To the folks who think this is some kind of rejection of remote work: even in a remote work era, having physical offices in cities makes a ton of sense so long as large numbers of people want to live there.
In a city like New York, living day to day life across many physical spaces is a core part the experience. In fact it's one of the major draws. The park is your front lawn, the cafe your breakfast nook, the theater your living room, and the office is... your office.
Remote work is great and all if that's not the lifestyle you want, and I think the pandemic has perhaps shown that many were living this lifestyle who didn't want it (especially if you were living the quasi-bedroom-city life of SFBay where you slept in SF but commuted out of the city daily for work), but Google embracing the deeply social and physically connected lifestyle of a functional city like New York isn't really a rejection of remote work being viable-- it's just accepting that to many, this type of city life is preferable and having a physical space to do your work provided by your employer is part of what makes that so.
As a Googler who wants to work remote, in my personal opinion I think this makes a ton of sense. Focus on providing offices in major urban areas for people who want an urban lifestyle, and then offer remote work for people who don't.
NYC isn't for me personally, but I absolutely see the appeal for others, and I can see why Google would want to expand proportionally there.
the problem is that offering remote work as an isolated option isn't feasible, because the cost of living when remote is lower (presumably), and thus, either they must be paid lower, or the office-working colleagues must be paid more to adjust for said cost of living.
I feel there would be social friction caused by this market-force mechanism.
The value the worker provides to google doesn't vary with location. If someone wants to live in an overpriced urban area, that's their choice. Why should google have to subsidize it?
It shouldn't matter where in the United States you live, NYC, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, or some forsaken place like Indiana, etc.. If you get your work done, you should have the same responsibilities and benefits.
IMO, it affirms the "rugged individualism" mythos, and has a sprinkling of the fundamental attribution error.
Salaries are mostly controlled by market forces, opening up to remote work will result in a larger supply of potential employees, to include those who were previously not considered, but are good enough, and are willing to accept less than current Bay Area/coastal salaries.
Then why does having simultaneous competing offers result always result in a higher salary? Typically higher than the "maximum" figure originally signaled
Pay differences are already a source of major social friction, but companies find ways to mitigate or avoid the problem. Why would this be any different?
I think this misses the mark on the fact that we now have an aging population in the USA, and an aging population has different needs when it comes to raising families that the urban lifestyle simply hasn't evolved fast enough to support. Urban areas in the USA like NYC are still the playground of the young and unattached. I think European and Asian cities have done a much better job at this.
With two kids aged 10 and 12, I need access to a sports park for practices and games. I need space to park a car and roads wide enough to support them because I have a lot of things to haul. I need good public schools that don't break the bank to provide my kids the support and community they need.
Everything smooth and convenient about living as a single person in an urban area quickly turns into living life on Hard Mode for families. As our working adult population ages, cities need to evolve to meet these needs, or expect people to move out as they outgrow the lifestyle.
I'm sure there are folks who live in places like SF with families and ride around in heavy urban traffic with 2 kids on an electric cargo bike, but that's just not for many of us. We're happier and way more stress free in the suburbs or even in the rural areas working remotely.
As you can see, you don't need "wide roads". Quite the opposite, in fact. When safe cycling infrastructure is present, traffic shifts to cycling, because it's faster, cheaper and more pleasant. This makes roads less congested for your car trips. Widening roads does not have this effect, as additional lanes simply fill up with more traffic if there is no faster, safe alternative. Also, wide lanes encourage high speeds, and you don't want that around your kids.
I'd say this is cultural and you won't ever get the same outcome in the USA(or Australia where I am from). Car drivers think they own the road. In Australia there is outright hostility towards cyclists on the road from the proudly ignorant.
A few towns in my area have been experimenting with "road diets" -- taking streets originally designed with only car traffic in mind, and reconfiguring them (without building new infrastructure) to reduce the primacy of cars and make other modes of transport more appealing -- with varying degrees of success. In one case, there was an observed impact of trip times _decreasing_ despite losing a lane of traffic in each direction -- the change in configuration reduced congestion at intersections.
interesting. While I'm open minded to this, I have to say I am starting from a place of skepticism. I've come to view bike lanes painted on the road as a dangerous half-measure in most places. Studies show that Women do not take advantage of these types of cycle lanes at all, and many people view them as simply too dangerous to use. still interesting that there can be benefits to car traffic in the right conditions!
The biggest impact were cases where bike lanes were protected -- that is, the view of the road from the outside-in was pedestrian sidewalk, bike lane, car parking, and then lanes of traffic, so cyclists wouldn't have to worry about double-parked cars forcing them into traffic or inattentive drivers drifting into the bike lane. That said, such a change carries its own risks (cyclists need to be aware of passengers exiting cars and vice-versa), and generally requires more thoughtful design of the intersection (since cyclists turning left will have a much longer path to follow).
Segregated infrastructure is missing the point. Putting liability on drivers where it belongs, and giving priority on the shared roads to vulnerable road users, is what makes it work, in the Netherlands or in Tokyo.
> I need space to park a car and roads wide enough to support them because I have a lot of things to haul.
> I'm sure there are folks who live in places like SF with families and ride around in heavy urban traffic with 2 kids on an electric cargo bike, but that's just not for many of us.
Maybe riding a cargo bike with your kids on the back is unpleasant because the suburban lifestyle you are talking about has bled into American urban planning. If American cities were designed around people instead of cars many of the problems with urban life you are talking about would be moot.
I point this out because you thesis seems to be that getting older and having kids is orthogonal to urban life. However, historically, and in many cities outside of north America, this is not the case. If you look at the Netherlands for example, where a deliberate effort to plan cities around people has been ongoing for 50 years, many people don't own cars, their kids bike to school and use public spaces for recreation, and they can pickup furniture from Ikea on their cargo bikes while never touching a road built for cars.
Another thing to keep in mind is that europe in general and the netherlands in particular has a far more mild climate than the east coast of the united states.
As Douglas Adams said about NYC.
"In the summer it's too darn hot. It's one thing to be the sort of life form that thrives on heat and finds, as the Frastrans do, that the temperature range between 40,000 and 40,004 is very equable, but it's quite another to be the sort of animal that has to wrap itself up in lots of other animals at one point in your planet's orbit, and then find, half an orbit later, that your skin's bubbling."
Infrastructure is almost everything. Fully separated bike roads are needed for people to bike comfortably.
Highways are built with “levels of service.” There are no level of service standards for pedestrians: sidewalk availability, trees, protection from car traffic, directness of routes, etc. Bike lanes often don’t exist or are blocked by parked cars or trash. This would never be accepted for a road.
Yeah I saw that, though I found it confusing considering the complaints op had with American cities later in the post, which I was responding to.
Asian and European cities did not make themselves more hospitable to families by adding wider roads and providing parking spaces for cars like op was talking about, they did it by doing the opposite, which is what I was commenting on.
An aging population means more 85 year olds who are faced with the decision to keep driving when it’s no longer safe or to become an non-driver in a car dependent area, losing independent access to basic needs and friends. American cities have been underinvested in due to the legacy of institutional racism (redlining). Mortgages and highways were subsidized by the government and cities were left to rot. In many European countries the wealthy live in the city center and the poor live on the outskirts. Ironically when wealthier demographics move back within city limits it’s criticized as “gentrification.”
So what about the population aging—there will always be people in their 20s and 30s and older single people too. Cities will still appeal to them. The point of the op is now people have a choice of which city to live in. Lots of folks will choose NYC and commuting because that’s the lifestyle they want. Lots of others will choose to live in the suburbs and have kids. The thing now is that your lifestyle doesn’t have to correspond directly to your job.
I have to assume at least a few of those folks will be New Yorkers!
For what it's worth, though ... I'm not sure Google buying a building it already leases means anything other than perhaps they are bullish NYC real estate?
There's also quite a lot of old New Yorkers still resident there, though.
Pluses of living in New York include not needing to drive, most things being close by, and generally more widespread things like elevators. Old people can become less able to drive cars over time, or climb the stairs in a suburban home, or carry an SUV's worth of groceries.
Listen, this is going to be a very rude-sounding comment, so feel free to not read, but:
>With two kids aged 10 and 12, I need access to a sports park for practices and games.
[0] Park access is WAY higher in US urban areas vs. the suburbs. I think having a car and driving skews your view of this.
>I need space to park a car and roads wide enough to support them because I have a lot of things to haul.
Again, I think you just like driving.
>I'm sure there are folks who live in places like SF with families and ride around in heavy urban traffic with 2 kids on an electric cargo bike, but that's just not for many of us. We're happier and way more stress free in the suburbs or even in the rural areas working remotely.
Yeah, you just like driving. Which is fine, but don't shit on our cities because of it. It's the driving that's the PROBLEM.
Is there a chance you're misreading sports park to be a more general park, versus what the OP is referring to such as a facility with 10 soccer fields or baseball diamonds?
Check out a satellite photo of central park! So many baseball fields. I'm in a small city (denver) and have tons of 'sports' specific fields within walking distance.
No. That’s just not how the concept of density works.
For example, A 5 mile radius city has x baseball diamonds in it. That’s x per every 78.5 square miles.
Let’s say the suburbs of that city are a ring of width 25 miles with y baseball diamonds in it. That makes the baseball diamond density of the suburbs y per every 1885 square miles.
I’ll spare you the math x=24y give or take.
Then I encourage you to go to google maps and look at America’s most notoriously crowded cities like nyc, sf, Boston, Chicago. There are dozens if not hundreds of baseball fields in city limits. Central park’s 26 fields alone would need to be offset by 624 in the suburbs to achieve equal density.
The “problem” is that most of those diamonds are difficult to drive to and park at, which is why OP considers them non-existent.
I think a lot of people confuse "need to" with "like to" and assume the way they live is the only possible way. People are surprisingly adaptable to many life conditions and its quite easy to get away with not using a car. With the money you save not driving, you can pay for delivery of all that stuff you would have moved yourself and still come out on top.
So from a city dweller perspective - it sounds like you actually have it on "hard mode" in comparison. That is, needing to actively take your kids to\from places and activities.
Basically everything that I needed as a kid was in walking distance. So from about the age of 7-8 I rarely needed to rely on my parents for anything, school/sports/friends/etc was all a less than a 30 minute walk away, and in turn, my parents never needed to plan around my schedule.
The caveat is that I didn't grow up in the US, where cities are usually sadly quite pedestrian hostile.
What you want is the manhattan model: a huge park surrounded by extremely high density residential towers. You'd have near-immediate access to needed free outdoor fields.
The manhattan model is so strikingly effective that the rich have basically monopolized it. What needs to happen in many urban areas is to replicate this. Of course that would mean huge numbers of buybacks of individually owned blocks of city, an almost impossibility in US legal system practically speaking, even with eminent domain.
Cities are also a nightmare if you want to get into a lot of hobbies. For example I like building and modifying cars, and you can forget about renting a private garage at a reasonable price in most large cities. The same goes for woodworking, machining, most motorsports, boating, RC airplanes and drones, etc.
I would argue the opposite. Yes, those "space demanding" hobbies are hard to get into. But there's so many other hobbies and interests people have, and having a few million people packed really close really reduces the effort required to have a niche group of hobbyists or find something niche you care about.
In other words. It's much easier to find likeminded people closeby in dense, populated cities.
"Minor repair and maintenance of vehicles and similar equipment shall include brake part replacement, minor tune-up, change of oil and filter, repair of flat tire, lubrication and other similar operations."
"It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in, or permit others to engage in, minor vehicle repair or maintenance under any of the following circumstances:
- Using tools not normally found in a residence;"
In a rural area you buy a cheap building and buy all the tools. In an urban area, for most of these at least, you join a makerspace. Many urban makerspaces have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of tools.
Only specific hobbies mostly limited to things with large motors. They can be even more accessible for other hobbies. For a very small fee, I can get a pass to use the local makerspace down the street and get access to machinery I would never be able to buy myself. For all of my hobbies they are either the same or easier to do in the city.
Technically, you don't need anything. People evolved living naked outdoors, subsisting on berries.
Drawing the line of what conveniences of modern at "city apartment" but not "suburbs" is extremely arbitrary (I am also guessing you are saying that as a single city-living male, so your view is theoretical and not borne of experience - just a thought.)
Not really. I live in NYC and my company has an office in NYC and still never go in and don't care if I ever do. We're likely going to retain a space once our lease is up, but it's going to be modeled very differently. Our business has some physical co-location requirements for certain aspects, but no one doing tech work needs to do anything beyond meetings. And we are all 100% comfortable doing them over video. If we want a rallying spot for once or twice a year jamborees, we could do it at a hotel or a much smaller permanent space. There's no reason Google would need to pay $2B unless they were rejecting remote work.
Ah yes your anecdotal experience clearly means one of the largest companies in the world is rejecting remote work by buying an office they already lease.
It gives some insight into the worker mentality. Investing in premium office space at the height of a huge real estate bubble during a huge shift to remote work says a lot about Google's confidence in office space remaining in high demand, especially since we have on record Google execs pushing for going back to the office. I don't know if this is just Google doubling down but it's an interesting move on their part given the timing.
Google has quite a bit of headcount in NY (12,000 now, up from 7,000 in 2018 according to the article) and at that current pace of expansion they could probably still use the space even if only a percentage of employees still work in office.
More importantly, this seems like it's mostly to hedge given that office building prices in NY are reaching new lows and they've already leased space in this building for a while.
I'm not sure that last part is true. The building hasn't been delivered yet. Google did announce the lease a couple years ago, but I doubt that lease has commenced as the building is still under construction.
That being said, Google does seem to snag big properties in a down market. They bought 111 Eighth Avenue back in 2010 around the financial crisis.
Google, Facebook, and the other monopolies are itching to get their workers back. (Little Zuck is buying buildings in San Francisco like I buy beer.)
These companies hate not having their workers under their thumb, but won't come out and say it.
They know they will never have a hard time attracting workers. The 1 out of a thousand Rockstar might be another conversation, but the run of the mill worker--no problem.
They know they will be able to do whatever they want for years. I imagine Zuck, and the Google Boys, thanking their god, the dollar, they don't live in China.
(Xi is cracking down on certain big businesses. He, and his mates, don't like the extreme wealth disparity rearing it's head. He doesn't like companies that seem to exploit people. He doesn't like the fact that houses are rising in price so quickly, only the wealthy, and companies that buy up realestate, can afford them.
Xi is worried about the amount of credit certain businesses are taking on. I heard business debt is almost 3x ours. Business leverage that is, not governmental debt. This couldn't be right?
Xi is worried his unchecked Capitalistic experiment might come crashing down.)
Ok, back to employers salivating for the day they can demand everyone show up.
I've thought about it, and don't see an out. They will drag everyone back in. It doesn't matter if the tech works.
Maybe if we started using Global Warming as an excuse to not came back? All those extra cars on the roads couldn't be good.
(Sorry about bringing China in to the mix. I'm a tiny bit jealous just how quick they can move there. I liked city life when they were diverse, and then only for awhile. In all honesty, the only thing about city life I liked was the ratio of single women to men. I said it.)
In all honesty, the only thing I liked about city life was the ratio of single women to men. And I know that sounds shallow. I wrote diversity out of habit? Conditioning? I tried to update my post, but the system wouldn't let me.
I knew a lot of people like city life. I didn't. They say you are suspose to habituate to noise. I never did.
> In a city like New York, living day to day life across many physical spaces is a core part the experience. In fact it's one of the major draws. The park is your front lawn, the cafe your breakfast nook, the theater your living room, and the office is... your office.
why would someone rather not live in a countryside with expansive views and much lower stress and work remotely? (especially when tech like Starlink are going to remove the comms friction)
Why would someone prefer something that you wouldn't? There as many answers to that question as there are people. I for one love big cities, and prefer to live in one even though I'm a remote worker.
You do you, I'll do me, and if we're lucky in life then we'll each find someone whose preferences are similar to our own to share a life with.
Because I get bored. It lacks the cultural diversity and and offerings the big cities have, which is the reason I live in one in the first place, not because of the job. Also most of my friends are here.
I love the countryside for weekend or longer trips when I'm not working and just want to relax all day or go for hikes.
Both have their exciting aspects. Both my boss and I got tired of living in Chicago highrises, even though it has a lot to offer, and my boss is living it up on an island with 10 acres of land and shoreline and wouldn't have it any other way. Me on the other hand, I moved to somewhere that's still closer to a city (so I can still enjoy all the things a city resident can) while having the luxury of a huge house with a private office, big back yard, and a garage full of toys for me to tinker with.
Completely agree. There are many different lifestyles, none inherently better than the other. I just disagree with the sentiment that the only reason to live in a big city is because of work. At least for the kind of positions people on HN tend to hold. It's not like working fully remotely was impossible pre-pandemic.
I definitely see the appeal of owning a huge house and I might well consider it in the future, especially if I have children. But for now, I wouldn't know what to do with it. I own few things of the maximal quality I can afford. Even my city apartment is viewed as somewhat spartanic by some. So I prefer renting an entire place in different parts of the country with my girlfriend or friends for a couple of days at the time meanwhile living in my favorite part of the city where most everything I want to do or need is within 20 minutes walking distance.
My stress levels plummeted after moving from a distant suburb to a city apartment. I haven't driven a car in months. All the walking has done wonders for my health, physical and mental.
The only stressed people are the ones coming from the suburbs to the city and back again every day and almost all of that stress is in the driving / transport part.
I agree that many people end up wanting that, but certainly some see the lure of a big city and would (at first, at least) love to interact with people on a daily basis.
Rural areas tend to be more conservative and less diverse. I don't want to drive 15+ minutes just to get to the grocery store. I like having specialty shops around. I value access to museums, cultural events, and art festivals. I don't want to be an hour from the nearest hospital.
Seriously, you couldn't pay me to live in the countryside.
Only some 7 years ago, this very area was targeted to be the heart of a new stadium development for the Major League Soccer. It was going to be the West Village home....for NYC FC soccer franchise
It made sense: Pier40 city park, across the street from 550 washington St, was basically a decreipt property stuck in time as was the rest of the neighborhood. Then hurricane Sandy hit. The damage closed the Pier40 building for almost half a year. Some support did arrive from Sandy hurricane aid, which ironically did more to help the building than any other city park initiative.
Post-Sandy, Pier 40 park seemed destined to stumble along.
Then came the MSL. They were convinced they could sell the idea to the site: redevelop moribund Pier40 and 550 Washington St next to it. Everyone seemed excited.
However, they did not count on a surprise rival: parents of the little league baseball kids that regularly play at Pier40 turf fields (as does DUSC soccer kids). They protested. Loudly. Some of them likely well connected.
The project then died and moved elsewhere.
Now, some of those parents live in the area. They are now looking to benefit enormously from this Google development.
I am saying I fully reject the means of NIMBYism, nevermind the ends.
But yes, I would be against reducing park space.
In this case I thought GP was celebrating the move for preserving park space, perhaps because this building isn't on the pier but just land? But I am not sure.
The building, 550 washington, is huge and on land. Pier 40 is next to it, (towarss the west) across the NYC west side highway. Pier 40 is mostly on water as the name implies
Building being sold does not reduce park space. It fact that building was an eyesore before redevelopment. Now, I contend it makes it more likely that thanks to the new tenants,Pier40 will have a major facelift
In a similar vein, the Olympics 2012 bid for NYC would've been where Hudson Yards is now, but was rejected over concerns about bursty event traffic (the area already hosts the convention center.) This location is even less able to handle bursty traffic, it's not near any express subway lines or commuter rail terminals.
> However, they did not count on a surprise rival: parents of the little league baseball kids that regularly play at Pier40 turf fields
The MLS soccer field was long canceled at that point because of Hurricane Sandy, it seems. (Dunno, I don't follow Chelsea real estate. I live in Brooklyn.)
Everyone loves kids' play spaces when it's other people's money being spent on them, but when there's money on the line it looks like commercial real estate generates a lot more value.
Its good because of the positive externalities it brings
The parent's protesting, while self interested (for their kids) benefited many groups, particularly teenagers and immigrants that often play pickup sports at Pier 40 like touch football, ultimate, or soccer, without park permits (because they can't afford field permits).
So, this is good because Google will bring more security and investment into a forgotten NYC area.
Coincidentally, Pier 40 is also the on-ramp spot where the terrorist truck driver started his post-Halloween drive that killed 8 tourists in the pedestrian walkway. [1]
Why do we need field permits and park permits to play a game of sports in the first place? It's a park. This is the kind of bureaucratic bullshit that wastes taxpayer dollars and makes people hate the city government.
The reason, ostensibly, is the lack of park capacity generally available in Manhattan. Permits are pretty much the only way to reasonably schedule slots for all the schools serving the 1.6M+ people of Manhattan and their teams, since schools usually do not have sufficient play fields of their own.
During less busy times this isn't an issue. The permits more or less act as guaranteed reservations.
> If you are a member of an organized league, you must request a field or court for any formal use. Otherwise, our fields and courts are available to the public for informal use (pickup games). If you would like to reserve a field or court in advance at a specific time, you should make a request to ensure your uninterrupted use of the field.
One group of people playing soccer, football, or baseball can take up almost the entire turf space in a small popular park. Think of Dolores Park is SF. On weekends it's packed with people picnicking. If instead 20 people were playing baseball, it would not be safe for anyone to picnic nearby because of the risk for errant baseballs.
On the other extreme end of things, one person hitting golf balls in a park can make the park unsafe for everyone else. At some point, the government institutes regulations to keep the park fun/safe/useful for the largest number of people.
I actually agree with you, but i think there is more to this than you have considered.
Most of the people paying taxes, actually love the government for it. They dont hate it. This is because Permits effectively put a price to use the field, and it shouldnt be surprising that teenagers and immigrants are the ones with the least means to pay and also the ones paying little to no taxes.
So office workers are able to afford playing , while the immigrants and teenagers get kicked out.
Kids of affluent parents have no problems booking fields. But that's due to poor incentives: little kid coaches have a racket setting up nonprofit 503(c) ( which gives permitholders priority ).
If there is a problem with permits, it is there. Permits are subject to capture
> If you are a member of an organized league, you must request a field or court for any formal use. Otherwise, our fields and courts are available to the public for informal use (pickup games). If you would like to reserve a field or court in advance at a specific time, you should make a request to ensure your uninterrupted use of the field.
No one is getting kicked out of fields. You don't need a permit for informal games.
Yeah I mean that seems like a weird narrative. Some people get wealthy because they bought land and then did nothing and held on tenaciously to it even as the rest of society increasingly needed it for something else? How is that a victory for the good guys? That's just rentier capitalism.
And it's probably a good investment since cash is cheap right now and cities like NYC are depressed thanks to COVID-19.
I hate cities but have to think that they're good investments. Global warming will likely change the economics of suburbs and people are having a lot less kids, making cities less unattractive.
Now I'm just curious what the total value of their real estate holdings really is. A history of how that value fluctuated recently would also be interesting. I guess this information is hidden somewhere in Alphabet's quarterly earnings reports but I'm afraid I wouldn't know where exactly to look (or what to look for).
Makes sense. If you insist on living in NYC for any reason, then going into the office is probably more comfortable than living (and working) in a cramped NYC apartment.
Though it's pretty ironic that virtually all of the software Google uses and creates facilitates virtual work, yet they insist on an in-person setting.
Strongly suggests that living in NYC is only something people do if they have reason to _insist_ on it, and not because it's just a place where people want to live.
Someone could just as well say that "If you insist on living in a suburb for any reason, then working from home is probably more comfortable..."
New York is culturally known as a city that never sleeps, an expensive city, a crowded city, a city with muggy summers and bone-chilling winters, etc. There have been countless songs, books, and tweets written about how it takes a certain level of resolve to thrive there. That doesn't mean that people don't enjoy living there.
This is a silly argument but I disagree. Seemed like a perfectly neutral statement to me, including "I insist on living in NYC because I think it's the best place to live"
In my experience, I know a load of people who live and work in NYC and they almost universally prefer working from home. One guy lives in a dump due to his own misfortune and he spends a lot of time in the office but everyone else is perfectly content at their personal desk. I used to have a ten minute walk to work and still wouldn't do it unless I absolutely had to.
Again, just a reminder that anyone's individual experience is not necessarily broadly representative. I'll speak for myself, but back around fall of last year I felt like I was going to slit my wrists of I didn't get out of my apartment.
What nonsense, they were one of the first companies to send people home to work remote. First week of March if I recall. And we will be one of the last to go back... they're not asking for us to come back until January at the earliest, and even then we will have the option to work fully remotely, and even coming in it's only 3/5 days a week.
Honestly, I've been going in voluntarily 3 days a week recently because I like it -- it's a distraction free environment where I can focus, have better Internet, get free food, not have to do dishes, listen to my kids argue, etc;
HN has recently become an echo chamber of remote work advocates. Not everyone wants to work remote. Not every job is amenable to it. And as a software engineer I'm far more productive in the office than at home.
I'm glad Google is still investing in our offices.
I don't see that at all. A hybrid culture sure, but all remote work? I think it's way too early to tell if companies like this will end up with a few marquee offices in places like NYC, SF, Berlin that employees who want to can go to while everyone else can work remote. I'm more ambivalent now but in my early 20's I definitely wanted to be in an office in a big city where I was with lots of colleagues in an energizing environment.
Hell, even a pain moving within companies.. I just switched teams/projects at Google in the winter, and it was a months long slog to come up to speed... I've been at the company for almost 10 years, but never had this slow of a ramp up before.
Until recently, where a couple days in the office with the TL and a whiteboard and I feel way more connected and competent.
I mean, not really. Imagine how much more information they can collect by literally observing employees all day in the office. There is no limit to the amount of information they can gain from surveillance.
For anyone unfamiliar, Google also bought another building in Manhattan for $2.4B five years ago.[0] Seems to have worked out for them so far. I would caution against reading too much into this move.
Edit: updated to clarify this was some building in Manhattan. My original post was confused with another purchase (probably their purchase of the Port Authority building).
They bought Chelsea Market, which is a one avenue by one block building opposite Ninth Avenue from 111 Eight (former Port Authority Inland Terminal building).
Edit: forgot they also have bought the Milk building opposite Chelsea Market across 15th St, it’s the building the air bridge connects to.
Seems like a ballsy investment in office space considering we're at the height of a real estate bubble during a massive cultural shift towards remote work.
All my questions are about tech infrastructure. Does the location of this property have anything to do with proximity to NYC's internet exchange points? Will this building need that kind of access? If so, why? Is there infrastructure is already in place to build out high-volume connections? Are there maps and diagrams of that infrastructure; can we see them?
Pretty sure it has nothing to do with any of that stuff - this is just a building with a very large footprint that was vacant, pretty much a unique opportunity in Manhattan.
No. The Port Authority building they bought in 2008 or 2009 had (still has?) a huge telco exchange space, which was why Double lick had been there. 60 Hudson St is the other bug exchange point, it’s maybe a half mile from St John’s Terminal.
I agree, but it's a weird location for office space. Not quite a transit dead zone, but not particularly great either. Wonder if they'd try to get a ferry stop added at Pier 40.
Companies like Google, MS, Apple, etc., make huge amounts of money, and they need to put some of that money in tax advantaged investments. Real estate for offices is one of the easiest ways to do this. They can also use this to say that they're investing billions in the US, when in fact the investment is just on existing buildings.
Even if google is not directly building new , the cash they are paying will directly or indirectly fuel additional real estate investment in new buildings by the seller or reduce their debt load enabling them to invest in new development in the future etc .
Respectfully, what is there not to understand? They’re expanding their footprint in NYC due to increased demand. I’ve heard here and there that headcount at Google NYC has always been tight, so this should alleviate some of that. Facebook and Amazon have also committed to massive leases in NYC within the past few years as well.
Besides that, these companies wield so much cash it seems like a safe bet to park a couple billion in. NYC real estate is arguably one of the safest bets in the modern era
I assume OP meant headcount, not desks. Talking to recruiters, NYC always seemed like one of the toughest offices to get into - presumably due to much greater demand than available space to put devs.
> NYC real estate is arguably one of the safest bets in the modern era
Uh huh. That's what they all said about commercial property in Western city-centres before the pandemic ... "a sure bet" they said .... "rents only going up" they said....
Now you walk through all these CBDs and they are shadow of what they were before because people discovered working from home either full-time or near enough (3-4 days a week) and the need for large chunks of commercial property is now being brought into question.
I generally agree that this is probably the fate for many American cities, but NYC seems to be in a league of its own compared to the other cities in North America. I feel like a better comparison is something like London, Rome, Mumbai, Beijing. These are cultural epicenters that are more resilient (but not immune) to economic downturns. Yes things might get tough for a bit but they're the place you want a multi bullion dollar investment to live when the goings get tough.
Considering NYC recovered economically from 9/11, which made parts of the city uninhabitable. I don't see this being as big of a concern, though it would be tragic if something like this happened.
A dirty bomb is not the same as a nuclear bomb. It takes a nation state to build a proper nuke, but some random terrorists could cobble together a dirty bomb.
Google is sitting on bags of cash and those bags are being devalued like we live in Venezuela (40% of all dollars printed in the last 2 years!).
So if you're a cashcow like Google, you want your bags in anything and everything except dollars.
And buying commercial real estate in New York in the midst of lockdowns and remote work while the city is going through a commercial real estate market crash.. is good.
Is it a pure bet, or part of a strategy? With their control of the YouTube algorithm, search result suggestions, Google News curation, and dominance of ads, Google doesn't lack for ability to manipulate public opinion.
Edit: if I were Google, and I existed in the present absence of serious regulation, I would wield the ability to manipulate opinion in the favour of my business strategy. I'm not sure if that's an offensive notion, and that's why this comment is controversial?
If they are buying real estate now, I suppose it means they are not expecting rents to fall soon.
Right now, the city government seems very happy with the fucked up real estate market and the continued gutting of city centers, so maybe they are correct.
Reversing this trend is one of the most important things New Yorkers can do to ensure the long-term health of their city. It's already been bled out pretty badly by the real estate investment vampires.
For a variety of real-estate industry/finance specific reasons, commercial rents in NYC are very "sticky". Many building owners would rather space sit empty for years rather than rent the space at lower rents (for various degrees of lower). In short, both the near-term and long-term future outlook would have to be quite bleak before we see a broad and substantial lowering of commercial rental rates in NYC.
I guess that's kind of my point. Google clearly doesn't anticipate either a natural change in the economic situation or regulatory intervention. The latter is what I find disturbing, that they're so sure they're willing to bet $2bn on it.
What's not to understand? Presumably, Google's bean counters think the cost of capital necessary to purchase the building plus any real estate value appreciation will be lower than the cost to lease the building. That part seems pretty strait-forward.
Or are you not understanding why they don't "just" have everyone work remotely? If that's the case, then try to understand that despite what you may see online, it may be that many people don't want to work remote all the time. Moreover, working remotely will have deleterious effects on managerial promotion as that is heavily influenced by interpersonal relationships. And higher level managers are the ones that make such decisions. Even if remote work is better for the bottom line, remember that people make decisions to benefit themselves (across a variety of dimensions and timeframes), not their organization.
Just look to Kmart? Somehow the entire company sold for less than their real estate was worth and the entire deal was paid for by the acquiring company taking out loans against their real estate.
Another example would be Sun, I think Oracle sold off their Boulder campus for nearly what they paid for the entire company.
If I was still in my 20s and single; I'd likely strongly consider working in a Manhattan Google office building. That just sounds awesome. X years past that phase - I'd rather not. That it doesn't fit me (anymore) doesn't mean it's not enticing to others though.
Companies (especially large ones) are not gonna just go from No Remote or Remote Optional to Remote Only. Change takes time even in the face of a shock to the system like COVID-19.
I agree. Sounds like a terrible investment. For that price they could literally give over 2000 employees a million dollars or hire 5000 new employees in other remote locations.
A real estate purchase is not a normal expense (on the income statement) the way paying employees is. Assuming it's a cash purchase, it's a balance sheet transfer from cash asset to a real-estate asset. If debt financing is used to pay for it, while the interest expenses would appear on the income statement, the loan itself would also show up on the balance sheet as a debt. In short, a building purchase has minimal to no impact on profits (i.e. the net income on the income statement) and if purchased with debt, minimal impact to the cash flow statement.
I think this is Ruth shifting cost structures moreso than any indication about in office work culture. I believe they were already renting, so someone probably did the math and realized they'd come out ahead in the medium to long term. Google isn't leaving NYC anytime soon.
“We know that our employees, in order to really be happy and productive, need to collaborate,” said William Floyd, Google’s director of public policy and government affairs. “Because of that need to collaborate, we’ve been investing more and more in office space.
So the implication is that Google is having trouble with comms. As if they think people will meet in the office to plan and go home and code.
My guess is that big companies will run in a hybrid model while startups will be fully remote. But eventually all software development will be WFH only, that's for sure
I feel the same, this will result in a tide change. Companies that embrace wfh will be able to attract the most talented engineers, companies that try to force their employees to come into the office will stagnate
I guess in light of recent news, they decided they needed an East Coast Halloween Store to guarantee geographical redundancy if something should happen to the West Coast one.
It’s the pandemic likely causing the timing, but not as a statement of remote vs not remote work: it’s just cheaper now with the pandemic to buy rather then rent in the medium-long term. So if they decided they need the space for 20+ years then they certainly have the cash to buy if they want to.
You think Google will survive the next 20+ years? We had "status quo" in the last 20 years I don't want it in the next 20 years. Better internet search engine will emerge sooner or later. Google Search always feels the same; improvements are so minor I don't even notice them in the terms of everyday quality of search. We have one "Big Blue" I'm afraid Google will be the next.
Pandemic is great for the rich who are getting prime real estate for cut rate prices, and then will end work from home and make a huge windfall once they gentrify the area.
Big Tech: "We will continue promoting remote work."
Real estate prices plunge. Big Tech buys real estate on the cheap.
Big Tech: "In-person work is important."
Real estate prices surge. Big Tech profits.
- Letting employees work from home: -$0 (savings on building ownership, HVAC, security, extra staffing, power, etc).
- Opening a NYC office: $2.1B + upkeep.
Even ignoring the environmental impacts directly and for commuting, at what point are we allowed to suggest that senior management at these large companies acts in an irrationally impulsive way? Why aren't the shareholders flagging this?
It feels like Google are spending $2.1B here for an ego trip to contrast Apple's open plan "Apple Park." Microsoft almost looks modest by comparison for their boring looking Seattle offices (land value not withstanding). But why any tech company is opening new offices now is mind-boggling.
"Google is already leasing the 1.3 million-square-foot waterfront building, a former freight terminal dubbed St. John’s Terminal, in the Hudson Square neighborhood. The company has an option to buy, which it said it plans to exercise in the first quarter of 2022."
They probably agree that it's better to own the building you are currently leasing (as per the article) to reduce costs and get an additional gain from any appreciation. It's not really any different than if you were to purchase the house that you've been living in and renting for the last 10 years, saving a couple hundred bucks a month in the form of a low interest rate mortgage coupled with no property management company/expenses, and then being able to sell it later, capturing any gain in the process. It's a solid business move. Essentially free money and adding a nice big chunk of additional revenue when/if they sell with essentially no change in business. Something they wouldn't be able to do if they continued leasing.
> Letting employees work from home: -$0 (savings on building ownership, HVAC, security, extra staffing, power, etc).
I don't believe the article said anything about not letting employees work from home or forcing people to go to this office building or others in NYC. Yes, some employees will inevitably have to go into the office some of the time, but extrapolating an entire policy from a building purchase is a big leap.
> Even ignoring the environmental impacts directly and for commuting, at what point are we allowed to suggest that senior management at these large companies acts in an irrationally impulsive way? Why aren't the shareholders flagging this?
As other commenters have said, this is a rounding error on Alphabet's business, and real estate is relatively inconsequential in priority to managing its core businesses.
Are we sure this is true? It's easy to put $0 on a balance sheet under the real estate column. But there are certainly other costs (including opportunity costs).
It's certainly not, since Google employees receive(d?) a home office budget to buy office furniture and supplies. It's still probably cheaper than running an office, but far from $0.
Even if most of your folks work from home you need a lot of square footage for gathering spaces, conference rooms, and phone booths when people do get together. (Which, they should when rates of infection get under control, because it’s key to remote productivity).
It’s also an asset on their books at this point and probably cheaper to own than to rent in the long run.
Most of us can't fathom how many employees companies like Google and Apple have.
Even if 70% (made up number) of Apple or Google or Microsoft employees work from home 100% of the time, they'd still all need multiple $2.1 Billion office spaces.
If you consider a typical Manhattan condo to cost $500,000 (in reality, probably higher), multiply that price by 2,000 employees and you've got a $1 billion space. I know it's flawed napkin math, but if that's anywhere near the ballpark, 2,000 is not a lot of employees in a single office for a company like Google.
Don't forget that real estate is also an investment vehicle. Even with upkeep and expenses (which are tax-advantaged for any business), large companies like Google have no problem becoming a landlord, and a company with a long-term strategy is going to consider NYC real estate to be a safe investment.
There are even some tech projects that require specialized hardware which are easier to do in the office/lab. Offices will never totally go away and you’re right that this space may seem big but it’s not that big in the scheme of google.
