The Urbanist: The Post-Pandemic Workplace

(The Urbanist is a periodic column addressing issues affecting the planning and design of our cities and communities.)

COVID-19 has been one of the most disruptive events in our lifetime.?As it rolled across the world, everything ground to a halt as the health of millions was affected.?Commuting all but stopped, theaters went dark, retail businesses pivoted to curbside delivery, offices and schools went remote, and the virus revealed vulnerabilities in areas we took for granted (toilet paper, computer chips, supply chain, etc.).?Nothing has been the same since.

We know how the pandemic impacted the workplace since 2020, but what will the workplace look like when the pandemic eventually subsides??From dense urban central business districts to suburban business parks, offices employ millions of people, sustain countless supporting businesses, and help define the shape of our cities and communities.?While you are as probably tired of hearing the term “the new normal” as I am, I am hopeful that our post-pandemic experience will be more of a modified return to the familiar, not a sea-level change.

The Ever-Changing Office

As a planner and urban designer, I look at long-term trends, not just over the past 2 years.?And the workplace has been in a constant state of change for many years.

Over decades, private offices gave way to cubicles, which were replaced by benching and open office environments – some offices are now “free-address” (sit anywhere).?Regardless of the type of office environment, they all shared a common trait – workers generally had to come into the office on a daily basis.?Sure, there were always a few “lone eagles” (salesmen, consultants, or those that were allowed to work remotely for various reasons).?But according to LinkedIn, prior to the pandemic only 1 in 67 jobs (1.5%) offered a remote option.?Today, it’s 1 in 7 (almost 15%).?That’s a pretty dramatic shift which happened, in some cases, literally overnight.

While the pandemic forced remote work on millions, decades of technological advances also incrementally made working remote easier.?For example, some of you may have been early adopters of “old school” tech like Palm Pilots and Blackberrys.?Hard to believe it’s been 15 years since the introduction of the iPhone (2007), followed by various Android platforms, all of which furthered our ability to work remotely.?Tablets and a new generation of lightweight notebooks with built-in cameras, microphones, all-day batteries, cellular cards meant just about anyone could work and collaborate almost anywhere.

If almost everyone had access to smartphones and other digital devices, why was remote work still rare before COVID??There are many theories, but one reason could be traced to a single memo dated February 23, 2013.

The memo in question came from Yahoo’s senior management and it required all remote employees to return to their closest Yahoo office by June 2013.?The then-confidential memo (you can now find it online) cited the benefits of collaboration, company culture, and “collisions” (informal meetings and conversations) for in-person over remote.?Yahoo said at the time they weren’t “anti-remote”, but the memo sent a chill throughout almost every industry.

Years later, insiders claimed that the memo may not have been entirely about collaboration, but a way to downsize to meet financial goals without rattling Wall Street (figuring a percentage of workers would quit rather than give up remote work).?Yahoo’s struggles continued and it was eventually acquired by Verizon in 2017.?Regardless of its intent, the memo put an effective end to remote work for many businesses from 2013 until 2020.

Traditional or Remote – There is No Consensus

As described above, technological advances were part of the office landscape long before COVID.?Today, this tech allows many companies to collaborate with each other as easily in-person as we do digitally across the state, on both coasts, and internationally.?These advancements have so greatly enhanced collaboration that we work with colleagues and virtual teams regardless of location, and without a second thought.

In spite of that, the debate over remote versus in-person continues to rage on – this article isn’t taking sides.?While some workers embrace remote work, it isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.?But various sources – from the Harvard Business Review to Slate to Inc., and many others – have addressed the topic.

One such example is Geoff Colvin’s recent article in Fortune magazine entitled “What Gets Lost in the Remote Work Debate” (Dec. 2021/Jan. 2022 issue).?Colvin spoke with the leadership of financial giants Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, all of whom were adamant that employees return to the office.?To quote one leader: “Yes, people don’t like commuting, but so what?”?Colvin also reached out to leaders at major tech firms including Apple, Alphabet (Google), and Microsoft, all of whom want employees back in the office.

It was ironic that Colvin’s informative two-page article was followed by an eight-page spread by Envoy touting how their products?“make hybrid work”.?Was this a coincidence or deliberate??One thing is for sure – there are passionate voices on both sides of the workplace debate, but there is no consensus on what is the “right” approach.

This debate over in-person versus remote may also be a contributing factor to “The Great Resignation”.?Studies have shown that while the pandemic spurred some workers to take early retirement, others quit to take better jobs (better salary and/or benefits).?For other workers, there was no going back to the way things used to be – they experienced remote work and didn’t want to return to the traditional workplace.?So maybe “The Great Resignation” is more of “The Big Reset”, a compromise between those who work remotely and those who work in-person.?It also begs the question: “Would it have been easier for businesses (and schools) to rapidly pivot to remote work during the pandemic if we had had the last 9 years to develop additional technology and apps?”

Of course, the Fortune article does not represent the entire workforce.?Not all of us work for big financial or tech firms, or in large urban centers, and it might not reflect the way your office works.?There really has never been a “one size fits all” solution to the workplace.?If businesses take away anything from “The Great Resignation”, it is that the battle to attract and retain talent may be their biggest challenge.?When workers consider making a change, salary is not always the main factor – benefits, flexibility, and workplace culture also matter.

Post-Pandemic Potentials

We all hope for the day that COVID becomes more manageable through a combination of various tools (therapeutics, vaccines, immunity) and – hopefully – future less-virulent strains.?We’re not there yet, but what lessons will we take away once the pandemic is in our rearview mirror?

As far as the workforce is concerned, workers seem to fall into one of three buckets: Traditional (in-person office 5 days/week); Remote (work from anywhere); or Hybrid (a combination of Remote with some days in the office).?Not every worker has these options – the nature of some businesses means you have to be at a workplace (retail, grocery workers, hospitality, medical, warehousing, manufacturing/assembly, and a host of other professions).?And to be fair, there are people that prefer the in-person office environment and cannot imagine working remotely.?So again, one size does not fit all.

You might know that planners often employ “alternatives analysis” to consider multiple variables.?In this case, the alternatives are: a return to pre-pandemic office practices; or the incorporation of more flexible model (including remote and/or hybrid).?Where that pendulum swings will vary from industry-to-industry and region-to-region.?There will be no single solution and the response will be more nuanced.

Alternatives analysis would suggest that in the battle for talent, there is a potential that the future workplace will incorporate some combination of all three options.?Think of it as a Quasi-Distributed Workforce (or QDW).?The share of workers between Traditional, Remote and Hybrid has yet to be determined and, again, will vary between industries and regions.?But even if a QDW results in only a small shift from pre-pandemic in-person workplaces – say 10% – there can be noticeable impacts which may include some of the following (note, this is not a definitive list):

Infrastructure & Environmental Impacts

• Reduced peak-hour commuting traffic volumes and the potential for increased midday (off-peak) traffic.
• Associated reductions in mobile source pollution.
• Reduced commuting will have parallel reductions in petroleum-based fuel usage.
• A shift in capital investment from projects that increased roadway capacity to meet peak-demand, to projects that address increased maintenance and more multi-modal travel options.
• Shifts/reductions in demand for bus and rail transit ridership.
• Shifts/reductions for parking space demand in some locations.
• Increased demand for more robust and wider distribution of faster broadband services.

Economic Impacts

• More flexibility and choice for existing and future employees.
• Continued capital investments in the workplace to support a variety of work types.
• Increased ability for businesses to attract new workers regardless of location.
• More remote/hybrid workers can allow a business to expand with lower overhead costs.
• More remote workers at home can discourage daytime residential burglaries.
• Potential financial impacts from redistributed sales and property tax revenues.

Land-Use Impacts

• The potential adaptive reuse or re-tenanting of some downtown office and retail space to residential or hospitality, even in the same building with traditional offices.
• Rezoning of districts to allow vertically and horizontally mixed-uses that are compatible with each other.
• New single-family home floorplans that integrate one or more home offices.
• New apartment developments with co-working spaces in addition to other amenities.

Yes, Remote or Hybrid work is not for everybody and certainly not for every type of business.?But it seems reasonable that on the other side of the pandemic that there will be more options for workers, and that includes the Traditional in-person office.

The Future is Now

With apologies to the Coen brothers’ “The Hudsucker Proxy” (1994), the future really is now.?The early days of COVID devastated central business districts, downtowns, and closed countless businesses.?It also stressed out millions of workers who weren’t prepared for remote work.?In spite of all that, studies showed that US productivity during that time increased, so one could project there is a reasonable business case to support a broader balance of Traditional and Remote/Hybrid work.?Before COVID, some suburban office campuses were seeking ways to attract more amenities as a way to be competitive, retain existing employees, and attract new ones.?This can be one more tool in their arsenal.

So if you were looking for a definitive answer, sorry.?The workplace has always been evolving, just like it has always been a multi-generational setting (it’s not just about Gen Z’s to Boomers – workers of all ages have worked side-by-side for a long, long time).?Among other things, COVID muddied the waters for the last 2 years.

If there is a “COVID-resistant” constant in business, it is the battle for talent through retention and attraction.?While pay is certainly a factor, it’s not the only one.?Other considerations like flexibility, corporate culture, and benefits are often as important as salary.?That is good for both employers and workers.

There is no single solution for everybody, and even the same person may find that their priorities change over the course of their working lifetime.?A QDW approach can have positive impacts and some cities can partner together with businesses to support this flexibility.?A thoughtful reconsideration of some development regulations may help to encourage things like: improved walking and biking connections; increased property values through more mixed-uses; streamlining the rezoning process to achieve desired land-use mixes; and other similar approaches.?Downtowns and business parks could become more than a 9-to-5 office destination.?You get the idea.

Maybe I am an optimist, but this appears to be achievable.?There are various private sector and public sector benefits to incorporating a QDW approach, so let’s stop framing the future of the office as a black-and-white and either/or issue. It’s not, and never has been.?How and where we work today – and tomorrow – is a more complex and nuanced issue with no pat answers.?Working together, we can all benefit from a more flexible approach.