alt.hn

1/22/2026 at 5:11:47 PM

Downtown Denver's office vacancy rate grows to 38.2%

 https://coloradosun.com/2026/01/22/denver-downtown-office-vacancy-rate-tenants-workplace/

by mooreds

1/22/2026 at 5:39:12 PM

I think Denver (I live here) is an example of our horrible zoning. We have entirely focused our cities (especially Denver and RTD (Regional Transportation District)) around people commuting in for work.

This is one of the main principles of BAD design, where you create an entire area around close to a single use (offices). That creates a very fragile city. This "single use" zoning that the US proliferated makes us really fragile to changes like working from home vs in-office work.

Another point is that cities are rather hostile for families. We create cities so they need to be fled as soon as people have kids. We have streets entirely of concrete and 1 and 2 bedroom apartments. If we want cities to be more resilient we need to rethink them. We need streets that have greenspace as a fundamental part of the infrastructure. We need permeable surfaces.

I went to Park am Gleisdreieck in Berlin and stayed in a multi-family unit right along the park. There were tons of families with kids playing in the park, people riding bikes for transportation along the park bike paths, adults playing ping pong on outdoor tables together. It was wonderful. It made me rethink what a city can look like.

Denver needs to take notes. We don't need a single use city and a light rail system that only goes into that city. We made an incredibly fragile city. We can build better cities.

by mattcantstop

1/22/2026 at 6:01:13 PM

Everything is part of an ecosystem, even office buildings. Nature shows us that a healthy ecosystem, one that survives shocks, is a diverse ecosystem. Diverse ecosystems find niches faster and niches grow over time to turn into major driving forces. They absorb shocks as new things enter since not all parts react the same or on the same timeline. Diversity is key to long term health. This is why monopolies are bad, this is why we should be looking for every kind of diversity we can in every problem. I have gotten to the point that when I see large scale problems I start looking for where the diversity is low and that is almost always the issue. Politics bad? Maybe if we had more than two choices things would be better. Housing bad? Maybe if we had more mixed use things would be better. Energy segment issues? Look at how fast the energy segment is improving now that renewables have finally been added to the ecosystem and we have more choices. Etc, etc etc.

by jmward01

1/22/2026 at 11:11:41 PM

I agree with you about ecosystems and many systems for that matter. Diversity in diet leads to diversity in gut microbiome leads to diversity in methods to absorb nutrients leads to longevity and health.

Lots more example I could list.

However I think there are contexts and levels of abstraction where diversity at one level prohibits diversity at another. An example of this would be standards. There is little diversity in shipping container sizes and designs and that standardization enables more shipment of goods.

Standardization in web protocols enables larger diversity in website content.

While I'm not an expert in biology, I'm pretty sure some of our organs have a lot less diversity in cell types than others. E.g. a healthy heart has little cellular diversity compared to a healthy gut.

By standardizing money (limiting diversity in barter) enables a larger economy with greater diversity of products and services.

A highly functional team will all share a core set of values, and if everyone had extremely diverse values the team wouldn't be able to function. For example some businessess thrive on a culture of internal competition, and some thrive on internal cooperation, but mixing these up can create dysfunction. At the same time, some diversity in values leads to better decision making, so again context matters.

So my point is that diversity is a really important property that sometimes needs to be maximized, sometimes needs to be minimized, and sometimes needs to be balanced, in order to achieve the desired outcomes. I also think that in general maximizing global diversity is a good north star value, and I am acknowledging that to achieve it requires minimizing diversity in some narrow contexts.

by FloorEgg

1/22/2026 at 5:59:13 PM

I also live in Denver. The biggest problem with downtown isn't zoning (though that may be a part), it's the homeless people. Who's going to want to go hang out on 16th when there's a dude asking you for money on every street corner? I don't know what the solution is, but it seems clear to me that revitalizing downtown starts with removing the "I'm going to have to deal with vagrants" factor.

by bigstrat2003

1/22/2026 at 6:17:16 PM

The only solution is to provide stable long-term housing and social support. Most else has been tried, but it doesn’t seem that you can punish people and make them less poor. Cops continue to sweep through and steal their belongings, but that clearly won’t solve the problem, and hasn’t. You can throw them all in jail, but that’s more expensive than providing non-jailed housing and rehabilitation services. You can forcefully or enticingly move them along with cops or free bus tickets, but that just shifts the problem elsewhere temporarily. As long as we continue to decide to solve this by increasing funds for cops above all other services in a city, this is the result we will get.

by mw1

1/22/2026 at 6:07:41 PM

Solution, 1) abundance of cheap housing. 2) effective mental health treatment with mandatory attendance when necessary.

Of course this utopia would attract folks from other areas, so can’t be solved only locally. Needs national support.

by mixmastamyk

1/22/2026 at 9:38:52 PM

Homelessness is a choice that society has made. We have enough excess that we can feed and house these people. People are a lot less scary when they have some measure of security.

by ottah

1/23/2026 at 2:07:44 PM

Oftentimes, the homeless themselves don't want to be fed or housed. In fact, they--especially the ones with mental health and/or addiction problems--often destroy public housing. Reality does not match the propaganda that all homeless are just down-on-their-luck unfortunate people who would otherwise fit into society.

by nathanaldensr

1/23/2026 at 1:33:08 AM

It’s the raving drug addicts that cause the problem. That is a choice those people made.

by lotsoweiners

1/23/2026 at 10:46:53 PM

None of us are so enlightened that we cannot fail and stuffer equally.

by ottah

1/22/2026 at 6:03:51 PM

When I worked off of 16th street, years ago, many of those homeless people had jobs with the Denver VOICE, selling newspapers. I even bought a few. Are they still around?

by coderc

1/22/2026 at 9:43:32 PM

Last time I went to Denver I actually got chased.

by binary132

1/22/2026 at 10:55:40 PM

Last time I went to Denver I didn't get chased and everyone I met seemed pretty great.

by collingreen

1/23/2026 at 3:12:17 PM

Last time I went to Denver (downtown) a homeless lady 10 feet from my niece said she had a gun and reached into her jacket. I tackled her, immobilized her, and then me and my family waited 90 minutes for the police to show up after many 911 calls.

by dulakian

1/22/2026 at 5:56:37 PM

Yup. Every time I hear someone complaining online about a lack of parking I think, this person has never been to Europe, or even Washington, DC.

If you’ve never seen anything but stroads and power lines, I guess it makes sense.

by mixmastamyk

1/22/2026 at 6:00:13 PM

> I went to Park am Gleisdreieck in Berlin and stayed in a multi-family unit right along the park

That's a favorite running spot of mine when I'm in Berlin. It's also along a great bus line, close to gyms, a technology museum, a bio market, Victoria Park and not far from Tempelhof. But that little park shines on its own. And the cars parked along the road are down a half level so you don't feel surrounded by parked cars.

That's a pet peeve of mine in America, and especially the American west. We put outdoor seating for cafes and restaurants along busy streets or busy parking lots. Which downgrades the outdoor experience and supports the car priority mindset.

by browningstreet

1/23/2026 at 2:05:17 AM

> And the cars parked along the road are down a half level so you don't feel surrounded by parked cars.

Putting parks half a level above (or below) street level is a surprisingly easy hack for vastly improving the experience. I wish more places did this.

by ethbr1

1/23/2026 at 3:50:27 PM

American cities are built around cars, not people.

by insane_dreamer

1/25/2026 at 4:10:35 PM

Berlin has too many cars too (so many parked cars), but it’s mostly flat, has great public transport, and generally slower streets. It also has a lot of people who aren’t scared of waking or riding bikes. And a ton of outdoor seating at cafes.

by browningstreet

1/22/2026 at 10:02:55 PM

> There were tons of families with kids playing in the park, people riding bikes for transportation along the park bike paths, adults playing ping pong on outdoor tables together. It was wonderful. It made me rethink what a city can look like.

Sure sounds like literally every major park in the city.

The rest of your comment certainly describes downtown/RINO, but does not, at all, describe anything even half a mile away from downtown.

I’m slightly confused by your descriptions. I’m more confused by how you think Denver ought to build transit that goes from the suburbs to other suburbs, or if you think we ought to just raze the whole thing? I’m not sure that would get voter support.

by jmye

1/22/2026 at 7:58:25 PM

> We have entirely focused our cities (especially Denver and RTD (Regional Transportation District)) around people commuting in for work.

This isn’t Denver-specific at all. It’s how every US city was built.

For ~100 years we planned cities around one assumption: work happens in a centralized office, five days a week. Transit, zoning, downtown land use, parking, even tax bases were optimized for the daily commute. Downtowns became office monocultures; neighborhoods became places you slept.

Remote work broke that model. The result is cities that are now unfortunately organized around a behavior that no longer dominates daily life - and we’re still trying to operate them as if it does.

by fowkswe

1/22/2026 at 5:45:41 PM

Denver does have some neighborhoods that almost are good in some of the respects you mention, or at least I remember some development that seemed similar in the vicinity of the Millennium Bridge - it's just insanely expensive (and I'm remembering pre-pandemic times).

by Glyptodon

1/22/2026 at 9:40:56 PM

Is it actually badly zoned? There's also a lot of apartment buildings and first floor retail in downtown Denver. I do agree though, it's a concrete jungle, we really need more natural environments to feel human.

by ottah

1/22/2026 at 6:09:12 PM

Everything has pros and cons. I lived in both setups, and the mixed residential/commertial/recreational can be very noisy. Also big parks, if not well illuminated, become unsafe for the families around.

by f1shy

1/22/2026 at 6:38:46 PM

>mixed residential/commertial/recreational can be very noisy.

I'd rather live in a somewhat 'noisy' vibrant neighborhood where I can walk to shops or restaurants than an absolutely dead residential cul-de-sac where I have to literally drive miles to the nearest amenity. If the noise bothers you at night, get a sound machine or install triple pane windows.

I understand having industrial separate from everything else, but commercial and residential should always be blended IMHO, and SFH zoning should not exist.

I would kill for reformed zoning standards like they have in Japan.

by wing-_-nuts

1/22/2026 at 7:06:10 PM

I liked very much Japan or Buenos Aires. Sure. Just pointing out there are downsides also. Traffic is a mess, and that shows in times for ambulances and firefighters. I like things of both. I guess people should vote by choosing to live where they want

by f1shy

1/22/2026 at 7:50:56 PM

Traffic is a mess in Tokyo? Ambulance response times are typically under 10m in japan, so not sure the relevance there. Also the entire point of living in a dense neighborhood is that one is able to address many of your day to day needs without driving.

>I guess people should vote by choosing to live where they want

I'd have no problem with this if dense, multi-use zoning were common. As it is, very few places in the US are as livable as much of Europe and the more developed parts of Asia.

by wing-_-nuts

1/23/2026 at 12:11:10 AM

… So live where you want. I do, and it’s a SFH neighborhood. We don’t all need to live in Kowloon City, just because that’s what you like.

So tired of this strident bullshit (“and SFH zoning should not exist”) from people who can’t seem to figure out other people exist and have thoughts and preferences, too.

by jmye

1/23/2026 at 3:34:46 AM

I'm just going to copy and paste the end of my last comment since it seems you didn't read it

>I'd have no problem with this if dense, multi-use zoning were common. As it is, very few places in the US are as livable as much of Europe and the more developed parts of Asia.

It's easy to say 'live where you want' when your preferred housing isn't illegal in most of the US.

by wing-_-nuts

1/26/2026 at 2:31:10 PM

I'm "just going to copy and paste" your actual statement: "and SFH zoning should not exist"

> It's easy to say 'live where you want' when your preferred housing isn't illegal in most of the US.

And yet, even if we take this obviously bogus statement on it's face, there are still many places you could live if you were more interested in living there and less interested in trying to force me to live there, too. You could even, if this were honest concern, join your local city's planning commission and talk to people who actually understand your local area about it's zoning, though I suppose that takes more effort than shit posting about SFH BAD on social media.

by jmye

1/23/2026 at 1:37:22 AM

The good news for you is that you can live like this in almost any major city. Those of us that absolutely want to drive places and live in SFH zoned areas can also do that. Win win.

by lotsoweiners

1/23/2026 at 3:40:59 AM

There may be scattered small neighborhoods in very large cities where this is possible, but it's largely illegal to build this way in most of the US

by wing-_-nuts

1/23/2026 at 1:39:39 AM

Why would you want to have to drive everywhere?

by direwolf20

1/23/2026 at 4:57:27 PM

It's quiet, I get a larger piece of land with a yard that I can enjoy, I can have a porch, there are no homeless people accosting me when I sit on my porch, when I go to the grocery store it is clean and doesn't have a homeless encampment outside the front door, and nobody shoplifts from it so nothing is locked up, etc etc. I used to live in Seattle, these are not invented problems.

by eudamoniac

1/23/2026 at 5:45:19 PM

50% of your problems are homeless people. Seattle should get homes for those people and that would make it 50% nicer for you.

by direwolf20

1/23/2026 at 5:59:42 PM

Yes, Seattle would certainly be much nicer without the homeless people, no argument there. But even if we assume that would reduce the crime rate, I still would prefer my large SFH with a garden and allowing my kids to safely run around the neighborhood unsupervised.

This is not mentioning the gorillion dollars Seattle already spends on homeless help to no avail; asylums are probably the only real solution to that.

by eudamoniac

1/22/2026 at 7:06:38 PM

Houston might be up your alley.

by mothballed

1/23/2026 at 2:10:08 PM

I, for one, love my low-density agriculturally-rooted Massachusetts town founded in the eighteenth century.

Not everyone likes what you like.

by nathanaldensr

1/22/2026 at 6:16:56 PM

> I think Denver (I live here) is an example of our horrible zoning.

I don't think urban planners will ever admit or apologize for the damage they've done.

by xnx

1/22/2026 at 5:49:46 PM

What size of home would you be willing to raise your children in? The average 3 br is 1000 sq. ft. in Berlin.

US norms are for much larger homes.

by renewiltord

1/22/2026 at 5:57:58 PM

I grew up (as the oldest of 5 siblings) in a split-level home about 1200 sqft. It was fine, we just shared bedrooms. Based only on anecdotal evidence, we grew up closer than other families I knew where each kid has their own bed and bathroom.

by fwip

1/22/2026 at 6:00:37 PM

So did I. But I think the median American acts to not raise their child like that.

by renewiltord

1/22/2026 at 10:12:38 PM

Well it’s time to rethink that then. Necessity is the mother of all invention, and at one point it’ll be a necessity to downsize if you want an affordable home.

by pixelatedindex

1/22/2026 at 11:24:45 PM

How much space does a kid staring at an iPad all day really need?

by phatfish

1/23/2026 at 1:39:28 AM

Or move somewhere with bigger homes at a more affordable price.

by lotsoweiners

1/22/2026 at 5:54:04 PM

Square footage matters less than configuration.

by estearum

1/22/2026 at 6:08:09 PM

And location. While going to school my family lived in a 2 bedroom that was, I think, just under 600 square feet. The fridge was in the living area. The kitchen was a space so small you could touch every surface/cabinet if you stood in the middle of it. But we were right in the middle of amazing services. A park was a 3 minute walk away. My first class was visible from my bedroom window as was the shared play area of the apartments around me so I could let my 6yo 'go to the park' and play but still watch him if I wanted to. All the shopping was local and actual businesses that did actual things were in walking distance. We had many friends that lived/worked/played/shopped all within walking distance and that tiny apartment didn't feel small at all because the real living room was the city.

by jmward01

1/22/2026 at 10:09:39 PM

How much space do you really need to raise a child? I’m genuinely curious because Americans act like you need a mansion to raise kids.

A 3 bed with 1K sq ft still gives you like a 10x10 room - more than enough space for a crib and a queen bed. And you have two other bedrooms to spare. As they get older and need space to run around and stuff, there’s no shortage of parks / trails / fields.

by pixelatedindex

1/23/2026 at 10:20:41 AM

> How much space do you really need to raise a child?

It definitely depends on climate. I live in Ireland (in a relatively small house in the suburbs) and in the summer, there's absolutely no problem as we can take the kids out pretty regularly. However, in the winter when it's dark at 5pm and wet and windy, I definitely feel like we don't have enough space.

I do think the US houses seem absurdly large to me, but then lots of the more recent houses built in ireland are of a similar size.

by disgruntledphd2

1/23/2026 at 2:21:18 PM

i'm in a city in Canada and it's -18C today.

plenty of kids playing outside, just heavily bundled and for short stints.

and we still have 3rd Places nearby, like community centers

by red-iron-pine

1/23/2026 at 2:54:20 PM

Yeah, the cold would bother me less than the rain and darkness, tbh.

> for short stints.

This is the issue though, we have a 2.5 year old who's just super active, and it's much easier to tire him out when the weather is better and there's more light. Like, right now in Ireland it's still completely dark by 5.30 which means it's hard to tire him out in the winter.

> and we still have 3rd Places nearby, like community centers

That's cool, we have those too but they're mostly kid friendly in the mornings and afternoons and used for adult stuff in the evenings.

by disgruntledphd2

1/22/2026 at 6:12:34 PM

As someone who lives in a 700 sq ft 1bd apartment, I guess maybe you could pack in another two bedrooms in with 300 more sq ft (my bedroom is ~ 120-130 sqft w ~ 25 sqft of closet space). You wouldn't have a whole lot of elbow room. Still makes more sense than the 2500+ sqft monstrosities we regularly build in the states.

by wing-_-nuts

1/22/2026 at 8:06:27 PM

Even 2500sqft is modest by modern American new build standards. It's pretty challenging to find a "nice" home that's <3,000 sqft in most markets, and basically impossible to find a truly high end home that's <4,000.

by estearum

1/22/2026 at 6:05:48 PM

A typical 3 bedroom flat/house in the UK has similar area. IMHO in terms of house sizes the US (with large houses) is an outlier, not Berlin.

by citrin_ru

1/23/2026 at 2:19:30 PM

why do I need a big home when the school is 3 blocks away or there is a park across the street? the mall is 10 minutes walking, as is the subway

do fatass americans just need more space to function?

by red-iron-pine

1/22/2026 at 6:44:37 PM

Ok, sounds like normal 'creative destruction' to me. Time to raze useless office space and build housing in it's place.

Also, I don't get how companies can make such a big song and dance about their climate commitments on the one hand while simultaneously insisting on RTO on the other. The greenest commute is one that never happens. If the tax code needs to change to give companies credit for their employees cutting out their commute, so be it.

by wing-_-nuts

1/23/2026 at 2:19:40 AM

Playing devil's advocate a little bit (only just), but razing buildings will not do much for climate commitments either

by cal_dent

1/23/2026 at 3:38:50 AM

Replacing unused office space with dense multifamily housing would benefit the climate long term as city dwellers have a much lower carbon footprint. Not to mention that they've gotten good enough building with engineered timber that they can safely build midrises with the stuff. No need for concrete.

by wing-_-nuts

1/23/2026 at 4:44:28 AM

but by demolishing you're releasing and generating a ton of embodied carbon for a likely relative limited output of residential homes on the other side (because the economics doesn't stack up). I'd contend that the trade off is as simple as you're suggesting.

by cal_dent

1/23/2026 at 3:33:15 PM

Razing buildings generates no more carbon than what is required by the machinery to demolish it and cart off the debris. I'm starting to question whether you're speaking in good faith

by wing-_-nuts

1/23/2026 at 10:11:58 PM

Not sure where you questioning good faith comes from but do you. You're generating more carbon because you're then building more stuff where you've razed. It's a pretty recognised trade off why just mass demolishing stuff isn't the most effective thing to do.

https://restoreoregon.org/2021/04/12/understanding-the-carbo...

by cal_dent

1/22/2026 at 5:17:51 PM

Looks like there is an opportunity to convert a lot of that into residential space.

by rbanffy

1/22/2026 at 5:22:48 PM

Not necessarily. Things like "where do pipes run" so can get tricky along with code requirements for access.

There's a NYT article on the challenges about this from a few years ago: So You Want to Turn an Office Building Into a Home? -- Here’s How to Solve a 25-Story Rubik’s Cube https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/11/upshot/office...

by shagie

1/22/2026 at 5:32:22 PM

While converting it is not economical, class c office space (which is least desirable) demand is probably gone in this market due to lackluster demand for office space; the value of the building will get zeroed out by the market, at which point it can trade hands, be demo'd, and new residential can go up in its place.

You can think of class c office space, broadly speaking, as oil wells that have very little life left, and get bought up by folks who intend to extract the cashflow until they dump the externality on the public government and taxpayers (like abandoned shopping malls).

A recent example in St Louis is the AT&T office tower [1] [2].

[1] One of St. Louis’ tallest office towers, empty for years, sells for less than 2% of its peak price - https://www.costar.com/article/642008108/one-of-st-louis-tal... - April 10th, 2024 ("Goldman Group buys 44-story former AT&T office tower for $3.6 Million")

[2] St. Louis office vacancy hits all-time high [21.2%] as major companies downsize their footprints - https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2026/01/15/office-v... - January 16th, 2026

(conversions when the economics pencil out, haircuts for investors when they don't and more investment is needed to wholesale replace a structure)

US office vacancy rates chart supposedly pulled from Moody's: https://old.reddit.com/r/charts/comments/1p8mhmq/us_office_v...

by toomuchtodo

1/22/2026 at 7:42:47 PM

IIRC, that article mentioned older buildings tend to be more convertible to residential, because of their layouts, and modern office buildings (with giant open floor spaces for seas of cubicles) are almost impossible to convert.

There should probably building code changes to ban the latter type of office building, and keep the space more flexible and convertible to residential. A big plus is the resulting office space would probably be nicer to workers.

by palmotea

1/22/2026 at 6:02:31 PM

Great article with diagrams and overlays. Good share.

by dnemmers

1/22/2026 at 5:22:59 PM

I read something at some point that it's more expensive to convert these into residential buildings than it is to literally demolish and rebuild.

I'm not entirely sure how that math works out, or why, because one would think it couldn't be that complicated. Maybe someone here knows more about this.

by someuser54541

1/22/2026 at 5:35:09 PM

Another thing about a lot of commercial buildings is the floorplate size and layout. Office buildings often don't care if there's a lot of interior spaces without any windows, but people need outside light. So if you've got a massive floorplate it can be kind of a pain chopping it up into good sized units that meet the demand of the residential market in the area. This definitely varies from building to building though.

There's also a lot of work that probably needs to go in to the ventilation and fire code changes. An office building isn't designed for people having ovens and stoves. It also often just assumes its OK to have less isolation between units for the ventilation, or previously entire floors were considered to be one space ventilation-wise but now you might be trying to split it into 2-3 units that require separation. This separation can also complicate things like AC and heat.

The ventilation issue comes up a good bit with a lot of these poorly done conversions. You end up with units that just don't get nearly enough airflow, and all the windows are sealed so its not like one can just open the window to get more air.

by vel0city

1/22/2026 at 5:27:33 PM

The plumbing systems in commercial buildings are not big enough to handle residents usage. Residents use more water and the outbound sewage systems need to be larger.

by mullen

1/22/2026 at 5:33:03 PM

There's already enough plumbing in there for a whole office to shit when they get to the office.

History favors the bold, and code inspectors blabbering about "written in blood" don't see all the homeless people they kill via reduced access to housing.

I've seen plenty of artist collectives that manage it; on paper they are office/industrial but actually everyone lives there. Every once in awhile one burns down but the mortality rate isn't as high as living on the streets which is ultimately what happens to those on the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid when the ones higher up push the ones under them down a rung to snag housing.

by mothballed

1/22/2026 at 5:36:36 PM

For a lot of the office buildings I've been in, there aren't that many toilets per floor. Its also different when you've got some toilets that are often unused compared to people running laundry, cooking, bathing, etc. Very different demands on the plumbing system.

You also then had everything pretty much isolated to two rooms for an entire floor meanwhile now every unit is going to have a separate kitchen, a bathroom (or two, or three), a laundry room, etc.

And you're going to need a good bit of engineering studies done before you start cutting that many holes in the floor.

by vel0city

1/22/2026 at 5:51:57 PM

Ok, but some extra plumbing (and whatever sorts of engineering studies referred to) and electrical work surely can't as expensive as demolishing and rebuilding a whole building.

These seem like extremely solve-able problems.

by someuser54541

1/22/2026 at 8:00:02 PM

If it was just the plumbing, then maybe. But its not just the plumbing. Its the plumbing, the electrical, the AC/ventilation, fire codes, and so much more.

Not saying it can't ever be done, it really depends on the building. But its not necessarily a good assumption it can be done well in a cost-effective fashion.

by vel0city

1/22/2026 at 6:00:20 PM

Now watch the video to find out why you’re wrong

by bethekidyouwant

1/22/2026 at 6:09:45 PM

But do you really have to cram in as many residents as you could with a purpose-built tenement? There must be ways to keep headcount in the range the infrastructure can support and still provide a lot more housing than just leaving them as empty decaying offices owned by the last one holding the bag. Intersperse flats with windowless storage units (you have a depth problem anyways), low density commercial use like workshops with live-by flats and so on. Large units designed to attract high squarefeet/low headcount tenants, not bunk bed families. Add regulation only as a fallback limiter. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

by usrusr

1/22/2026 at 7:10:57 PM

> There must be ways to keep headcount in the range the infrastructure can support and still provide a lot more housing than just leaving them as empty decaying offices owned by the last one holding the bag.

Demolishing the office building and building a residential building is more profitable often.

by pseudalopex

1/22/2026 at 7:57:53 PM

I mean, sure, you can just sell it as a unit for each floor. You then need to recoup all the costs of rebuilding against fewer people, so all the main area renovations and what not get more expensive and the monthly cost of building maintenance get spread across fewer and fewer tenants. But you've still got a problem of most of the rooms of your very expensive condo have zero natural light, its all practically ancient built stuff in terms of planned structure life, and you've got a very expensive monthly maintenance bill. Meanwhile your massive and dark unit with odd plumbing and low ceilings is competing in the market against units that were actually built for the purpose of people living in them, so while your unit is big and expensive to maintain they're some of the least desirable spots.

The economics just often work out a lot better to tear down the old structure and rebuild a new one more fit for purpose.

by vel0city

1/22/2026 at 10:12:39 PM

Sorry, I either totally misread your comment or was mentally replying to someone else when I wrote this.

Sure, you could just cram the residences to the edges and try to recoup the cost of the rest of the square footage for places that don't need natural light. But once again you've got issues with original designs and intents for the building. None of the plumbing is designed to be pushed to the edges, so you'll need to make massive changes to the structural integrity by drilling a bunch of new floor cores to do all the new plumbing work. You could rent the interior spaces as storage, but you'll probably quickly flood the market of storage units with the massive amount of square footage you'll be bringing.

Trying to have industrial in there as well is asking for problems. Trying to rent some 15th story small/medium interior unit as some kind of industrial workshop would be quite weird. What kind of industry would want a smaller interior space that probably can't support heavy equipment, has a limit to ceilings of ~10 or so feet, can't require odd ventilation or strange/additional fire suppression/separation requirements, probably has significant power limitations (in terms of industrial capacity, at least), noise limitations, difficulty getting much product in and out, etc? Stuff that the city is going to be OK zoning literally across the hall from people trying to live? And that you're going to find a number of these willing to pay a good bit for such a space to cover the maintenance costs? These buildings weren't built for industrial usages, they were built for office desks and couches. Maybe a few floors have been upgraded to handle additional weight to have datacenter kind of spaces, but definitely not most of the floors.

So then you're trying to spread the maintenance costs of this massive and old building across higher value residences and a lot of very low value storage/weird industrial tenants.

by vel0city

1/22/2026 at 11:42:21 PM

You can run drains out the side of the structure without drilling holes in the floor, same with electric, and even if by some insanity we say "whutabout the holes in the side" then you could even use a damn lift pump/macerator pump to pump it up and out through where a window was. For vents you can also use AAV instead of a traditional vent. If the residences are at the edges they should be able to pop right out and worse case you elevate the floor in the bathroom/kitchen under the plumbing appliances for the slope on the pipe as it exits. A vertical drain pipe isn't going to freeze (and even if it were, could be insulated and heated), and supply lines are such small holes as to not threaten structural integrity.

by mothballed

1/22/2026 at 9:54:58 PM

> And you're going to need a good bit of engineering studies done before you start cutting that many holes in the floor.

You can Swiss-cheese a pan and deck concrete floor with core-drilled holes, the important thing is GPDR scanning before coring to avoid the pre- or post-tension cables embedded in the concrete.

by quickthrowman

1/22/2026 at 6:02:35 PM

Artists are a shrinking population, I wonder if having most of the top floors (20 out of 30) converted to extremely large luxury apartments (5000sqft+) and only 'adding capacity'to plumbing and what not for the lower 10 floors, which would house smaller units, would be economically viable. Although actual luxury market requires high ceiling so probably wouldn't work out.

I'm sure many many people have thought of all sort of solutions as the value for finding some sort of solution is extremely high.

by boelboel

1/22/2026 at 9:53:15 PM

> There's already enough plumbing in there for a whole office to shit when they get to the office.

A 20,000 sq ft office tower floor will usually have a single set of restrooms and a couple of kitchen sinks, maybe a dishwasher, plus a couple 6-gallon or instahot water heaters. If you subdivide that floor into a dozen units, that’s 12 showers, 12 washers, 12 dishwashers, 12 toilets, 24 sinks, and 12 water heaters.

The riser and drain pipes aren’t big enough to handle residential needs.

by quickthrowman

1/22/2026 at 11:20:48 PM

That's not how the 'black market' ones I've seen operate. And I've seen a lot from when I visited the circuit of underground artist-related events when I lived in chicago. They are shockingly common in areas with extremely high rents and an oversupply of unused commercial space.

They might subdivide it 12 ways, but there is one shared kitchen for a whole floor and maybe 2 toilets, 2 sinks and the residents are going to the laundromats. They tend to put the shared amenities on the ground floor as much as possible because it is easiest to expand them there. It beats being homeless by a long shot.

For reference, when I hauled water, we used about 60 gallons a week for a family, or about 0.05% utilization of a 3" drain pipe for a single family. You do not need much water in order to be way way better off than being homeless; 5/gal a day of non-potable water and you're pretty much in luxury comparatively and a shit-ton of people can be putting that down a 3" or even 2" drain pipe before it causes problems. A 3" pipe is the minimum that would be serving a typical floor of a warehouse, so plenty enough for a constantly used couple of shared bathrooms with a shared kitchen. Honestly even splitting it 12 ways could be overcome with some technical ingenuity (electric lock-outs to prevent more than a few in use at once, and AAVs to prevent needing a bunch of new vents).

These are all easily overcome problems for people utilizing an ounce of civil disobedience with regards to the code. And yes I have personally done all the design and plumbing and electric for multi-structure properties (though not the black market ones).

by mothballed

1/23/2026 at 1:03:35 AM

> These are all easily overcome problems for people utilizing an ounce of civil disobedience with regards to the code. And yes I have personally done all the design and plumbing and electric for multi-structure properties (though not the black market ones).

It didn’t work out so great in Oakland at the Ghost Ship, 36 people died in a similar arrangement.

Building code is written in blood, things are done a certain way for a reason. You may be morally or ethically against them but following code saves lives.

by quickthrowman

1/23/2026 at 1:19:26 AM

36 people dead is a rounding error compared to mortality from people on the streets due to lack of access to housing. Every time I bring up this topic, someone trots out the Ghost Ship like a broken record, ignoring what I said about the mortality rate of people on the streets because shit rolls downhill when people higher up the socio-economic pyramid go the next rung down in available housing. Bastiat has an excellent writing on this fallacious logic you use, titled "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen."

Not having housing didn't work out great for 700+ dead homeless people per year that are estimated to die of hypothermia.

The code inspectors have blood in their hands. You may be morally or ethically against bypassing the codes, but bypassing it can save lives.

Black market housing is done for a reason, a very good one, and one that saves lives. Fortunately where I live, I built a house without any inspections whatsoever, so none of the code psychopaths were even around to make their absurd case about the ghost ship, and that is the only reason why I was even able to afford to own a house.

by mothballed

1/22/2026 at 5:39:35 PM

This is an issue that got brought up in Portland, OR during Covid IIRC. The city was looking at buying up vacant offices and converting them to living space but it just didn't make any sense financially and the city concluded it was cheaper to demolish and rebuild than convert.

by helterskelter

1/22/2026 at 5:27:02 PM

I assume it's because they would need to re-wire electrical and retrofit plumbing on a massive scale to accommodate kitchens and bathrooms for separate units. They end up needing to gut the entire building and cut through floors and ceilings without damaging any structural and load-bearing parts. It doesn't sound easy nor cheap.

by paularmstrong

1/22/2026 at 6:40:59 PM

>at some point that it's more expensive to convert these into residential buildings than it is to literally demolish and rebuild.

Yep, and that's fine. It's literally a tangible instance of 'creative destruction'. I see people arguing that oh, we have to RTO to save the current model and it seems so backwards to me.

by wing-_-nuts

1/23/2026 at 1:29:59 AM

I think a factor is people are dumb and do stupid things in homes vs office, and greater fire risk, plumbing emergencies, etc

by gedy

1/22/2026 at 5:38:16 PM

Historically we did this with suddenly unused industrial buildings in cities. Liverpool and London's Dockland warehouses, New Yorks lofts in lower Manhattan.

When it is suggested today modern planners and developers say it can't be done. What changed?

by justinhj

1/22/2026 at 5:52:17 PM

Industrial buildings tend to be much easier to renovate, because they're filled with big open spaces.

Commercial office buildings are optimized for seating space, so you get a lot more interior walls already built and often shorter ceilings then industrial spaces. That's a lot more renovation to add in all the necessary plumbing for showers and toilets and often laundry in every unit.

New building codes mean that everything has to be done right to today's standards, not yesteryear's, so it becomes cheaper to demolish and rebuild than retrofit, especially if the building has a lot of interior space that doesn't have access to exterior walls for mandated windows.

by zdragnar

1/22/2026 at 5:41:15 PM

Regulations. I have some small experience with this, although I'm not a professional developer. The regulations for residential properties, whether built for purpose or converted, make this very difficult (and therefore costly) in the UK and I presume other countries.

by nickdothutton

1/22/2026 at 9:03:49 PM

What modern planners and developers say is converting modern office buildings isn't cost effective often. Warehouses cost less to convert than high rise buildings. Most old buildings do not have large areas without natural light or ventilation.

by pseudalopex

1/22/2026 at 5:51:22 PM

They've got a graph of vacancy rates going back to 2023. But I'm wondering about longer term. Does anyone have data going back to, say, the 1980s?

(Why the 1980s? Because I go back that far. I have some sense of what the business cycle was doing during those times. I'd like to know if this is really historically unusual, or just a blip, possibly a COVID-related one.)

by AnimalMuppet

1/22/2026 at 6:02:06 PM

Downtown Denver also kind of just sucks. A couple good restaurants sure, but 16th street mall (recently rebranded as “16th St. The Denver Way”) is comparable to City Center in SF.

Whenever friends move here I say “don’t live downtown” and inevitably they do and they hate it.

by armenarmen

1/22/2026 at 6:13:31 PM

16 St. is way better than it was. If you haven't been down there, go walk around at lunch sometime, there are a bunch of normies down there now. Yeah its all chains still, but it's not actively hostile like it was a few years ago.

by samschooler

1/22/2026 at 5:21:24 PM

Well but is the demand for office space in Denver so high?

by elnatro

1/22/2026 at 6:03:07 PM

Lived in Denver for the last 15 years and own a company. You couldnt pay me to have office space in Denver simply by virtue of i'd rather spend commuting time doing something more fun. This applies to just about everyone i know here as well. Many come to Denver for the outdoors and the activities, commutes cut into that time.

by liquidise

1/22/2026 at 5:53:15 PM

It would be higher if the rents dropped, but despite the massive oversupply that doesn’t seem to be happening.

‘Just build more’ YIMBY types should take note of this, though I’m afraid I don’t know what the solution is.

by lux-lux-lux

1/22/2026 at 5:55:19 PM

Our evidence from a wide range of cities is that those that build more housing have lower rent growth. Actual decreases are unusual though.

by zeroonetwothree

1/22/2026 at 6:03:03 PM

Inflationary policy continues to exist, also it is rare to have a true overabundance of housing. But places like Detroit show prices can go down in the right conditions.

Commercial leases have their own quirks and long timelines that encourage waiting on a better price. Perhaps a tax on vacant commercial units.

by mixmastamyk

1/22/2026 at 10:27:47 PM

> Detroit show prices can go down in the right conditions.

Those right conditions for rent going down are the wrong conditions for everything else.

by Izikiel43

1/23/2026 at 5:15:54 AM

Yes, meant to quote the word "right."

by mixmastamyk

1/22/2026 at 9:01:41 PM

Imagine if rent and housing costs were reflected the vacancy rate.

I never really understood the economics of leaving spaces empty and not hemorrhaging money.

My guess would be its a game of large numbers where private equity can own large swaths of properties and can afford to keep them vacant by controlling the market through manufactured scarcity? Is it like the diamond market?

by puppycodes

1/23/2026 at 2:25:49 PM

they're playing the long game and it's better to hold and not hold.

plus keep rents high and the handful of folks that really need it will pay it.

several cities get around this by having under-utilization taxes -- e.g. slap an extra 30% on any property in X neighborhoods that are empty or otherwise cannot prove 50% occupancy

by red-iron-pine

1/22/2026 at 5:47:45 PM

[flagged]

by renewiltord

1/22/2026 at 5:53:35 PM

I think opposing housing was a mistake, but just to add some context, the result of this was that the city purchased the land and made it a public park (https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Of...).

by burkaman

1/22/2026 at 5:56:04 PM

* now is spending 70 million of public funds to make it a park https://denverite.com/2025/11/05/park-hill-park-bond-funding...

by samschooler

1/22/2026 at 5:59:24 PM

Well it is already open as a park, but yes they are spending a lot of money to make it nicer I guess.

by burkaman

1/22/2026 at 6:10:20 PM

To call it a park is a stretch. It's a dilapidated golf course, and last I checked it can't be open over night because of liability? Like I'm happy it's open, but I would say it's a far cry from being on the same level as Cheeseman or City :/

by samschooler

1/22/2026 at 5:55:20 PM

That whole situation was bad. I don't think anyone is happy with that situation. A developer was going to give us (some) affordable housing, and a "free" park. Instead now we're paying 70 million for the same park.

by samschooler

1/22/2026 at 5:59:12 PM

In a POSIWID sense, American socialism’s purpose is to prevent affordable housing and create parks. Indistinguishable from what rich neighbors of a plot of land would like, coincidentally.

by renewiltord

1/22/2026 at 6:07:37 PM

The purpose of a system is what it does, but here you're saying that the purpose of [American socialism] is what [the Denver DSA] does.

by burkaman

1/22/2026 at 6:23:25 PM

Interestingly, many DSA chapters follow the same playbook so the Denver DSA is fairly representative of the DSA, which is the largest socialist organization in the US. So either the DSA is not socialist, not representative of American socialists, or is representative and American socialists are a device to stop affordable housing and create parks.

Which proposition or conclusion above do you disagree with and why?

by renewiltord

1/22/2026 at 7:17:16 PM

I don't really know anything about the DSA so I can't agree or disagree with any of this. I guess I misread your comment, I interpreted it as "Based on the events described in this thread, American socialism's purpose is ...". It seems like your statement is actually based on a very broad context of the DSA's history and activities, which are not common knowledge, so it would have been nice to include some of that if you wanted to make such a sweeping statement.

You're also making another implicit claim here that DSA chapters have never had any impact other than stopping affordable housing and creating parks, which I think would be difficult to defend. After a minute of Wikipedia research, I see that at least nine members of Congress were active DSA members during their tenure, and obviously had other accomplishments. For example, I see that DSA member Major Owens was in Congress for 24 years and was a significant factor in passing the ADA.

by burkaman

1/22/2026 at 9:44:06 PM

I am certainly happy to amend it to "The DSA's primary purpose in America in the last twenty years is to oppose affordable housing and convert the sites of such housing to parks".

by renewiltord

1/22/2026 at 6:03:57 PM

There is so much buildable land in denver it makes no sense to start burning the furniture to keep the place warm

by asdff

1/22/2026 at 5:57:49 PM

That ‘golf course’ was unused land protected by a conservation easement. There were other options for housing development.

by lux-lux-lux

1/22/2026 at 6:02:13 PM

Why not the conserve the land outside of cities where people want to live?

by bethekidyouwant

1/22/2026 at 6:23:53 PM

Based on what I know about Denver, people there want to live outside the city, not in Denver itself. Everyone I know that moved to "Denver" actually moved somewhere like an hour's drive from downtown, and not because they couldn't afford something in the city. Here's a map of average housing prices in the area: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/3e87d9f631dd470ab05ab.... There are some expensive neighborhoods in the city, but I think this map looks very different from most other American cities.

by burkaman

1/22/2026 at 10:54:13 PM

Really interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Boulder is surprisingly low. From my experience, it’s on the more expensive side for single family homes. I’m curious what’s driving the info in that dashboard.

by mead5432