Their HQ was designed / built when it looked like they would grow forever and before the pandemic encouraged a lot of 'hybrid' options. The complex is (afaik) still 3/4 Uber, 1/4 OpenAI after this - it was nearly 1 million sq ft of office space.
Famously big towers are an indicator that a company or economy is about to slow down hard, since they only get financed during frothy market conditions.
The big poster child for this is Sears opening the biggest office tower in the world at the time.
It seems to be an indicator for sure. A company that spares no expense on its "ultimate headquarters". Sprint did that in the dotcom days here with there world headquarters. Looked like a giant prison. It quickly was subleased.
Uber has four office buildings in SF mission bay. One was never used, the other 3 were underutilized, so employees are going to be moved/consolidated into 2. These buildings also have street-front retail lease spaces, so presumably by having more people coming into the area, that increases foot traffic for those spaces as well.
All the actual news on the SF real estate market is waiting for the effects of various local laws being flatly overridden by the state [1], which will take about six months from now to get to the 'or else' point of huge amounts of state funding being pulled from the city.
In particular, it will completely eliminate discretionary review for most projects, which is an overwhelming source of construction delays and cost inflation in SF.
With all the doom and gloom SF news, much of which is also unwarranted, it’s reasonable to have some possibly unwarranted, non gloom and doom news as well.
The government shouldn't bail out CRE, they should let them fail, spend the money to purchase the properties at bargain auction prices, renovate them, and rent them out at cost. Ideally the government should provide housing to anyone, not means tested, one bedroom per person or partnered couple. Because shelter is a human right.
Why should the government buy them instead of providing the grounds for private party to access the real estate and do it themselves? Where do you draw the line? Should the government continue to push companies to fail so they can buy more land until they own it all?
I’m low income and I work hard to afford living in SF and I don’t agree with having to pay even higher taxes for the government to waste 80% of that on bureaucracy and 20% in housing.
I agree with you in that they shouldn’t bail anyone out, but I think they should just operate in their realm: zoning, code and incentives to entice the change to residential.
OpenAI (https://fortune.com/2023/05/05/openai-ceo-sam-altman-remote-...) is a example of a high performing company where remote work is an exception. That's why I say that there is no cake recipe that guarantees that remote or in-person work is better than the other. Each company has its own culture and employees have to look for the culture that makes the most sense for them.
The more common expression is "cookie cutter" implying that anyone can follow a simple process to achieve a good result. Cake is hard in general so even having the cake recipe is fairly useless for execution.
Remote work seems like a bigger liability for a company which is expecting future legal battles and anti-trust cases, especially since all communications will be entered into discovery. It's easier for VPs to discuss AI ethics in hallways and unrecorded meetings rooms.
You might be interested in https:// www. jwz.org /gruntle/ rbarip.html (I'm obfuscating the URL a bit because the website's owner does something rude if your browser sends an HN referer header)
I believe so but from what I recall, he still wanted syncing between phone/computer which required the messages be stored at some point, alebeit with an extremely small ttl (minutes? seconds?). This miniscule retention meant the record was created despite a low ttl and so when the record was removed, it became a violation of the court-ordered record retention. Again, this is all just from fuzzy memory but I think that's how it approximately went down.
I’m pretty sure everywhere I’ve ever worked has notified me that there is a legal hold on deleting my communications. And I’m just a simple programmer.
Yea, ya know... if your reason for avoiding remote work is because you're afraid a paper trail will expose your company breaking the law.... your company.... has some big problems lol.
My workplace is split between Zoom and Teams. Almost department by department. A salesperson books a meeting with you? Teams. Someone in technology? Zoom. It’s just enough to lull me into a false sense of security, and BAM, Teams.
Yeah. I’m not some spoiled Silicon Valley tech bro. I don’t even live in the US. I’ve never been given a single RSU in my life. But I was genuinely shocked when I saw GitLab’s compensation.
Similar to Apple. Apple seems to understand whatever this sort of structure is really well, and have followed it for a long time. Facebook thought they were different but now they seem to need the same. Less openness externally, but a lot of collaboration internally. Google recognized this more quickly than Facebook, but less quickly than Apple.
That's very much intentional, they often strongly want teams to be in the same room for a significant percent of the time, but vastly prefer internal remote to external remote.
There does seem to be a gain for the company, one that very often isn't necessary but all other things equal the company will try to capture. I see the argument that remote work should be mandated as part of labor rights in many more cases than it currently is. Until it is, companies like these will continue to favor on-site work.
I need to get out of the habit of calling it in-person work and instead call it on-site work in these cases.
Most on-site work has a significant telework component.
I should also call it telework when it's on site to avoid confusing it with true remote work. Or whatever the most clear terms are.
> That's why I say that there is no cake recipe that guarantees that remote or in-person work is better than the other.
I'm not sure this is all that insightful. I don't think anyone is saying that if you force all your employees into the same physical space (or, you allow for remote work) you will instantly become infinitely successful.
Remote work can be the absolutely superior model for how/where people work for any tech company, but you still also fail for one of many other reasons companies can fail.
