WFH won't have an enormous effect on the growth rate of the wider area, but certainly there is going to be a glut of office space for the next few decades across the region.

For sure there will be a marginal reduction in population growth though. The DC region is not a desirable place to move to other than for a job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

OP, I think you are missing the fact that plenty of people live in the city because they enjoy city living. That's why they pay a premium for living there. Of course, some people live in the city because the commute is close, but most people live in the city because they like city life. That won't change with WFH.

I think the places that will be hurt will be close-in surburbs like Arlington and Bethesda. People live there because they want to live in a suburb, but want a short commute. With WFH, and commute not a factor, those people can live in a million different suburbs.

This is really funny. You have surely never been to Arlington or Bethesda.

What do you mean PP? I go to Arlington and Bethesda multiple times per week, and my impression is that the key reasons people live there are that they want to live in a suburb with a short commute to their jobs.

First off, there are more high wage private sector jobs in Arlington than DC, hint Amazon. Second, Bethesda has the lowest commercial vacancy rate in the whole region. There are more people out and about in both places on a random weekday than you will find in downtown DC. You are under a false impression that these are bedroom communities, because you are young and haven’t lived in the area long, but they exist in their own right. Just check the morning rush hour entries at the Bethesda Metro station pre-pandemic, it’s barely used. People live in these areas are because they are business centers with jobs, they enjoy the quality of life on offer and appreciate some aspects of life urbanism but with convenience to SFHs and without the dysfunction.

The bedroom communities for DC in the suburbs are actually a further out in the places where Federal employees can afford to live, e.g. Rockville or Manasas. And the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in the suburbs also work in the suburbs and never come to DC at all. Get it?

PP, I am the person you are responding to, and you and I are making the exact same point! -- people live in suburbs like Arlington and Bethesda because they want a suburban lifestyle that is close to their jobs, allowing them to avoid a long commute. Perfectly reasonable decision. But that means that a shift to WFH will allow people to no longer worry about commute, and instead choose from any of the countless suburbs in the area. In contrast, for people who want to live in the city because they like the city, they are just going to stay in DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

OP, I think you are missing the fact that plenty of people live in the city because they enjoy city living. That's why they pay a premium for living there. Of course, some people live in the city because the commute is close, but most people live in the city because they like city life. That won't change with WFH.

I think the places that will be hurt will be close-in surburbs like Arlington and Bethesda. People live there because they want to live in a suburb, but want a short commute. With WFH, and commute not a factor, those people can live in a million different suburbs.

This is really funny. You have surely never been to Arlington or Bethesda.

What do you mean PP? I go to Arlington and Bethesda multiple times per week, and my impression is that the key reasons people live there are that they want to live in a suburb with a short commute to their jobs.

First off, there are more high wage private sector jobs in Arlington than DC, hint Amazon. Second, Bethesda has the lowest commercial vacancy rate in the whole region. There are more people out and about in both places on a random weekday than you will find in downtown DC. You are under a false impression that these are bedroom communities, because you are young and haven’t lived in the area long, but they exist in their own right. Just check the morning rush hour entries at the Bethesda Metro station pre-pandemic, it’s barely used. People live in these areas are because they are business centers with jobs, they enjoy the quality of life on offer and appreciate some aspects of life urbanism but with convenience to SFHs and without the dysfunction.

The bedroom communities for DC in the suburbs are actually a further out in the places where Federal employees can afford to live, e.g. Rockville or Manasas. And the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in the suburbs also work in the suburbs and never come to DC at all. Get it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

OP, I think you are missing the fact that plenty of people live in the city because they enjoy city living. That's why they pay a premium for living there. Of course, some people live in the city because the commute is close, but most people live in the city because they like city life. That won't change with WFH.

I think the places that will be hurt will be close-in surburbs like Arlington and Bethesda. People live there because they want to live in a suburb, but want a short commute. With WFH, and commute not a factor, those people can live in a million different suburbs.

This is really funny. You have surely never been to Arlington or Bethesda.

What do you mean PP? I go to Arlington and Bethesda multiple times per week, and my impression is that the key reasons people live there are that they want to live in a suburb with a short commute to their jobs.

Maybe for Arlington but definitely not for Bethesda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All feds are not going to leave.

The Federal footprint in DC is declining. That is undeniable. And the future is not positive. 40% of GSA’s downtown lease portfolio is set to expire before 2025.

Reducing the federal leased inventory is a GREAT thing for the federal government and taxpayers. We would save so much money if we could get all feds into government owned buildings. The benefits of renting vs owning apply to commercial space. That would still leave a significant amount of federal space in the district, but we wouldn't be essentially throwing money down the toilet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

OP, I think you are missing the fact that plenty of people live in the city because they enjoy city living. That's why they pay a premium for living there. Of course, some people live in the city because the commute is close, but most people live in the city because they like city life. That won't change with WFH.

I think the places that will be hurt will be close-in surburbs like Arlington and Bethesda. People live there because they want to live in a suburb, but want a short commute. With WFH, and commute not a factor, those people can live in a million different suburbs.

This is really funny. You have surely never been to Arlington or Bethesda.

What do you mean PP? I go to Arlington and Bethesda multiple times per week, and my impression is that the key reasons people live there are that they want to live in a suburb with a short commute to their jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's a change to a republican administration they will likely yank telework for most feds just to be a-holes, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Why though? It greatly reduces needless big govt spending on office space that you don't need and have to pay for the heat, cooling, and electric bills for.

Old-fashioned conservatives people believe that WFH reduces productivity, managerial oversight, collegial atmosphere, employee satisfaction and commitment to the mission.

All the CEOs of companies trying to get their employees back into the office - they have this crazy idea that the office is where office employees are supposed to be, for morale as well as other reasons. And they aren't wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's a change to a republican administration they will likely yank telework for most feds just to be a-holes, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Why though? It greatly reduces needless big govt spending on office space that you don't need and have to pay for the heat, cooling, and electric bills for.

I fully agree. Two other factors that would not support this conclusion: (1) WFH makes it easier to disburse more Fed jobs around the country and (2) delinking jobs from office space makes future RIFs easier if they try to cut the Federal budget.

Anonymous wrote:If there's a change to a republican administration they will likely yank telework for most feds just to be a-holes, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Why though? It greatly reduces needless big govt spending on office space that you don't need and have to pay for the heat, cooling, and electric bills for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

OP, I think you are missing the fact that plenty of people live in the city because they enjoy city living. That's why they pay a premium for living there. Of course, some people live in the city because the commute is close, but most people live in the city because they like city life. That won't change with WFH.

I think the places that will be hurt will be close-in surburbs like Arlington and Bethesda. People live there because they want to live in a suburb, but want a short commute. With WFH, and commute not a factor, those people can live in a million different suburbs.

This is really funny. You have surely never been to Arlington or Bethesda.

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

OP, I think you are missing the fact that plenty of people live in the city because they enjoy city living. That's why they pay a premium for living there. Of course, some people live in the city because the commute is close, but most people live in the city because they like city life. That won't change with WFH.

I think the places that will be hurt will be close-in surburbs like Arlington and Bethesda. People live there because they want to live in a suburb, but want a short commute. With WFH, and commute not a factor, those people can live in a million different suburbs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

DOE as in Education or Energy??

Education.

Hah! Most useless agency!!!! Talk about the arbiter of unfunded mandates.

If there's a change to a republican administration they will likely yank telework for most feds just to be a-holes, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me that if this happens it will be a very gradual process and that ultimately could be a good thing for everyone involved, including people who want to live in the DMV. Growth growth growth is not sustainable particularly for people whose wages do not endlessly grow.

+1
It might ease some pressure on housing and traffic. I don't see the whole federal government leaving, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once you leave the DC area, your opportunities for advancement are vastly reduced. Most people that want to move up will not leave the area. Plus most of the cheaper places are not liberal.

I think this is what is most likely to change. A lot of agencies had higher promotion potential for HQ-based positions and more positions available at higher grades. It will be harder to justify a terminal WFH GS-14 living in Fredericksburg with a terminal GS-12 in Richmond.

I'm confused by your last sentence. The grade levels are based on the work, not the location. The locality pay between the same grade levels on either side of a locality boundary is different, yes.

The grade levels are only nominally based on work and many agencies will have higher promotion potential primarily because they are HQ positions. For example, there is no real difference between a HQ-based and Regional office Budget Analyst in terms of the nature of the work. However, some agencies will give higher promotion potential to HQ Budget Analysts solely because they are HQ based. I know of examples where regional staff wanting accretion of duties promotions to GS-13 in a regional office for an agency were told they need to move to HQ because the same job series terminates with a GS-13 promotion potential. It doesn’t make sense and with increased remote work/WFH I think these rationales may not last.