[equalsione]

It would result in fewer units, but you could introduce "courtyards" that would act as corridors of light. It would depend on the depth of the building. You could potentially do it over two or more stories.

Alternatively sacrificing the central core of the buildings to act as light tunnel might work. Or give the deeper units over to utilities, communal areas, etc

A good architect could transform these buildings into pleasant and useful spaces. It just requires a willingness to try. Check out the youtube channel like @nevertoosmall or @kirstendirksen - I'm sure there are many others that explore topics like this.

[lazide]

None of that is possible without massive changes to the structure of the building. Those spaces are currently used for elevators and utilities.

Additionally, unless everyone is going to be sharing communal showers/toilets/kitchens, none of the existing utilities are run to where they would be needed for multiple residential units. Having your own bathroom and kitchen is essentially a requirement for non-marginal US housing.

Keep in mind, commercial office space construction is already more expensive (by almost an order of magnitude per sq ft) than residential, and high rise construction is more expensive than normal commercial construction.

So unless there are massive defaults and write downs/some kind of ‘great depression’ type situation, it would be doing a lot of expensive work to convert an already more expensive building to be competing in a space where everyone else did things cheaper from the beginning. Not a great formula for economic viability.

Not impossible, but the level of economic dislocation necessary to have it make sense is mind boggling.

[banannaise]

Right, so the core of the building is elevators, hallways, and something that doesn't require light. The first use that comes to mind is resident storage. Using space on upper floors for storage isn't how you would design a residential building, but it is a useful purpose for otherwise useless interior space.

Additional leftover interior space can be used for amenities like a gym or lounge. It's not the world's most efficient use of space, but it's an efficient use of the existing space that doesn't require tearing down a building.

[lazide]

As long as we get the building ‘for free’ (don’t have to consider/pay for the original costs to build it), it can definitely be retrofitted for many purposes somewhat economically.

Maybe a bit like the industrial lot to condo process that happened in NYC and other places awhile ago?

It’ll be weird, but folks will adapt.

I’m not sure why folks wouldn’t just build in the ‘burbs (and work remotely) in most cases though?

[HenryBemis]

When it comes to London, the 'burbs' means get into a crowded train (or wait for the next, or the one after that as they are packed in many stations) AND spend 2h per day commuting (+ the very expensive fares). As a young professional in London I would prefer to have a nice 30-40sqm (~300-400 sqf) studio in the center, close to a market/park and be 20mins door-to-door to my work.

If one of the mega-big buildings would be converted to studios, meaning they could 'slice' 20-30 studios per floor, keep one floor for gym/dry cleaners/etc. they would be making a (financial) killing.

[Qwertious]

>As long as we get the building ‘for free’ (don’t have to consider/pay for the original costs to build it), it can definitely be retrofitted for many purposes somewhat economically.

...they could be used as home-offices perhaps?

[smileysteve]

> Having your own bathroom and kitchen is essentially a requirement for non-marginal US housing.

The question is why, and what's wrong with marginal housing (sounds like a great way to reduce homelessness)

The numbers show that Americans order delivery and eat at restaurants more (and cook less) than they have in recent history.

It's intriguing because while flipping and renovating kitchens to have more space - stoves, ovens, and refrigerators is on the rise, fewer families actively use the space over the last decade. (The same can be said for colleges moving from dorms to apartment style housing)

This especially applies to marginal households, but also significantly to upper middle class -> upper class and dense housing.

That's not to say it's healthy for our diets.

[lazide]

You’re going to see a shift in the coming years due to inflation - more folks are already eating at home anyway.

But the answer is because sometimes you do need a kitchen, even if it’s to boil some water or whatever or reheat takeout, or because your Mom is visiting and wants to make something. Sharing a kitchen is often a nightmare if you can’t control who else is sharing it - constant fights over dirty dishes being one example. They often get tied up exactly when you want to use them too.

And having your own bathroom (the two are highly correlated as both require ‘wet walls’, and custom plumbing) is great when you want some privacy, are sick, etc. or have some safety concerns.

It can get even more gross and disturbing to share those when you can’t control who you’re sharing with. It’s a common friction point to share a bathroom even with room mates. A lot of people (especially women) flat out avoid public bathrooms due to safety and ‘ick’ concerns.

Imagine if the only toilet you could use if you woke up at 2am and needed to pee was a public toilet.

There is nothing wrong per-se with marginal housing, except they tend to attract ‘marginal people’ that bring with them trouble that others don’t want to deal with if they can avoid it. It does help with homelessness and the like - but it tends to self filter into dangerous territory, because who is going to want to stay at a place where homeless people stay unless they are homeless themselves?

Sharing them is always a step down in experience. It is always cheaper though, as the kitchen and the bathroom are usually the two highest maintenance and ‘most expensive’ rooms.

Most folks stuck in those situations move out ASAP - think dorm rooms and barracks. Or homeless shelters.

Singapore is extremely far along in the ‘eat out at restaurants’ side (it used to be, most Singaporeans ate out at least a couple meals a day), and even they have kitchens and private bathrooms in all the subsidized flats.

[bombcar]

Marginal housing was basically outlawed because of abuses, but there are various ways around it if the demand/desire is there (hotels are marginal, for example).

[teachrdan]

>None of that is possible without massive changes to the structure of the building.

This is addressed in TFA. There was one building the profiled architect designed where they spent the $$ to turn the elevator core into a courtyard. He was able to add back the "lost" square footage as additional floors, which made the project profitable enough to build out.

[lazide]

By not having elevators? How does that make any sense for any mid-rise or higher?

[cnntth]

Addressed in the article! Apartment buildings need less elevators than offices since residents tolerate longer waits. There's still elevators, just less.

[nateburke]

Agree. Most office plates have plumbing for the equivalent of four bathrooms, max, all centered near stairs, etc. Figure you would need to 4x the existing number of toilets to make a floor residential and also link to existing central sewage lines. I don't even know what building code even looks like for that in most states.

Plumbing work is not cheap.

[marcosdumay]

> Keep in mind, commercial office space construction is already more expensive (by almost an order of magnitude per sq ft) than residential

And yet, results in a shitty experience that residential users just won't accept...

(And yeah, it's shitty for commercial users too.)

There's something very wrong with the entire thing.

[lazide]

Commercial is more expensive because it is designed for higher wear, longer tenancy times, dramatically higher utilization, and more customization.

It’s common to run wiring in conduit, use hung ceiling (with space for running lots of extra services), construct the framing out of steel and concrete (instead of wood and stucco), and electrical and HVAC demands are dramatically higher. Networking needs to be more reliable and easier to manage at scale. Electrical needs are often orders of magnitude higher. Everything from locks, to outlets, to flooring needs to be sturdier to handle the increased traffic and wear.

Even a dentists office or hair dresser will need to mount heavy chairs sturdily, pull lots of extra power, and have to worry about weird chemicals or x-rays and the like hurting other tenants.

Additionally, they’re zoned to have access to high volume transit and/or parking.

It’s not a surprise why commercial is more expensive. It’s made for a different use case.

It still is only going to be ‘good enough’ most of the time. And by ‘good enough’, that means tenants pay. Anything else is usually ‘lipstick on a pig’ as it were.

[vidarh]

London has several "co-living" [1] housing units at this point, that are basically upscale house-shares for people willing to pay extra to not have to deal with the hassle of house-shares.

Yout get a self-contained flat, but kitchens etc. will be tiny, and then on top there are shared spaces like co-working facilities, lounges, cinemas, gyms, and staff arranging social events etc.

I'd imagine former office buildings could work well for many of the amenities for projects like that.

[1] https://www.culturewhisper.com/r/lifestyle/coliving_london/1...