Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

17.1 Salesforce Towers worth of empty office space spread across SF

socketsite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 75 posts

Re: 17.1 Salesforce Towers worth of empty office space spread across SF

#21

Post by toomanyrichies »

Apocryphon wrote: post #11

I wonder how much of that office space is viable for converting into residential housing, both physically-speaking and zoning-wise. Yeah, yeah, office buildings are often built completely different from housing and need to be vastly retooled, but it is possible, and Boston is attempting it. When it comes to SF it feels like the regulatory issues are more difficult.

As long as we're using our imaginations, I'm genuinely curious how much NIMBYism would come into play when trying to retool downtown into primarily residential towers.

Historically it's been a huge issue in other neighborhoods, where current homeowners are loath to approve more housing since it would drag down their property values. But I have to imagine that SF's downtown has drastically fewer homeowners per-square-mile (at least compared to, say, Sunset or Pacific Heights or the Marina).

Yes SF's approval process is a hellscape of regulatory hurdles, but given the lack of homeowners in the area, I wonder if the approval process would go at least a smidge more smoothly?

Actually, who am I kidding- some other interest group would probably take their place.

Re: 17.1 Salesforce Towers worth of empty office space spread across SF

#22

Post by lattalayta »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #9
pasttense01 wrote: post #3

If the owners would substantially cut the rent the empty office space would rapidly fill up.

Cutting rent means that the property is worth less. That means investors are demanding to know why the property is worth less, and the city collects less property taxes which might lead to politicians asking questions. While all that may be necessary, it won't happen until it's the only thing that can happen.

How much longer do you think property managers can hold out?

Re: 17.1 Salesforce Towers worth of empty office space spread across SF

#23

Post by legitster »

US cities are going to be in a world of hurt here pretty soon.

Cities exist as job markets. And the primary force that keeps urban areas safe and friendly is the shoeleather of middle class workers coming in and out of work each day.

The vacuum left has been filled with homelessness and poverty. These people were always here, but there was enough critical mass that they were at the margins. Now they are at all of the bus stops and train platforms.

Cities often had their priorities backwards and became very dependent on unsustainably high property values. Even if you started rezoning office buildings into housing, SF would be taking a double hit - there is less reason to live in SF and more housing would bring down values everywhere. Forgetting that these business districts are pretty undesirable places to live anyway.

So we are looking at a potential "death spiral" as cities lose their appeal, and lose the funding to solve the problems. Until they button up and find a new stable equilibrium.

SF is especially weird because it had/has somewhat of a vibrant tourism scene, and was always pretty hostile to its own business community. And now you have a hollowed-out downtown that is now not nearly as desirable for business and not particularly tourist friendly either.

Re: 17.1 Salesforce Towers worth of empty office space spread across SF

#24

Post by legitster »

pasttense01 wrote: post #3

If the owners would substantially cut the rent the empty office space would rapidly fill up.

They could cut rent drastically and people still might not show up.

Also, if the owners start going bad on their debts there is a potentially cascading financial problem for the city of San Francisco

Re: 17.1 Salesforce Towers worth of empty office space spread across SF

#25

Post by pessimizer »

latchkey wrote: post #4
pasttense01 wrote: post #3

If the owners would substantially cut the rent the empty office space would rapidly fill up.

With who?

People who need space for offices and businesses, but are not willing to pay the rates that are being demanded while the properties sit empty?

Re: 17.1 Salesforce Towers worth of empty office space spread across SF

#26

Post by brandur »

toomanyrichies wrote: post #21
Apocryphon wrote: post #11

I wonder how much of that office space is viable for converting into residential housing, both physically-speaking and zoning-wise. Yeah, yeah, office buildings are often built completely different from housing and need to be vastly retooled, but it is possible, and Boston is attempting it. When it comes to SF it feels like the regulatory issues are more difficult.

As long as we're using our imaginations, I'm genuinely curious how much NIMBYism would come into play when trying to retool downtown into primarily residential towers. Historically it's been a huge issue in other neighborhoods, where current homeowners are loath to approve more housing since it would drag down their property values. But I have to imagine that SF's downtown has drastically fewer homeowners per-square-…

> Actually, who am I kidding- some other interest group would probably take their place.

This is it unfortunately.

After observing the SF NIMBY mentality for many, many years, you start to see the matrix. It has nothing to do with gentrification, inclusion, environmentalism, or any of the other purported values. It's about one thing: stasis. Keeping SF the same at all costs, and making sure no new people come here.

San Franciscans favorite subject right now is talking about how downtown commercial space could be converted to housing, but make no mistake, the second anyone actually tried to do that, the backslash would be powerful and instantaneous. (And it's already so impossible to do between zoning and regulation that it doesn't even need backlash to already be infeasible.)

Re: 17.1 Salesforce Towers worth of empty office space spread across SF

#27

Post by pessimizer »

legitster wrote: post #24
pasttense01 wrote: post #3

If the owners would substantially cut the rent the empty office space would rapidly fill up.

They could cut rent drastically and people still might not show up. Also, if the owners start going bad on their debts there is a potentially cascading financial problem for the city of San Francisco

> They could cut rent drastically and people still might not show up.

You could sell ice cream for 5 cents on a hot summer day and people might not buy it. Try it and find out; there has been speculation in the past that lowering prices raises sales.

Re: 17.1 Salesforce Towers worth of empty office space spread across SF

#28

Post by legitster »

Apocryphon wrote: post #11

I wonder how much of that office space is viable for converting into residential housing, both physically-speaking and zoning-wise. Yeah, yeah, office buildings are often built completely different from housing and need to be vastly retooled, but it is possible, and Boston is attempting it. When it comes to SF it feels like the regulatory issues are more difficult.

I don't think this is a physical viability problem (we convert old industrial warehouses into lofts all of the time).

But I think the problems are that this would represent a major depreciation of the value of the real estate - both for the owners and the city. And the zoning issues would be tough. These are currently not good areas for housing without a lot of work.

Re: 17.1 Salesforce Towers worth of empty office space spread across SF

#29

Post by Zigurd »

tssva wrote: post #13
passwordoops wrote: post #2

I wonder how this compares to other cities globally

According to the chart in this article from April SF had the highest available office space of US major cities but no by a large margin. https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2023/04/24/office-... 22.9% of SF office space was available. Houston 22.2%, Dallas 20.9%, Chicago 19.6% and DC 19.2%.

I wonder how fudged are those numbers. I know of a town with tons of idle hotel space yet they report an occupancy rate of 65%, which is within a few percent of the typical range of 70%-90%. I suspect some empty properties are listed as "under renovation" even though no work is being done.

Re: 17.1 Salesforce Towers worth of empty office space spread across SF

#30

Post by pessimizer »

brandur wrote: post #26
toomanyrichies wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as we're using our imaginations, I'm genuinely curious how much NIMBYism would come into play when trying to retool downtown into primarily residential towers. Historically it's been a huge issue in other neighborhoods, where current homeowners are loath to approve more housing since it would drag down their property values. But I have to imagine that SF's downtown has drastically fewer homeowners per-square-…

> Actually, who am I kidding- some other interest group would probably take their place. This is it unfortunately. After observing the SF NIMBY mentality for many, many years, you start to see the matrix. It has nothing to do with gentrification, inclusion, environmentalism, or any of the other purported values. It's about one thing: stasis. Keeping SF the same at all costs, and making sure no new people come here. S…

> It has nothing to do with gentrification, inclusion, environmentalism, or any of the other purported values. It's about one thing: stasis. Keeping SF the same at all costs, and making sure no new people come here.

No. You're just monstering your enemies so you don't have to argue with them. Poisoning the well.

Post reply on HN