fomite » Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 6:25 AM UTC

hga wrote: post #93

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think perhaps starting to build buildings is a sign of a company's maturity, and that separately many companies that achieve this maturity end up struggling to maintain the focus they enjoyed during their growth. So maybe it is that big successful companies tend to build buildings, and that success sometimes is the downfall of an innovative company.

Exactly. I at least view this phenomena as more likely signaling a peak than a downfall. It's often a sign that some of the people at the top believe they have nothing better to do than immerse themselves in creating a special building. They are by definition not as focused on the company's business. If this is happening with Google, it doesn't signal doom, but, as you say, a degree of maturity.

"Exactly. I at least view this phenomena as more likely signaling a peak than a downfall." - You do realize that a "peak" inherently implies a decline, yes?

Re: Rethinking office space

#118

Post by slimbods » Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 10:09 AM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #83

habosa wrote: post #23

I work at Google in MTV and this is very exciting to me. I think the higher-ups at this company have the vision to pull this off, I hope I stay engaged here long enough to see it. The real concern (which Google can't fully solve) is housing. If you add 10k or 20k more employees in these beautiful new offices, where do they all live? I guess Google could build apartments too but that's not ideal, I don't want to live…

I work from home and it's pretty nice never having to commute. I miss other people though. If Google built nice apartments or condos and rented them at discounted prices to employees, you could wake up and get dressed, take some little robotic electric vehicle to the nearest cafe, get a free breakfast, and then pop into work. To me this sounds amazing, because it's like working from home but with other humans to inte…

I never went to University, but took my daughter for her interview at a large UK institution this week. I watched the students wander from lectures to the gym and coffee shop then to halls of residence all within strolling distance. Made me think this was the way I'd love to live.

Re: Rethinking office space

#119

Post by hga » Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 12:28 PM UTC

Fomite wrote: post #117

hga wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I at least view this phenomena as more likely signaling a peak than a downfall. It's often a sign that some of the people at the top believe they have nothing better to do than immerse themselves in creating a special building. They are by definition not as focused on the company's business. If this is happening with Google, it doesn't signal doom, but, as you say, a degree of maturity.

"Exactly. I at least view this phenomena as more likely signaling a peak than a downfall." - You do realize that a "peak" inherently implies a decline, yes?

Yes, but peak does not necessarily equal "downfall", it could be the start of a plateau, which can be very consequential, especially for a previously high growth tech company. I'm also using it loosely, it could also, after a while, be followed by another growth period. Or a decline could be slow, Google's business isn't necessarily of the sort where a fall would be quick.

Re: Rethinking office space

#120

Post by mjklin » Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 1:26 PM UTC

mankyd wrote: post #26

habosa wrote: post #23

I work at Google in MTV and this is very exciting to me. I think the higher-ups at this company have the vision to pull this off, I hope I stay engaged here long enough to see it. The real concern (which Google can't fully solve) is housing. If you add 10k or 20k more employees in these beautiful new offices, where do they all live? I guess Google could build apartments too but that's not ideal, I don't want to live…

Interestingly, a long commute is one of the most highly correlated factors with regards to people's happiness: http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/06/perils-commu... You may be happier living at work than you realize, (yes, I joke, but not as much as you'd think).

In the hardcore-communist days of China the setup was usually: factory on one side, block of flats for workers on the other, school and hospital adjacent. The kids played in the courtyard.

Actually not that bad of a setup...