Useless Thread

[Bender]

Yup. WFH isn't the issue here. Those who aren't meeting expectations from home are likely just not good fits for the company/position/etc. Many of those people wouldn't exactly be "working" in an office, either - they might give the appearance of doing so, but they're basically pushing papers around to make themselves look busy or deliver sub-standard work. Those people are seat fillers, but they're also a very small minority of the workforce in most organizations.

I actually sort of think the issue is that enough people are proving that they are perfectly productive without bosses standing over their shoulders and so management types are getting nervous that they're going to start being seen as redundant.

I don't agree with that. Any manager that feels that way is a poor leader.

I think it's a bit naive to think people aren't thinking of self preservation or that bad leaders aren't in managerial roles. I've had some awful managers throughout my life.

Sent from my SM-S908W using Tapatalk

 

[Kin]

Yup. WFH isn't the issue here. Those who aren't meeting expectations from home are likely just not good fits for the company/position/etc. Many of those people wouldn't exactly be "working" in an office, either - they might give the appearance of doing so, but they're basically pushing papers around to make themselves look busy or deliver sub-standard work. Those people are seat fillers, but they're also a very small minority of the workforce in most organizations.

I actually sort of think the issue is that enough people are proving that they are perfectly productive without bosses standing over their shoulders and so management types are getting nervous that they're going to start being seen as redundant.

I don't agree with that. Any manager that feels that way is a poor leader.

Well, yeah. I'm not saying they're good leaders.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Yup. WFH isn't the issue here. Those who aren't meeting expectations from home are likely just not good fits for the company/position/etc. Many of those people wouldn't exactly be "working" in an office, either - they might give the appearance of doing so, but they're basically pushing papers around to make themselves look busy or deliver sub-standard work. Those people are seat fillers, but they're also a very small minority of the workforce in most organizations.

I actually sort of think the issue is that enough people are proving that they are perfectly productive without bosses standing over their shoulders and so management types are getting nervous that they're going to start being seen as redundant.

I don't agree with that. Any manager that feels that way is a poor leader.

I think it's a bit naive to think people aren't thinking of self preservation or that bad leaders aren't in managerial roles. I've had some awful managers throughout my life.

Sent from my SM-S908W using Tapatalk

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say either of those things.

And we've all had awful managers.

 

[Bender]

Yup. WFH isn't the issue here. Those who aren't meeting expectations from home are likely just not good fits for the company/position/etc. Many of those people wouldn't exactly be "working" in an office, either - they might give the appearance of doing so, but they're basically pushing papers around to make themselves look busy or deliver sub-standard work. Those people are seat fillers, but they're also a very small minority of the workforce in most organizations.

I actually sort of think the issue is that enough people are proving that they are perfectly productive without bosses standing over their shoulders and so management types are getting nervous that they're going to start being seen as redundant.

I don't agree with that. Any manager that feels that way is a poor leader.

I think it's a bit naive to think people aren't thinking of self preservation or that bad leaders aren't in managerial roles. I've had some awful managers throughout my life.

Sent from my SM-S908W using Tapatalk

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say either of those things.

And we've all had awful managers.

I think I read "I don't agree with that" as I don't agree with that statement, but maybe you meant you don't agree with that behaviour?

Sent from my SM-S908W using Tapatalk

 

[Kin]

Also I probably phrased my initial response poorly. That isn't "the" issue but just one. The much larger issue, obviously, is that there are lots of people heavily invested in the status quo of using huge amounts of land for commercial real estate and a shift to a lot of people working from home threatens their financial interests.

 

[Joe S.]

Also I probably phrased my initial response poorly. That isn't "the" issue but just one. The much larger issue, obviously, is that there are lots of people heavily invested in the status quo of using huge amounts of land for commercial real estate and a shift to a lot of people working from home threatens their financial interests.

Being in the financial services sector I can tell you that?s absolutely 95% of the motivation to get people back in buildings downtown. Banks have so much money tied up in these crazy 30-50 year leases in commercial real estate.

I?m also aware of pressure from Tory to the bank ceos to get people back downtown to get the shops downtown going again.

I know this makes me an ass, but no part of me cares about all those shops in the underground path. To me they were always overpriced boutique places that I walked by on my way to the office.

 

[Kin]

Being in the financial services sector I can tell you that?s absolutely 95% of the motivation to get people back in buildings downtown. Banks have so much money tied up in these crazy 30-50 year leases in commercial real estate.

I?m also aware of pressure from Tory to the bank ceos to get people back downtown to get the shops downtown going again.

I know this makes me an ass, but no part of me cares about all those shops in the underground path. To me they were always overpriced boutique places that I walked by on my way to the office.

And I don't want to be callous about this. Radically shifting how downtowns look would mean some short term hardships for people like someone who owns a restaurant that does a lot of lunch business or a kid working at a coffee shop or whatever. We shouldn't ignore that.

But in the larger scope of things that's really small potatoes when you think of how, with a looming climate crisis and current housing crisis, we currently have massive amounts o space downtown that could be used to build housing that currently is set aside not even for people to work but so that people can drive their cars into the city every day and park. Like, there's just such a smarter way to construct our cities and so many ways it could help.

 

[Arn]

I?m currently doing 2 days in the office and 3 at home. Generally I like going in on a Monday cos it lets me set myself up with what all I have on for the week.

It takes me a bit over an hour to commute each way, if I know I?m doing that once or twice a week it?s fine. But on the days I?m working at home I actually tend to start work around the same time I?d be less than half way to the office. So it saves me time, I finish earlier, and obviously save a pile of fuel (which is an even bigger saving now considering fuel prices).

I?ve found that some days in the office I get lots done and others I?m a bit less productive and motivated and distracted by random chats with people. But it?s nice having those interactions.

At home I find I can have better runs of work where I don?t get interrupted by someone having the inane office chat so I can sometimes get more done. But some days at home I lack a bit of motivation too. Location doesn?t really impact my motivation levels.

I?m much happier with life in general with the balance of work and life. Being able to do things like drop my son to school or have dinner cooking and ready at a decent time instead of having to commute for an hour THEN start it are a game changer. I do still enjoy going into the city a couple of days and having the option to wander round the shops. I also treat myself to a good lunch cos it?s only once a week instead of 5 days of shop sandwich lunch buying a week.

I really hope this balance stays and I just think the opportunity to make people happier will build a better workforce. 

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Being in the financial services sector I can tell you that?s absolutely 95% of the motivation to get people back in buildings downtown. Banks have so much money tied up in these crazy 30-50 year leases in commercial real estate.

I?m also aware of pressure from Tory to the bank ceos to get people back downtown to get the shops downtown going again.

I know this makes me an ass, but no part of me cares about all those shops in the underground path. To me they were always overpriced boutique places that I walked by on my way to the office.

And I don't want to be callous about this. Radically shifting how downtowns look would mean some short term hardships for people like someone who owns a restaurant that does a lot of lunch business or a kid working at a coffee shop or whatever. We shouldn't ignore that.

But in the larger scope of things that's really small potatoes when you think of how, with a looming climate crisis and current housing crisis, we currently have massive amounts o space downtown that could be used to build housing that currently is set aside not even for people to work but so that people can drive their cars into the city every day and park. Like, there's just such a smarter way to construct our cities and so many ways it could help.

Generally, your downtown core drives the financial health of your city. A healthy downtown definitely gives the appearance of a healthy city.
I would agree that the thought process is outdated and needs to change. My honest question would be, how do we continue to have a vibrant city, if our downtowns become "abandoned" or shells of their former selves.

Speaking from personal experience, in a smaller city with little tourism effect, our downtown was abandoned years ago. Only now are we seeing the effects as the remaining businesses shutter and the streets become unsafe to walk. Unlike most in the area, I'd welcome a resurgence to our downtown. I'm just not sure how.

 

[Arn]

Cafes, restaurants, theatres etc that are aimed at bringing people in for events I think.

But of course a lot of those kind of things only go there because there?s people rather than going there specifically to attract people.

More mixed use and living accommodation probably part of it too.

 

[Kin]

Being in the financial services sector I can tell you that?s absolutely 95% of the motivation to get people back in buildings downtown. Banks have so much money tied up in these crazy 30-50 year leases in commercial real estate.

I?m also aware of pressure from Tory to the bank ceos to get people back downtown to get the shops downtown going again.

I know this makes me an ass, but no part of me cares about all those shops in the underground path. To me they were always overpriced boutique places that I walked by on my way to the office.

And I don't want to be callous about this. Radically shifting how downtowns look would mean some short term hardships for people like someone who owns a restaurant that does a lot of lunch business or a kid working at a coffee shop or whatever. We shouldn't ignore that.

But in the larger scope of things that's really small potatoes when you think of how, with a looming climate crisis and current housing crisis, we currently have massive amounts o space downtown that could be used to build housing that currently is set aside not even for people to work but so that people can drive their cars into the city every day and park. Like, there's just such a smarter way to construct our cities and so many ways it could help.

Generally, your downtown core drives the financial health of your city. A healthy downtown definitely gives the appearance of a healthy city.
I would agree that the thought process is outdated and needs to change. My honest question would be, how do we continue to have a vibrant city, if our downtowns become "abandoned" or shells of their former selves.

We're not talking about abandoning downtown, we're very much talking the opposite. Replacing the infrastructure that service business like big office blocks and parking lots with places for people to live and eat and go out and have fun without having to driving an hour. Reducing traffic and increasing walkable streets/bike paths/green spaces. Like Arn said, an emphasis on mixed use neighbourhoods while retaining the sort of transit and infrastructure for tourism you need.

 

[Peter D.]

We're not talking about abandoning downtown, we're very much talking the opposite. Replacing the infrastructure that service business like big office blocks and parking lots with places for people to live and eat and go out and have fun without having to driving an hour. Reducing traffic and increasing walkable streets/bike paths/green spaces. Like Arn said, an emphasis on mixed use neighbourhoods while retaining the sort of transit and infrastructure for tourism you need.

While that definitely sounds ideal, especially with the amount of vacancies these big office buildings will be facing moving forward, is something like this even feasible or possible?  Or is this merely a "in a perfect world" type suggestion?

If anything, the biggest mistake has been never connecting the surrounding cities with a practical transit system into the city. 

 

[Bender]

Being in the financial services sector I can tell you that?s absolutely 95% of the motivation to get people back in buildings downtown. Banks have so much money tied up in these crazy 30-50 year leases in commercial real estate.

I?m also aware of pressure from Tory to the bank ceos to get people back downtown to get the shops downtown going again.

I know this makes me an ass, but no part of me cares about all those shops in the underground path. To me they were always overpriced boutique places that I walked by on my way to the office.

And I don't want to be callous about this. Radically shifting how downtowns look would mean some short term hardships for people like someone who owns a restaurant that does a lot of lunch business or a kid working at a coffee shop or whatever. We shouldn't ignore that.

But in the larger scope of things that's really small potatoes when you think of how, with a looming climate crisis and current housing crisis, we currently have massive amounts o space downtown that could be used to build housing that currently is set aside not even for people to work but so that people can drive their cars into the city every day and park. Like, there's just such a smarter way to construct our cities and so many ways it could help.

Generally, your downtown core drives the financial health of your city. A healthy downtown definitely gives the appearance of a healthy city.
I would agree that the thought process is outdated and needs to change. My honest question would be, how do we continue to have a vibrant city, if our downtowns become "abandoned" or shells of their former selves.

We're not talking about abandoning downtown, we're very much talking the opposite. Replacing the infrastructure that service business like big office blocks and parking lots with places for people to live and eat and go out and have fun without having to driving an hour. Reducing traffic and increasing walkable streets/bike paths/green spaces. Like Arn said, an emphasis on mixed use neighbourhoods while retaining the sort of transit and infrastructure for tourism you need.

Would this not also require bedroom communities to become less... well, bedroomy, if we're talking about fewer people driving in downtown? Everyone drives into Toronto if they aren't from here and on one hand we benefit from those people entering the city for whatever it is, but there's also a massive strain on infrastructure that they generally aren't paying for. I definitely don't think most of the traffic in Toronto is from Torontonians making their way from point A to point B within the city. I do think reducing the number of office complexes and allowing more remote work would alleviate that but I also don't really see that happening considering the big banks are actually building more towers downtown...

 

[Kin]

Would this not also require bedroom communities to become less... well, bedroomy, if we're talking about fewer people driving in downtown? Everyone drives into Toronto if they aren't from here and on one hand we benefit from those people entering the city for whatever it is, but there's also a massive strain on infrastructure that they generally aren't paying for. I definitely don't think most of the traffic in Toronto is from Torontonians making their way from point A to point B within the city. I do think reducing the number of office complexes and allowing more remote work would alleviate that but I also don't really see that happening considering the big banks are actually building more towers downtown...

Well, I think you're sort of getting at some of the questions that need answering like if there is a massive strain on infrastructure that's largely unpaid for...is it really to Toronto's benefit to have so many people driving into the city? And could something like a Congestion charge both work to reduce the strain but also raise funds for some of the infrastructure projects you'd like to follow.

When I lived in Melbourne the city had a central business/entertainment industry but each neighbourhood at times almost seemed like it's own contained small town with a main street with shops, services, restaurants and the like. Sure, you'd go into the city if you wanted to go to the casino or a football game or whatever and they did have suburban sprawl with big box stores but because I was effectively working from home I would sometimes go weeks without going into the downtown despite living a 10 minute train ride away because effectively I could do all that I needed to do within a 15 minute walk from my front door.

I'd like to think that if Toronto were re-designed that way you would see it spread out to the sort of communities you're talking about. Not just because there'd be less people needing to live outside the city and so there'd be more space but because you'd also want those areas to be more livable themselves.

 

[Kin]

While that definitely sounds ideal, especially with the amount of vacancies these big office buildings will be facing moving forward, is something like this even feasible or possible?  Or is this merely a "in a perfect world" type suggestion?

Possible? Absolutely. Easy? No. I know we're talking about a big shift in the way we think about urban living and change, as well as the cost of change, can scare people off but I do think there are a lot of cities who have attempted deurbanization with some pretty significant results.

If anything, the biggest mistake has been never connecting the surrounding cities with a practical transit system into the city.

On this we agree completely. One of the fundamental missteps we've made has been neglecting both urban mass transit and a meaningful rail system to connect smaller communities to a larger hub, again forcing more dependence on cars.

 

[Bullfrog]

So much of this has been discussed in urban design circles for decades. It requires great political will.

The key is making urban housing affordable. In the architecture world, we've begun using the term housing affordability rather than affordable housing. The distinction is that housing of all types and ranges needs to be affordable, rather than just for low-income families.

 

[Kin]

https://twitter.com/colvinj/status/1571955238629969920

I know I'm not the only one here who listened to Serial. Crazy to think this guy spent the last 22 years in prison for something he probably didn't do.

 

[Bullfrog]

After listening to Serial twice, I was pretty convinced he was innocent. After doing more reading, I admit my confidence is no longer 100%. However, I'm 100% confident there was not enough evidence to prove him guilty. The conviction hinged so much on the testimony of that Jay? guy, who was clearly not reliable.

 

[Bender]

Whatever happened to the Making a Murderer guys? I found it wild that nothing really came from that show in terms of a second look by the justice system.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Whatever happened to the Making a Murderer guys? I found it wild that nothing really came from that show in terms of a second look by the justice system.

Season 3 coming in 2023....other then that...