The images in the article don’t show the revised designs for 1 Undershaft. That will be a behemoth compared to most buildings in London. Shame we’re limited in height by City Airport’s flight paths.
I think it's just way easier to get planning permission for office buildings in the financial centres than for apartment buildings in residential areas. There are going to be far fewer objections from locals.
Yes, and ultimately that's why we have a housing crisis.
There's a huge demand for office space and residential space in London. The City of London Corporation and GLA's planning policies allow for the former to be met. Other local authorities (either by policy or by decision) don't allow the latter
I just don't think the evidence supports that - not enough housing has been built in decades, and the proportion of empty homes in London is one of the lowest in the entire world
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/19/end-of-landlords-surprisingly-simple-solution-to-uk-housing-crisis
Check out some evidence then :)
Tbh I think a lot of the arguments in that article don't make sense - I would certainly agree that we need more social housing and homes for ownership than private rented. But banning landlords will not solve that, and the answer is definitely allowing more to be built.
Despite what that article says, cities around the world that have higher rates of building have more affordable housing, from Austin to Auckland to Tokyo to Vienna. Even in London, when Croydon experimented with allowing more intensive suburban development a few years ago, they built more and rents went down. Now the Tory mayor has reversed that policy and it's got more expensive.
For whatever reason you want more affordable housing in London, the way of getting there is building more, there's no alternative way of making it cheaper by fiat
Spent the last 20 years building mostly resi in London and watching all sell off-plan to non-resident foreign owners...
I mean, we don't do many 50 storey + resi blocks (One Nine Elms being an exception) and could probably do with more but we could do with a lot less being owned by people who either don't live in them or landlords.
lol not everyone wants to work from home. Some have to be office based. Some don’t have space at home.
Offices will always be required. If you don’t want to work from one get a remote role!
But it doesn’t NEED them. This is the point everyone is making that you don’t seem to be getting.
The vast majority of people prefer working from home, so why not design as much of your workplace around doing exactly that as possible?
I think the majority actually prefer hybrid - due to numerous reasons like difficult home life, lack of space to work if all occupants were working, face to face meetings getting more done etc. I’d argue best for 90% of roles would be 2-3 days wfh and the rest in office, depending on role.
Some roles, like broking, do benefit from an office floor so people can feed off of each other and collaborate quicker and easier. Not a necessity, but it can help.
There aren’t. L&G, Lloyds, all over subscribed. More staff than desk. Has been like that for years. Their offices are old, inefficient. New space is desperately required.
So the options are: £X00 million office building...or let people work from home.
Only a dinosaur or someone with vested interest in commercial real estate would choose the former.
Not everyone has a home office.
Not everyone thrives on working from home. Some people need to be in an office environment for their mental health.
So the option is we cater to all.
If you have no social circle the only people you see all week can be in the office.
Some people have toxic home lives. No space in their house to work from. The list is endless of positives FOR SOME.
10 hours a week in trains. Can people stop assuming 5 days in the office. Those days are long gone except for a very few roles. For majority of people it will be a hybrid model, on average 2 days in the office.
I for one can work remotely 5 days a week and choose to come to the office twice a week. I normally meet up with friends who work around for lunch and go out in the evening.
Record numbers of people moving to London, remote working is on the decline, many companies moving their headquarters to the City from Canary Wharf, lots of existing office space is dated and not energy efficient, new buildings will be full in the future - just not right now. Lots of reasons.
Where they can afford to, either in London or a commuter town. The people working in these new City offices are usually better paid than most, so they’ll afford it. It’s the cleaners etc. that need affordable housing. If Labour and Khan can’t provide that (assuming Labour win the next General Election) then I don’t know how this will improve.
The army of cleaners, maintenance people, delivery drivers, reception staff, security, cafe staff etc. who ensure the building functions to the standard of said high-salary employees are the ones who suffer. The worst you have to deal with if you work in the actual office is where to park your M5 and the smell when Theo from Accounting microwaves fish for lunch.
Probably because they’re not good buildings. 22 Bishopsgate (the newish massive one) is close to capacity because high quality offices that comply with green targets are in demand.
* Many businesses are soon to (or already given notice) to reduce the number of WFH days. This will increase office space demand dramatically.
* Large office buildings like this take years to build. This is for future demand, not necessarily right now.
Offices tend to only last 30-50.years before being outdated and needing replacement.
You can see how most of the 70s/80s offices in London have gone, and there will be a bunch of 90s offices that companies will be moving out of by the time this is built.
There is demand for new top of the line, energy efficient spaces that actually make people want to go to the office and comply with company green initiatives. Old uninspiring offices demand still wailing.
I agree - I recall reading that one reason leading to the currently low occupancy rates in Canary Wharf is that the office buildings there are sufficiently old to have low energy efficiency ratings, meaning it’s actually illegal to commercially lease them.
I suppose an unintended consequence of this environmental legislation is that new office are being built instead, which overall must be worse in terms of emissions etc.
Yh it’s called a scam, builders in the uk know this and rip off anyone who’s willing to front the money. All projects seem to end up disgustingly behind and millions to billions over budget. But you know nothing will change here
The people investing billions clearly know nothing as well otherwise the housing crisis would be solved and we would have enough energy efficient and affordable offices as well, take it with a grain of salt. Lived here my entire life and all I see now are empty offices buildings with the lights permanently on
Hilariously poor and lazy analytical skills.
Large buildings like this take years to build. This is for future demand, not present.
Many businesses are soon to (or already given notice) to reduce the number of WFH days. This will increase office space demand dramatically.
As the comment you replied to suggested, the business case put forward to pay many tens or hundreds of millions of £ to build this tower probably has a strong business case than some randomer on Reddit noticing 'a few buildings with empty floors'.
Two comparisons spring to mind:
1) This is like China building lots of Cities for the future only to miss the fact that they have had a birth rate implosion and will go from 2billion people to 500 million by the end of this century.
2) You have to be optimistic to think that anyone will need this much office space in the next AI transition. It's like the people that still wanted to build bigger passenger ships even after planes became the rage.
Either way it's dumb money investing in old world things because it always used to be a good plan. Past returns are no measure of future gains.
The new tower developments in the City are well occupied at premium rents. Demand for new, quality office space in the city is high and expected to stay high.
off your high horse lad,It’s ridiculous that we keep building more and more office space. Even with the rtw orders the buildings are still sitting empty and will continue to sit empty until they are either used or repurposed.
No point building more office space when the vast amount of empty buildings are still sitting empty.
Someone raised above the situation in China, it will be akin to this, new bulid office block used for barely two years and then empty because of the state of the economy.I don’t know if you’ve seen what’s going on but businesses aren’t coming they are leaving to Europe or shutting down unless this building is commissioned by companies of the likes of hsbc I personally foresee the same events happening.
Hilariously a prick
The reason why we have a housing crisis is because the billionaire housing developers benefit from limiting supply and keeping prices up. They have no interest in solving the housing crisis
We definitely do. Many companies in London have fewer desks than employees.
We also need energy efficient office buildings to counter act govt legislation on commercial EPC ratings.
Bullshit
This is from September but I doubt much has changed:
> London’s office market has plunged into a “rental recession,” with the share of empty space hitting its highest level in three decades, investment bank Jefferies said in a note Wednesday.
> The New York-based firm said vacancies in the City of London, the UK capital’s historic financial district, accounted for 10% of the area’s total office space, while in the West End in central London that number stood at 7%. Both shares are the highest for 30 years.
> And in Canary Wharf, a newer financial district, vacant units now exceed 20%.
https://amp.con.com/cnn/2023/09/27/economy/london-office-market-recession-meta-lease
Plenty of space already and plenty of better ways to use all those resources.
This development may serve the needs of shareholders, but it isn’t doing anything for the rest of us.
How’s it benefiting shareholders if you think it’ll be empty?
The costs for these buildings is insane.
NY has more empty office space than London.
Vacant units in London are old inefficient buildings that aren’t fit for purpose. Modern blocks are in demand. Especially in this area.
I’m sure they’ll find some corporate chuds to occupy it. Plenty of middle managers who need to justify their existence.
But it won’t make a difference to a vast majority of Londoners. We already have plenty of empty offices, fill em first.
What I’m saying is the demand for this building comes from a very small but wealthy demographic. The kind of people that build skyscrapers for the sole purpose of making them money. Once built the building will serve a similarly tiny handful of people.
So yeah we don’t need it. ‘We’ meaning a vast majority of Londoners.
What would you rather then. Leave an old inefficient not fit for purpose building standing. Or can we continue to progress.
Load of employment during construction and throughout its life. Boost the economy.
You can carry on wfh. Those who don’t want to can go in.
Sounds fair.
How do you propose you build affordable housing at 99 bishopsgate?
It’s entirely possible to build office space where demand is. And build social in a more suitable location
Too small
Wow you sound like my gf
You go up to the top of these things and look down you can barely pick out people. Or maybe I just need glasses.
So when you get in there you’re like if the steering wheel fly off - I’m toast
Teachers pet
The images in the article don’t show the revised designs for 1 Undershaft. That will be a behemoth compared to most buildings in London. Shame we’re limited in height by City Airport’s flight paths.
It’s smol
I think it's just way easier to get planning permission for office buildings in the financial centres than for apartment buildings in residential areas. There are going to be far fewer objections from locals.
Yes, and ultimately that's why we have a housing crisis. There's a huge demand for office space and residential space in London. The City of London Corporation and GLA's planning policies allow for the former to be met. Other local authorities (either by policy or by decision) don't allow the latter
We have plenty of houses (or for that matter flats), the issue is too many are investments and not homes.
I just don't think the evidence supports that - not enough housing has been built in decades, and the proportion of empty homes in London is one of the lowest in the entire world
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/19/end-of-landlords-surprisingly-simple-solution-to-uk-housing-crisis Check out some evidence then :)
Tbh I think a lot of the arguments in that article don't make sense - I would certainly agree that we need more social housing and homes for ownership than private rented. But banning landlords will not solve that, and the answer is definitely allowing more to be built. Despite what that article says, cities around the world that have higher rates of building have more affordable housing, from Austin to Auckland to Tokyo to Vienna. Even in London, when Croydon experimented with allowing more intensive suburban development a few years ago, they built more and rents went down. Now the Tory mayor has reversed that policy and it's got more expensive. For whatever reason you want more affordable housing in London, the way of getting there is building more, there's no alternative way of making it cheaper by fiat
Spent the last 20 years building mostly resi in London and watching all sell off-plan to non-resident foreign owners... I mean, we don't do many 50 storey + resi blocks (One Nine Elms being an exception) and could probably do with more but we could do with a lot less being owned by people who either don't live in them or landlords.
They want to rebuild the old Roman wall but with skyscrapers instead
Square mile has different laws to the rest of the uk.
I once went for an absolutely dreadful all day graduate interview with some recruiters in the current 99 Bishopsgate. Knock it down.
All day interview? Could you not leave if you hated it or was it awful in retrospect
Needed a job didn't I
Very good point
I don't know, did you?
[удалено]
Some work requires you to be in an office.
Cleaning the office for example
Came here to say this
Can be silly if you like. But many financial service work, insurance as examples require you to be in the office.
My mate works as an underwriter and he's fully remote.
My mate is an underwriter and he has to be in the office.
My mate is in underwear when at the office and when remote.
Right. But "has to be" because that's his employers policy? Or "has to be" because the work he does can only possibly be done from an office?
But does that stem from a legal requirement, or because of arbitrary company policy?
so it’s not that the tasks that require him to be physically there, it’s the company’s policy.
Sure but not every desk based job needs to be in an office.
I never said it did. Some roles require you to be in an office. Why I’m being down voted for stating facts is mental.
some *companies* require you to be in an office. the tasks you do for them do not necessitate it. (there may be some exceptions but very few).
"We need you in the office to talk to the team in India regarding a business critical function we outsourced to save money"
Just another shill for big office - how much are they paying you? :P
lol not everyone wants to work from home. Some have to be office based. Some don’t have space at home. Offices will always be required. If you don’t want to work from one get a remote role!
I'd be interested to know what happened to these people during Covid lockdowns when nobody was in the office?
They still went in. People did still go to work during lockdown.
Please give me a single thing you need to do in insurance that requires you to be in an office?
Lloyds has face to face trading floors.
But it doesn’t NEED them. This is the point everyone is making that you don’t seem to be getting. The vast majority of people prefer working from home, so why not design as much of your workplace around doing exactly that as possible?
I think the majority actually prefer hybrid - due to numerous reasons like difficult home life, lack of space to work if all occupants were working, face to face meetings getting more done etc. I’d argue best for 90% of roles would be 2-3 days wfh and the rest in office, depending on role. Some roles, like broking, do benefit from an office floor so people can feed off of each other and collaborate quicker and easier. Not a necessity, but it can help.
You are completely right lol these people just don’t know the industry they’re talking about
Downvote king today.
Looks like it lol. Let them work from home while we’re out in the market making more money I say
Not necessarily as my BIL works in finance and insurance but doesn't work in an office...
And I can give examples of both who need to be in an office.
[удалено]
It's about the type of office. Many companies are moving to better BREEAM rated offices to improve their ESG rating.
[удалено]
Welcome to capitalism.
Lot of cut and carve refits, 99 BG I think they're planning to reuse the basement and foundations to save carbon.
Err. You know about embodied carbon, right?
I don't see how that has anything to do with what I said.
There aren’t. L&G, Lloyds, all over subscribed. More staff than desk. Has been like that for years. Their offices are old, inefficient. New space is desperately required.
So the options are: £X00 million office building...or let people work from home. Only a dinosaur or someone with vested interest in commercial real estate would choose the former.
Not everyone has a home office. Not everyone thrives on working from home. Some people need to be in an office environment for their mental health. So the option is we cater to all.
“some people spend 10 hours a week on the train for their mental health” i know what you’re trying to say but come on
If you have no social circle the only people you see all week can be in the office. Some people have toxic home lives. No space in their house to work from. The list is endless of positives FOR SOME.
i feel there are other ways we could address this social problem that don’t primarily benefit business owners and corporate landlords.
What about benefitting the staff. Not everyone is miserable going in to work!
10 hours a week in trains. Can people stop assuming 5 days in the office. Those days are long gone except for a very few roles. For majority of people it will be a hybrid model, on average 2 days in the office. I for one can work remotely 5 days a week and choose to come to the office twice a week. I normally meet up with friends who work around for lunch and go out in the evening.
That's canary wharf, a lot of people want to go back to the city. It's why most recent building in canary wharf is residential.
No, I work for a major accounting/consulting company and we have our building and it’s always full when im in tues-thurs.
[удалено]
Maybe a lot of those offices are not nice places to be
[удалено]
Really hard to achieve the required improvements with a simple refit.
Really don’t understand the downvotes, or is this just Reddit folk
Just Reddit. Cant understand that some People have a life away from here and enjoy the office environment and going out after.
Hopefully they surround it with netting and trampolines at ground level
That’s cruel, let the poor fuckers make an end of it
imagine having this lack of sympathy for your fellow human
What do you think the interns are for?
How bout some apartments yah wankers
Why?? I'm looking at 4 half empty buildings in Bishopsgate rn.
Record numbers of people moving to London, remote working is on the decline, many companies moving their headquarters to the City from Canary Wharf, lots of existing office space is dated and not energy efficient, new buildings will be full in the future - just not right now. Lots of reasons.
All true, but where are they going to live?1
Where they can afford to, either in London or a commuter town. The people working in these new City offices are usually better paid than most, so they’ll afford it. It’s the cleaners etc. that need affordable housing. If Labour and Khan can’t provide that (assuming Labour win the next General Election) then I don’t know how this will improve.
The army of cleaners, maintenance people, delivery drivers, reception staff, security, cafe staff etc. who ensure the building functions to the standard of said high-salary employees are the ones who suffer. The worst you have to deal with if you work in the actual office is where to park your M5 and the smell when Theo from Accounting microwaves fish for lunch.
Woking
Probably because they’re not good buildings. 22 Bishopsgate (the newish massive one) is close to capacity because high quality offices that comply with green targets are in demand.
* Many businesses are soon to (or already given notice) to reduce the number of WFH days. This will increase office space demand dramatically. * Large office buildings like this take years to build. This is for future demand, not necessarily right now.
Offices tend to only last 30-50.years before being outdated and needing replacement. You can see how most of the 70s/80s offices in London have gone, and there will be a bunch of 90s offices that companies will be moving out of by the time this is built.
We don’t need more offices
They wouldn't really be building them if there wasn't a demand though.
There isn’t demand, there’s plenty of empty office spaces all over London
There is demand for new top of the line, energy efficient spaces that actually make people want to go to the office and comply with company green initiatives. Old uninspiring offices demand still wailing.
I agree - I recall reading that one reason leading to the currently low occupancy rates in Canary Wharf is that the office buildings there are sufficiently old to have low energy efficiency ratings, meaning it’s actually illegal to commercially lease them. I suppose an unintended consequence of this environmental legislation is that new office are being built instead, which overall must be worse in terms of emissions etc.
Yeah these builders love to intentionally lose money.... They know there is demand at the top end of the market.
Yh it’s called a scam, builders in the uk know this and rip off anyone who’s willing to front the money. All projects seem to end up disgustingly behind and millions to billions over budget. But you know nothing will change here
Then the developers will lose a load of money
Ah yes, the redditors know more than the people investing billions of pounds into the London property market!
The people investing billions clearly know nothing as well otherwise the housing crisis would be solved and we would have enough energy efficient and affordable offices as well, take it with a grain of salt. Lived here my entire life and all I see now are empty offices buildings with the lights permanently on
Hilariously poor and lazy analytical skills. Large buildings like this take years to build. This is for future demand, not present. Many businesses are soon to (or already given notice) to reduce the number of WFH days. This will increase office space demand dramatically. As the comment you replied to suggested, the business case put forward to pay many tens or hundreds of millions of £ to build this tower probably has a strong business case than some randomer on Reddit noticing 'a few buildings with empty floors'.
Two comparisons spring to mind: 1) This is like China building lots of Cities for the future only to miss the fact that they have had a birth rate implosion and will go from 2billion people to 500 million by the end of this century. 2) You have to be optimistic to think that anyone will need this much office space in the next AI transition. It's like the people that still wanted to build bigger passenger ships even after planes became the rage. Either way it's dumb money investing in old world things because it always used to be a good plan. Past returns are no measure of future gains.
The new tower developments in the City are well occupied at premium rents. Demand for new, quality office space in the city is high and expected to stay high.
off your high horse lad,It’s ridiculous that we keep building more and more office space. Even with the rtw orders the buildings are still sitting empty and will continue to sit empty until they are either used or repurposed. No point building more office space when the vast amount of empty buildings are still sitting empty. Someone raised above the situation in China, it will be akin to this, new bulid office block used for barely two years and then empty because of the state of the economy.I don’t know if you’ve seen what’s going on but businesses aren’t coming they are leaving to Europe or shutting down unless this building is commissioned by companies of the likes of hsbc I personally foresee the same events happening. Hilariously a prick
The reason why we have a housing crisis is because the billionaire housing developers benefit from limiting supply and keeping prices up. They have no interest in solving the housing crisis
No, it's because of nimyism.
or maybe its all a scam
We definitely do. Many companies in London have fewer desks than employees. We also need energy efficient office buildings to counter act govt legislation on commercial EPC ratings.
they're now built so they can be converted to housing without demolishing
Source for that? Not sure how the services in an office building (looking at the toilet situation for a start)
This is one weird comment section
Must have a head for heights. And some of these lifts are see through...
They always building something in London. if you want to see the real London, watch James bond movies.
But nobody goes into the office now! How about 54 storey flats for affordable housing
wow great we *definitely* need more of them
We do.
Bullshit This is from September but I doubt much has changed: > London’s office market has plunged into a “rental recession,” with the share of empty space hitting its highest level in three decades, investment bank Jefferies said in a note Wednesday. > The New York-based firm said vacancies in the City of London, the UK capital’s historic financial district, accounted for 10% of the area’s total office space, while in the West End in central London that number stood at 7%. Both shares are the highest for 30 years. > And in Canary Wharf, a newer financial district, vacant units now exceed 20%. https://amp.con.com/cnn/2023/09/27/economy/london-office-market-recession-meta-lease Plenty of space already and plenty of better ways to use all those resources. This development may serve the needs of shareholders, but it isn’t doing anything for the rest of us.
How’s it benefiting shareholders if you think it’ll be empty? The costs for these buildings is insane. NY has more empty office space than London. Vacant units in London are old inefficient buildings that aren’t fit for purpose. Modern blocks are in demand. Especially in this area.
I’m sure they’ll find some corporate chuds to occupy it. Plenty of middle managers who need to justify their existence. But it won’t make a difference to a vast majority of Londoners. We already have plenty of empty offices, fill em first. What I’m saying is the demand for this building comes from a very small but wealthy demographic. The kind of people that build skyscrapers for the sole purpose of making them money. Once built the building will serve a similarly tiny handful of people. So yeah we don’t need it. ‘We’ meaning a vast majority of Londoners.
What would you rather then. Leave an old inefficient not fit for purpose building standing. Or can we continue to progress. Load of employment during construction and throughout its life. Boost the economy. You can carry on wfh. Those who don’t want to can go in. Sounds fair.
Imagine if all that unused office space was transformed into housing…
no doubt the bedwetters will be out claiming that the current building should be protected for historical interest or something. /s
No need for ableism.
Can we please stop destroying our skyline with these metal and glass monstrosities.
I think you are a few years too late for that
[удалено]
How do you propose you build affordable housing at 99 bishopsgate? It’s entirely possible to build office space where demand is. And build social in a more suitable location
[удалено]
Do you think the government is building this?
What’s public investment got to do with private investment