I live in a nice spot. And was wondering if some airbnbs might pop at distressed prices. There are a couple new ones, but same kind of prices atm. I guess domestic tourism will still be strong. And overseas tourists flock to a few cities?
Impact of WFH trends on housing market
- Thread starter HangTime
- Start date
I live in a nice spot. And was wondering if some airbnbs might pop at distressed prices. There are a couple new ones, but same kind of prices atm. I guess domestic tourism will still be strong. And overseas tourists flock to a few cities?
^I think a bit less London centric but you've got to consider that London will always carry a certain appeal, it's got status, top jobs, attracts a lot of foreigners, massive leisure scene etc.
Flats are attractive because of the cost / proliferation in certain areas, most buyers over a certain age probably want a house already, unless they have some fancy apartment building with onsite facilities like concierge, gym etc. That said, maybe you'll have an army of people who say actually I no longer want a 1-2 bed flat in the centre I'll instead look for a house out in the sticks for the same money, because I'm not going to need to travel that much.
Not sure about gardens, generally people either make the garden a priority or they don't, regardless of where they work.
The family areas, basically what I'm saying is perhaps the 'commuter belt' expands. Traditionally you have the people in Surrey, Hertfordshire, Sussex etc commuting in to London, these are people who want bigger houses with gardens in nicer areas, but they are historically a bit constrained by needing to get into the capital. So they can't venture too far away and as house prices in Greater London have soared over the past 20 years or so more and more people have been pushed into those areas making them quite expensive in themselves. As I mentioned earlier I spent a long time looking online at houses in various areas (thousands of houses) but even the areas people talk about as areas 'Londoners move out to' can be prohibitively expensive even on a City wage if you don't have the huge equity to cash in from a London property. But now people may take the view that well, I no longer need to be within an hour's train ride to London. I'll go somewhere two hours, three hours away where previously there were very few commuters driving up prices. I currently live beyond the boundary of what many consider acceptable as a commute (4.5hrs round trip) but maybe these sort of places will hold more appeal in future.
Will be interesting to see how rail passenger numbers are affected in the medium-long term. Makes you wonder about HS2, doesn't it?
Flats are attractive because of the cost / proliferation in certain areas, most buyers over a certain age probably want a house already, unless they have some fancy apartment building with onsite facilities like concierge, gym etc. That said, maybe you'll have an army of people who say actually I no longer want a 1-2 bed flat in the centre I'll instead look for a house out in the sticks for the same money, because I'm not going to need to travel that much.
Not sure about gardens, generally people either make the garden a priority or they don't, regardless of where they work.
The family areas, basically what I'm saying is perhaps the 'commuter belt' expands. Traditionally you have the people in Surrey, Hertfordshire, Sussex etc commuting in to London, these are people who want bigger houses with gardens in nicer areas, but they are historically a bit constrained by needing to get into the capital. So they can't venture too far away and as house prices in Greater London have soared over the past 20 years or so more and more people have been pushed into those areas making them quite expensive in themselves. As I mentioned earlier I spent a long time looking online at houses in various areas (thousands of houses) but even the areas people talk about as areas 'Londoners move out to' can be prohibitively expensive even on a City wage if you don't have the huge equity to cash in from a London property. But now people may take the view that well, I no longer need to be within an hour's train ride to London. I'll go somewhere two hours, three hours away where previously there were very few commuters driving up prices. I currently live beyond the boundary of what many consider acceptable as a commute (4.5hrs round trip) but maybe these sort of places will hold more appeal in future.
Will be interesting to see how rail passenger numbers are affected in the medium-long term. Makes you wonder about HS2, doesn't it?
Soldato
With all this WFH I am looking forward to the day I can work from a beach in the South of France and then fly in for the two days a month I need to be in the office
Even now, a few weeks in, it seems like a joke, but my sincere hope is that this becomes a possibility for many.
I'm waiting to view a house in Orkney as soon as Scotland opens up. I currently live 750 miles south in England.
I don't think there will be a big change from London centric businesses. I think they will keep a London presence but at a reduced footprint in many cases. London house prices may reduce a bit, also helped by office space being turned into flats. Or they forget about all this in 2 years time and go back to old habits.
What you describe s very similar to the pattern I have seen over the last 30 years. Younger people tend to buy flats in areas closer to the centre, where they can minimise their commute and be closer to the socialising and nightlife.
As they get older, get married and either start thinking of having children or do have children, they start looking to move into houses further away from the centre. How far is normally a factor of commute distance and budget.
I don't think that will change as many will still want to be central in the younger years. Where I think it will make a difference is how far away from the centre / their jobs they will be willing to move. With WFH, larger houses within lower budgets become more appealing.
Soldato
I can see gardens being much more in demand in greater London area now - my colleagues without them seam to have found wfh/lockdown much harder than those with - especially those with kids.
I can see there potentially being some organisations where decision makers feel their organisation is suffering as a result of remote working (reduced productivity, whatever) and trying to backtrack. But it's a difficult thing to do once you've got most of the workforce moved over to remote working to suddenly bring them back into the office, especially if some of them live now a long way from the office. There's also a real risk that luddites will get left behind in the labour market, with the top talent being attracted by rivals with more flexible approaches.
Up until March my division was perhaps spending 20-25% of time WFH on average, currently 100% and based on the latest discussions I envisage it being about 75-85% when things return to 'normal', although that might change.
Soldato
We had a Zoom staff meeting last week. We were advised that our offices will remain closed until September whereby a subsequent review will be carried out. The business is open but we’re all WFH.
One thing our CEO said was that it does change things in terms of flexible working.
What he also said was that he’d been chatting to around another 40 CEO’s and they shared the same opinion. Indeed, he went on to say that one company will be shutting their physical offices with the entire work force WFH.
I live in KENT but work in London and normally commute via coach so I’m saving a fortune in terms of money and time.
With the plan to move to Scotland, it means hopefully I can take my pick a bit more. It’s been suggested I could remain where I am at work yet still continue to work from Scotland.
One thing our CEO said was that it does change things in terms of flexible working.
What he also said was that he’d been chatting to around another 40 CEO’s and they shared the same opinion. Indeed, he went on to say that one company will be shutting their physical offices with the entire work force WFH.
I live in KENT but work in London and normally commute via coach so I’m saving a fortune in terms of money and time.
With the plan to move to Scotland, it means hopefully I can take my pick a bit more. It’s been suggested I could remain where I am at work yet still continue to work from Scotland.
Why go to Scotland @HoneyBadger, go to the Bahamas
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
Before lockdown we had everyone working 1 day a week from home as standard as not enough desks for everyone to be in the office on any given day. However you could work more with managers agreement on a as needed basis.
For example if I had a large or expensive parcel arriving or an appointment I could opt to work from home that day also.
During lockdown we have moved offices (even though nobody is allowed into either), the lease was up on the old one and they leased a new office. The new office the leased is smaller than the old and we were told 60% capacity of the old. So with everyone already working 1 day per week from home and now 40% reduction in capacity that meant it was likely we would all be working 3 days per week from home as standard if my quick rough maths is correct.
However because of lockdown all of us are working from home and the new office (which I've never stepped foot in) is shut.
Now if the new office opens it's rumoured to be working at 1/3rd of it's intended capacity (which was already down 40%) as in for every 6 desks there will be 2 people in so there is a 2 metre distance in place. Given the fact that for every 10 people only 4 would ever be in the office in the first place. That means for every 10 people now 1 person will be in the office with social distancing measures in place if they wanted to go into the office. That means if all 10 people wanted to be in the office they would only be allowed in 1 day every 2 weeks so 2 days over a month.
I'm fine with that as being the norm tbh. 2 days a month the rest I work from home.
By my calculations:
Old office = 120% allocated (example 60 people, 50 desks, 10 WFH on any given day)
New office = 200% allocated (example 60 people, 30 desks, 30 WFH on any given day)
New office at 3rd of capacity = 600% allocated (example 60 people, 10 desks, 50 WFH on any given day)
So not sure where you've got 1 person in the office for every 10, it should be 1 person in the office for every 6 people surely? One day in the office every 6 days not every 2 weeks.
Old office = 120% allocated (example 60 people, 50 desks, 10 WFH on any given day)
New office = 200% allocated (example 60 people, 30 desks, 30 WFH on any given day)
New office at 3rd of capacity = 600% allocated (example 60 people, 10 desks, 50 WFH on any given day)
So not sure where you've got 1 person in the office for every 10, it should be 1 person in the office for every 6 people surely? One day in the office every 6 days not every 2 weeks.
A recruiter I stay in touch with mentioned in April that they were already witnessing this outlook with candidates. Be that due to genuine reasons or desperation to find another job or job security.
Eg: a longer commute less frequently.
We moved house last year - from Zone 1-2 near the City out west to the suburbs. We're still trying to shift the flat in Whitechapel but interestingly have had more interest in it this time around than last year. Looking back on it, I should have pushed my wife harder for us to move much further out (she didn't go for my Lake District plan...) but we've a nice balance here between a good commute into town, loads of parks and green spaces and less than 30 secs to a great and smart high street. It's yet to become apparent as to whether we timed the move brilliantly or terribly... as we bought right at the top of the market last year, but prices seem to have held up well so far and families from closer in are now looking at a move to our area as desirable. Trend setter, obv...
I've worked from home previously - I spent almost three years at home between late '12 to late '15. By the end of it I was absolutely sick and tired of being so cut off from the rest of the world... but then again I did work for myself. I think we'll see a significant and longterm drift towards flexible working but I do think it unlikely for most firms to go fully WFH. We're still seeing how things play out with this pandemic, and whilst most firms have been pleasantly surprised with how they've been able to switch to WFH at short notice, it'll take a while yet for companies to truly be able to assess how productive the WFH approach is.
When you couple this with potentially 2-3 years of economic uncertainty - even if the pandemic is short-lived - then it takes a brave company to make huge decisions regarding their workforce this early on. A great deal of commercial property firms are looking to expand; whilst a number of SMEs won't be around much longer, those that will still require office space could require double the floorspace as they previously did (or an extra 50% more room if 25% are WFH on any given day). As such, a number of firms are going to need bigger spaces than they currently occupy. Not necessarily double the space however.
We're lucky insofar as we currently fir 5-6 staff into an 8-10 person office, and now one will be WFH until next year as he's expecting his first kid. We should therefore be fine to social distance within the office - assuming other precautions are available to us - whilst it's a pretty straight forward commute for our staff. I get on the train at the end of the line, and off at the other end. Others cycle in, etc. Whilst I've gone through stages of tremendous output I do recognise that the business functions much better as a tight knit group rather than being dotted around.
Training is a big hurdle for any company in these times - we've seen absolutely zero hiring for anyone other than mid- and senior-level staff. No juniors whatsoever have been brought on board, as it's a nightmare trying to train people up.
I've worked from home previously - I spent almost three years at home between late '12 to late '15. By the end of it I was absolutely sick and tired of being so cut off from the rest of the world... but then again I did work for myself. I think we'll see a significant and longterm drift towards flexible working but I do think it unlikely for most firms to go fully WFH. We're still seeing how things play out with this pandemic, and whilst most firms have been pleasantly surprised with how they've been able to switch to WFH at short notice, it'll take a while yet for companies to truly be able to assess how productive the WFH approach is.
When you couple this with potentially 2-3 years of economic uncertainty - even if the pandemic is short-lived - then it takes a brave company to make huge decisions regarding their workforce this early on. A great deal of commercial property firms are looking to expand; whilst a number of SMEs won't be around much longer, those that will still require office space could require double the floorspace as they previously did (or an extra 50% more room if 25% are WFH on any given day). As such, a number of firms are going to need bigger spaces than they currently occupy. Not necessarily double the space however.
We're lucky insofar as we currently fir 5-6 staff into an 8-10 person office, and now one will be WFH until next year as he's expecting his first kid. We should therefore be fine to social distance within the office - assuming other precautions are available to us - whilst it's a pretty straight forward commute for our staff. I get on the train at the end of the line, and off at the other end. Others cycle in, etc. Whilst I've gone through stages of tremendous output I do recognise that the business functions much better as a tight knit group rather than being dotted around.
Training is a big hurdle for any company in these times - we've seen absolutely zero hiring for anyone other than mid- and senior-level staff. No juniors whatsoever have been brought on board, as it's a nightmare trying to train people up.
Our office is 'open' from September but at 10% capacity under current guidelines, I can't see a return until 2021 at that rate, the more that work at home the less point of an office, key benefit of the office is it being a hub, if you have a pattern of 40-60% WFH the likelihood of the right people from the right areas being in the office at the same time is extremely low
On-boarding is one of my main concerns about remote working. We've effectively frozen all recruitment unless specific exceptions are granted by ExCo (for key areas that this pandemic has increased the workload for) but as and when that changes it will be tough to get people on board effectively. Other teams in my division had a small handful of people we'd already offered to who have had to join shortly before or after lockdown and it must be tough for them in terms of relationship building, knowledge transfer etc. I'm keen to learn how other organisations manage this sort of stuff as I'm sure there's some generic pointers that could help.
I think you can mitigate that slightly (not completely) by careful planning in terms of understanding the interconnects between people/teams and having appropriate rotas in place (which you kind of need to do anyway for capacity reasons). The more 'matricised' (if that's a word) an organisation is the tougher than becomes I imagine i.e. not simply a case of sending functional team A into the office on these days if some of that team interact with team B, some with team C etc. And of course you need to recognise and actively embrace the fact that not everyone will be physically present, so VC is used in all meetings etc and just becomes second nature, rather than an afterthought as it sometimes was traditionally ("oh yeah, Joe Bloggs is WFH today, can someone dial him in?"). You also have to look at scheduling of activities i.e. ensure the meetings that benefit most from F2F interaction are booked for the days people are in the office, where feasible (this lends itself well in situations where teams are working on iterative cycles).
You make some valid points, my team are a bridge between multiple other IT groups and several business units, I can't imagine how we would ever co-ordinate that effectively with all in the office at the right point, personally I am well versed in WFH but many of my group do seem to be struggling with it in terms of isolation
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
they say 2 in 10 people are always out of the office for some reason other than WFH. so your figures are on the assumption we were working 5 desks for every 6 people. when in reality the figure in the original office was 7 desks for every 10 people.
we were told the new office would be 60% of the old office so 0.6 x 7 = 4 desks for every 10.
then when you say 1/3rd capacity under social distancing. 4 divided by 3 is 1 point something. which is rounded down to 1