GM's Thread About Everything/GM's Thread About Nothing (13 Viewers)

[cosjobs]

I have a full can of Billy Beer that I'm going to open on my deathbed. It'll be fine.

So you're you going to wait your entire life and blow your entire legacy on your deathbed?

 

[cosjobs]

I'm never going back to work unless I carpool

 

[Terminalxylem]

We have a commercial real estate crisis in this country. The easiest fix is to force folks back into the office to justify the expense. I promise you, the last thing this country needs is a real estate crash.

My company owns its own home office. They're definitely using "in-person collaboration" as some BS excuse to justify having everyone that just happens to live close to the home office come in 3 days a week. I VERY rarely "collaborate" with anyone in person when I'm at my office. It's incredibly unfair.

They need to justify the expense of having a home office. It's not "free". There is somebody somewhere examining every expense and asking for a breakdown of people using the office to keep it open and maintain the costs associated with that....utilities, insurance, taxes, etc.

It might be shareholders it might be a board it might be equity holders - the higher ups want financial justification for keeping the lights on in this building.

It's a math problem.

You may be right, but forcing people to come in to use unnecessary commercial real estate is pretty absurd, particularly when you consider our concomitant housing crisis.

ETA I see @rockaction covered it

 

[General Malaise]

We have a commercial real estate crisis in this country. The easiest fix is to force folks back into the office to justify the expense. I promise you, the last thing this country needs is a real estate crash.

My company owns its own home office. They're definitely using "in-person collaboration" as some BS excuse to justify having everyone that just happens to live close to the home office come in 3 days a week. I VERY rarely "collaborate" with anyone in person when I'm at my office. It's incredibly unfair.

They need to justify the expense of having a home office. It's not "free". There is somebody somewhere examining every expense and asking for a breakdown of people using the office to keep it open and maintain the costs associated with that....utilities, insurance, taxes, etc.

It might be shareholders it might be a board it might be equity holders - the higher ups want financial justification for keeping the lights on in this building.

It's a math problem.

You may be right, but forcing people to come in to use unnecessary commercial real estate is pretty absurd, particularly when you consider our concomitant housing crisis.

ETA I see @rockaction covered it

Who pays the owners of the buildings for the new occupants who will live there? The occupants or?

I like the idea just wondering how this works financially.

 

[cosjobs]

We have a commercial real estate crisis in this country. The easiest fix is to force folks back into the office to justify the expense. I promise you, the last thing this country needs is a real estate crash.

My company owns its own home office. They're definitely using "in-person collaboration" as some BS excuse to justify having everyone that just happens to live close to the home office come in 3 days a week. I VERY rarely "collaborate" with anyone in person when I'm at my office. It's incredibly unfair.

They need to justify the expense of having a home office. It's not "free". There is somebody somewhere examining every expense and asking for a breakdown of people using the office to keep it open and maintain the costs associated with that....utilities, insurance, taxes, etc.

It might be shareholders it might be a board it might be equity holders - the higher ups want financial justification for keeping the lights on in this building.

It's a math problem.

You may be right, but forcing people to come in to use unnecessary commercial real estate is pretty absurd, particularly when you consider our concomitant housing crisis.

ETA I see @rockaction covered it

Who pays the owners of the buildings for the new occupants who will live there? The occupants or?

I like the idea just wondering how this works financially.

First of all, you spend about 50% of the building's value retrofitting plumbing to get up to code for residential occupancy.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

We have a commercial real estate crisis in this country. The easiest fix is to force folks back into the office to justify the expense. I promise you, the last thing this country needs is a real estate crash.

My company owns its own home office. They're definitely using "in-person collaboration" as some BS excuse to justify having everyone that just happens to live close to the home office come in 3 days a week. I VERY rarely "collaborate" with anyone in person when I'm at my office. It's incredibly unfair.

They need to justify the expense of having a home office. It's not "free". There is somebody somewhere examining every expense and asking for a breakdown of people using the office to keep it open and maintain the costs associated with that....utilities, insurance, taxes, etc.

It might be shareholders it might be a board it might be equity holders - the higher ups want financial justification for keeping the lights on in this building.

It's a math problem.

You may be right, but forcing people to come in to use unnecessary commercial real estate is pretty absurd, particularly when you consider our concomitant housing crisis.

ETA I see @rockaction covered it

Who pays the owners of the buildings for the new occupants who will live there? The occupants or?

I like the idea just wondering how this works financially.

First of all, you spend about 50% of the building's value retrofitting plumbing to get up to code for residential occupancy.

And electrical

 

[urbanhack]

GM Hack cornhole

It happened.

 

[Terminalxylem]

We have a commercial real estate crisis in this country. The easiest fix is to force folks back into the office to justify the expense. I promise you, the last thing this country needs is a real estate crash.

My company owns its own home office. They're definitely using "in-person collaboration" as some BS excuse to justify having everyone that just happens to live close to the home office come in 3 days a week. I VERY rarely "collaborate" with anyone in person when I'm at my office. It's incredibly unfair.

They need to justify the expense of having a home office. It's not "free". There is somebody somewhere examining every expense and asking for a breakdown of people using the office to keep it open and maintain the costs associated with that....utilities, insurance, taxes, etc.

It might be shareholders it might be a board it might be equity holders - the higher ups want financial justification for keeping the lights on in this building.

It's a math problem.

You may be right, but forcing people to come in to use unnecessary commercial real estate is pretty absurd, particularly when you consider our concomitant housing crisis.

ETA I see @rockaction covered it

Who pays the owners of the buildings for the new occupants who will live there? The occupants or?

I like the idea just wondering how this works financially.

No idea.

Just seems really contrived insisting people come to work to use the space, when we have a shortage of affordable housing.

I realize one can’t just wave a wand to change commercial to residential RE, but I’m guessing there’s ways it could happen.

 

[General Malaise]

Well, we don't really need to send kids to school to get an education but we do so because they need the socialization.

Grownups need it too. This working from home is not helping us socialize. It's good for you to go mingle with people you hate and long for a lunch break.

We run the risk of turning into hermits.

 

[-fish-]

We have a commercial real estate crisis in this country. The easiest fix is to force folks back into the office to justify the expense. I promise you, the last thing this country needs is a real estate crash.

My company owns its own home office. They're definitely using "in-person collaboration" as some BS excuse to justify having everyone that just happens to live close to the home office come in 3 days a week. I VERY rarely "collaborate" with anyone in person when I'm at my office. It's incredibly unfair.

They need to justify the expense of having a home office. It's not "free". There is somebody somewhere examining every expense and asking for a breakdown of people using the office to keep it open and maintain the costs associated with that....utilities, insurance, taxes, etc.

It might be shareholders it might be a board it might be equity holders - the higher ups want financial justification for keeping the lights on in this building.

It's a math problem.

You may be right, but forcing people to come in to use unnecessary commercial real estate is pretty absurd, particularly when you consider our concomitant housing crisis.

ETA I see @rockaction covered it

Who pays the owners of the buildings for the new occupants who will live there? The occupants or?

I like the idea just wondering how this works financially.

First of all, you spend about 50% of the building's value retrofitting plumbing to get up to code for residential occupancy.

And electrical

In states have gone to the IBC instead of the UBC, the residential codes and commercial codes aren't all that different. Yeah, you need to add some showers/baths to commercial spaces, but other than that it isn't all that difficult to convert it. Electrical wouldn't be a major change.

Is the cost worth it to rent out residential space instead of letting commercial space sit empty? Right now that's the issue I'm seeing commercial owners dealing with. It's borderline.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

We have a commercial real estate crisis in this country. The easiest fix is to force folks back into the office to justify the expense. I promise you, the last thing this country needs is a real estate crash.

My company owns its own home office. They're definitely using "in-person collaboration" as some BS excuse to justify having everyone that just happens to live close to the home office come in 3 days a week. I VERY rarely "collaborate" with anyone in person when I'm at my office. It's incredibly unfair.

They need to justify the expense of having a home office. It's not "free". There is somebody somewhere examining every expense and asking for a breakdown of people using the office to keep it open and maintain the costs associated with that....utilities, insurance, taxes, etc.

It might be shareholders it might be a board it might be equity holders - the higher ups want financial justification for keeping the lights on in this building.

It's a math problem.

You may be right, but forcing people to come in to use unnecessary commercial real estate is pretty absurd, particularly when you consider our concomitant housing crisis.

ETA I see @rockaction covered it

Who pays the owners of the buildings for the new occupants who will live there? The occupants or?

I like the idea just wondering how this works financially.

First of all, you spend about 50% of the building's value retrofitting plumbing to get up to code for residential occupancy.

And electrical

In states have gone to the IBC instead of the UBC, the residential codes and commercial codes aren't all that different. Yeah, you need to add some showers/baths to commercial spaces, but other than that it isn't all that difficult to convert it. Electrical wouldn't be a major change.

Is the cost worth it to rent out residential space instead of letting commercial space sit empty? Right now that's the issue I'm seeing commercial owners dealing with. It's borderline.

The problem with electrical is getting each unit on its own meter. Giant PIA

 

[Uruk-Hai]

We have a commercial real estate crisis in this country. The easiest fix is to force folks back into the office to justify the expense. I promise you, the last thing this country needs is a real estate crash.

My company owns its own home office. They're definitely using "in-person collaboration" as some BS excuse to justify having everyone that just happens to live close to the home office come in 3 days a week. I VERY rarely "collaborate" with anyone in person when I'm at my office. It's incredibly unfair.

They need to justify the expense of having a home office. It's not "free". There is somebody somewhere examining every expense and asking for a breakdown of people using the office to keep it open and maintain the costs associated with that....utilities, insurance, taxes, etc.

It might be shareholders it might be a board it might be equity holders - the higher ups want financial justification for keeping the lights on in this building.

It's a math problem.

You may be right, but forcing people to come in to use unnecessary commercial real estate is pretty absurd, particularly when you consider our concomitant housing crisis.

ETA I see @rockaction covered it

Who pays the owners of the buildings for the new occupants who will live there? The occupants or?

I like the idea just wondering how this works financially.

First of all, you spend about 50% of the building's value retrofitting plumbing to get up to code for residential occupancy.

And electrical

In states have gone to the IBC instead of the UBC, the residential codes and commercial codes aren't all that different. Yeah, you need to add some showers/baths to commercial spaces, but other than that it isn't all that difficult to convert it. Electrical wouldn't be a major change.

Is the cost worth it to rent out residential space instead of letting commercial space sit empty? Right now that's the issue I'm seeing commercial owners dealing with. It's borderline.

The problem with electrical is getting each unit on its own meter. Giant PIA

Sure, but it's also a giant PITA to have 30,000 sq ft sitting empty and not generating revenue. Retrofits wouldn't be cheap but they'd pay for themselves pretty quickly.