During the past year or so, I have read many articles, some published in STRUCTURE, on the continuing debate about the benefits of working from home versus at the office, mostly or entirely in each case. I think it is fair to say that there are two camps. The work-from-home advocates note a reduction in commute time, more time available to be with family, increased flexibility in one’s daily schedule, getting more done in a day, etc. The work-from-the-office advocates describe better collaboration, more efficiency, more learning opportunities, better mentoring, etc. There is clearly no right or wrong approach because they are all true to me, particularly in the short term.
What is missing in this debate are two critical considerations: the long-term impact on the structural engineering, architectural and construction professions and the long-term impact on the communities where we live. As a San Francisco Bay Area resident, my observations and thoughts are greatly influenced by what I have personally experienced over the past nearly three years. I recognize that our readers in other urban areas may have had different experiences, and that people living in South Florida probably wonder what this author is talking about. I recognize that I may not change the minds of those who believe they are following their own or their families’ best interests, but I feel my effort would be worthwhile if I get readers to consider other perspectives.
This is where Jane Jacobs fits in. Jacobs was a distinguished observer and outspoken defender of cities and expert on what makes them work and thrive, and what makes them die.
Jacobs was born in 1916 and grew up in Scranton, Pennsylvania, in what most would consider a perfect home environment. She had two educated parents (a doctor and a nurse), enough money to travel a bit, and the freedom to explore and learn without parental involvement or coordination. Jacobs hated the controlling nature of high school and did not go to college, even though her parents had saved up the money. She instead took a few classes at the local business college (learning typing, dictation, and stenography) and then headed off to New York City to make a go of the world. The opportunities in Scranton were already on the decline since, by the early 1930s, petroleum products had largely replaced the locally-mined anthracite coal. Scranton’s population peaked about that time and has steadily declined to about half of that today.
Jacobs parlayed her secretarial skills into many jobs in various industries but ultimately discovered that what she wanted to be was a writer. She fought her way upward in a male-dominated industry with grit and determination and finally to a solid job at Architectural Forum magazine, even though she had no architectural background. Instead, Jane learned on the job along with help from her architect husband, who taught her how to read drawings. Eventually, she realized, much to her regret, that in her writing for Forum, she had been duped by experts she interviewed – city planners, visionary architects, builders, politicians. Their scientific correctness of urban renewal via demolition of whole neighborhoods, including small businesses, churches, and the like, and the benefits of replacement with large modern tower blocks for housing the poor, not to mention the need for freeways to accommodate the vast increase in the number of cars coming into large cities, was just wrong. (See this critique of mid-century urban “renewal”: www.structuremag.org/?p=17875) These ill-advised urban planning ideas (one might rightly call them experiments) made the cities die.
Jacobs’ expertise in what made cities work (practice vs. theory) developed by observing her own Greenwich Village neighborhood and similar places in New York and Philadelphia. In essence, she discovered the need for a vibrant sidewalk scene, safety via self-interested “eyes” watching and the critical benefits of variety in terms of people, businesses, and public spaces – the basic activities of daily life that contribute to interest instead of uniformity and dullness. She wrote a highly-respected book on the subject titled The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961). I grew up in a dull place but luckily ended up living in a part of Oakland that is mainly like Jacobs’ ideal place, except we are more 16/7 than 24/7. So I know it can work.
Circling back to my original thesis, I am concerned that in our short-term thinking about the personal benefits of working from home, we inadvertently contribute to the destruction of the cities where many of us live and work, and eventually, to our livelihoods since the need for structural engineering services in major cities will almost certainly decline.
Where I live and work, there are still many more vacant storefronts than before the pandemic (even though no one moved away), there is less outdoor activity and social mingling, and, judging by the amount of discarded cardboard boxes at the curb on trash day, way too much ordering on-line rather than shopping locally and re-investing in the community.
What will we engineers do if students permanently attend college remotely, new office buildings are not required because of a large surplus that won’t be filled, doctor visits are by zoom call instead of in the medical office, or many retail and restaurant workers leave for greener pastures? Many architects, engineers, and contractors make a good living designing and building multi-story residential buildings in Oakland, San Jose, and San Francisco. But what will they all do if the population leaves, the streets become less safe, or growth stagnates, starting a destructive death cycle?
An article from the San Francisco Chronicle (July 30, 2022) written by Karen Chapple (Urban Displacement Project Director and Professor Emerita of City and Regional Planning at UC Berkeley and Director of the School of Cities at the University of Toronto) titled, Why Downtown S.F.’s COVID-19 Pandemic Recovery is Dead Last in the Nation lends credence to the notion that the death cycle may have already started at least in San Francisco.
The author found that “the key factors driving recovery rates were the density of population and businesses downtown as well as reliance on cars for commutes. Downtowns with high concentrations of employment sectors that support remote work were also a crucial component. The most important variables, however, include the percentage of jobs in information, professional, scientific and technical fields, accommodation and food services, health care and social assistance, and finance and insurance.” The recovery rates were significantly different, with San Francisco lagging other similar cities like New York, Boston and Seattle because “one factor differentiates downtown San Francisco from the others: its lack of economic diversity. San Francisco has become overly specialized. This is not rocket science. Decades of economic studies have shown that the most resilient economies are diverse, and cities that overspecialize are particularly vulnerable to shocks.”
“San Francisco’s downtown has 31% of its jobs in professional, scientific, and technical services — a category that comprises law, accounting, advertising, architecture and consulting firms, as well as computer systems design — i.e., the types of firms where highly skilled professionals work alone productively and are thus well-suited for remote work. In comparison, just 18% of downtown workers in New York are in this sector. Compounding this, over 9% of San Francisco’s jobs downtown are in information, double the share in Boston.”
The author noted that recent surveys suggest that remote work could be a permanent feature in companies where productivity does not depend on face-to-face contact. Even when employers enforce in-person work requirements, tight labor markets for high-skilled workers mean the employers have little leverage.
Obviously, arresting the decline of a major city is too big an issue for us to tackle individually, but I suggest lots of small things can be done now to avoid that intractable problem later. It will be a small personal burden, but in the long run, our individual actions will help maintain the sense of community and the vibrant city life many enjoy.
With inspiration from Jane Jacobs, here are my top solutions:
- Get back into the office. Socialize. Meet your clients and collaborators in person. Go out for a drink after work. Live life.
- Drive less, walk more, and take public transportation if you can. You will stumble upon lots of interestring things that you don’t see from the car.
- Support local businesses even if it costs a little more since it stimulates the diversity of options. There are no economic rules that say businesses lost have to come back.
- Look outward rather than inward by meeting more of your neighbors. Speak up if you see something wrong by being eyes on the street. Help fix what is broken. Pick up a piece of trash.
- Create wider community sidewalks by encouraging outside restaurant seating in what used to be metered parking.
- Convince your elected officials to spend more on commonly shareable projects – libraries, parks and public community spaces.
So to answer my original question What Would Jane Jacobs Say, I am confident that she would advocate for each of us to do what it took to keep the city alive, regardless of the additional cost or personal sacrifices required. Having fallen for and been burned by experts’ stories, see would have known this was in everyone’s interest.