| ▲ | Avicebron 2 hours ago |
| I know that commercial and residential building codes are different, but you would think converting them to residential units would fix this.. |
|
| ▲ | skybrian an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| The article goes into this: > The city of Seattle estimates that, with aggressive incentives, conversions could generate up to 6,000 housing units over the next seven years. At a rough approximation, that would use around a fifth of the city’s present office surplus. > But “potential” is doing a lot of work here. > Newer, larger office buildings, like the U.S. Bank Center, are hugely impractical for conversion, thanks to massive floor plates, centralized plumbing and other utilities and a host of other constraints. > The preferred candidates are typically smaller, older buildings, especially those with C- or E-shaped floor layouts, which make it easier to create smaller units with adequate windows. > But these buildings can be prohibitively costly to bring up to seismic and energy building codes, said Jen Pasquier, a Seattle developer who wants to convert the 10-story Liggett Building, at Fourth and Pike, into 93 apartments. |
| |
| ▲ | Animats 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | There have been some attempts to convert office buildings with large rectangular floors into long, narrow apartments so every apartment has a window. It's possible, but difficult.[1] Plumbing and sewerage turns out to be a huge headache. Large office buildings often have all the plumbing and sewerage in a small vertical core. The rest of the building is just flat slabs on columns. Adding a sewer line means punching through the floor and hanging pipe in the space above the apartments below. If you're in SF and want to see what that looks like, park in the 4th and Mission garage on the lower level, where you can see the plumbing from the restaurants above hanging from the ceiling. Also, sewer lines are gravity fed, with a 2% slope typical. Long pipe runs get lower along the run, so you probably have to put them along a wall. Then you have to hide and soundproof that stuff, although you might be able to get away with leaving it exposed if you market to hipsters or sell it as low-income housing. If the original building has enough ceiling height, it's easier. Then there's HVAC, exhaust ductwork for kitchens and bathrooms without windows, partitioning the electrical distribution for the individual units, fire breaks between units, etc. Overall, it's maybe 30% cheaper than a new building, and all custom work requiring experienced people. If botched, it can be more expensive than a new building. One company that does such conversions admits they're building tomorrow's slums. And then there's the fundamental problem that if jobs are leaving the downtown core, why have more housing units there? [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/analysis-heres-what-it-... | |
| ▲ | BryantD 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The regulatory process in Seattle is fairly painful, which raises the bar for even some of those smaller, older buildings. It'd help to change that, even though it wouldn't consume the majority of the surplus. | |
| ▲ | qpricjalcbeu an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So convert those buildings to giant dorms. Lots of younger people would be more than happy with such an option (as long as it's priced accordingly of course) Can also combine with capsule hotels. | | |
| ▲ | exhilaration an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | There was a great episode of the Planet Money podcast a few weeks back that talked about boarding houses https://www.npr.org/2026/06/10/nx-s1-5851902/housing-afforda... they're apparently illegal in most places | |
| ▲ | hibikir an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Large parts of the floor would be illegal to hand to anyone due to lack of natural light: They are only reasonable for offices because most of the floor doesn't have full walls, or said walls are transparent. They are also in locations where you might not want to live anyway, as there's minimal commercial support around the building for the services you would need if living in a weird, limited apartment. It's a bit like how suburban commercial areas are now in trouble because there are fewer companies interested in the big box anchors, and without them many a strip mall stops making economic sense. But there at least the anchor is just a big empty box, not an 8 or 9 digit investment. | | |
| ▲ | Melatonic an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Seems like a creative opportunity. Each floor could be apartments on the outside with a shared workspace or coffee shop or gym in the middle. Or even do stuff like hydroponics. | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | general1465 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Large parts of the floor would be illegal to hand to anyone due to lack of natural light: This is weird regulation to me. Why it is not allowed for apartment, but it is OK for office? Both buildings are sheltering humans, just during different stage of being awake. | | |
| ▲ | Arnt 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | 1000m² with one window wall: do you think that's an open-plan office or an apartment? And you can't really split it into ten, an apartment with e.g. 5m of windows and 20m depth doesn't work. | | | |
| ▲ | TFNA an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Like the GP said: in offices the floor is often a big open space where light from windows can extend a long way. But once you start dividing up that big space into smaller residential units with walls, that light gets blocked. | | |
| ▲ | treis 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don't think bedrooms really need windows and in some ways they're preferable with the light & noise reductions. Even if that's solved the bigger problem is earthquake code. These older buildings aren't up to modern code and significant renovations would require structure changes. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Analemma_ an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | In the 2010s Seattle briefly legalized SRO-like "pod apartments" of 300-400 sq ft, and several were built. A friend of mine rented one for several years and it was fantastic. But nothing makes NIMBYs throw a shitfit like the word "SRO" and they were eventually made illegal again. | | |
| ▲ | jjice an hour ago | parent [-] | | SROs done right would be such a huge, easy win for so many cities. When I was fresh out of uni, I rented rooms for cheap with all utilities included. It was great, given the price. |
|
| |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | hirsin an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| On top of the architectural challenges and efficacy of it, you have to contend with the terms of the bank loans that apply. Those are why the buildings "can't" lower rents to attract new business. If they sign a lease at a new lower rent it basically triggers a re-check of "can they repay the loan based on their rental income?", which comes back as "no". That trigger _doesn't_ occur if you just leave the building empty, with _no one_ paying rent, because your last mark to market rent was high enough. Fundamentally changing the type of tenant in the building would presumably trigger that check as well. It's a shell game that eventually leads to the loan defaulting, but both the bank and the building owner are happy to pretend they can't see the train coming down the tracks at them. For an example of this in Seattle that everyone was calling years ahead of the collision, see the Martin Selig sagas https://deepnewz.com/real-estate/seattle-developer-selig-war... |
| |
| ▲ | Avicebron an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's actually probably better as an art piece now that the I think about it. Giant, vacant towers locked by some asshole sitting in their second home in Nantucket, while hordes of homeless mill around the bottom. |
|
|
| ▲ | kccqzy 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| On top of architectural issues like plumbing and access to windows, cities like NYC have programs where converting economically obsolete offices to residential exempts the building from property taxes if at least some units are for low-income renters. |
|
| ▲ | cryzinger an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's not easy, but some people are trying it! https://www.npr.org/2026/02/21/g-s1-110595/from-cubicles-to-... |
|
| ▲ | cozzyd an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I live in a converted office building I. Downtown Chicago . But it was built in 1913. Newer office buildings are less practical to convert due to larger floor plates. Older office buildings are smaller or have light wells etc. |
|
| ▲ | forlorn_mammoth an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| might depend how different the codes are. could be a really expensive retrofit. Residential and office put different stresses on infrastructure. |
|
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | readthenotes1 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Apparently it's really expensive to convert to meet reasonably sane residential standards. Add in required shrubbery, section 8 housing set-asides, rent control, etc., it becomes unattractive -- especially if the jobs have moved to business friendly suburbs |
|
| ▲ | idontwantthis an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The bipartisan housing bill that Trump has refused to sign included provisions for encouraging this. |
