The House recently passed a bill calling for federal government agencies to report office space usage and give up any office space where they have less than 60% occupancy. While it appears to be perfectly logical to make the federal government give up space it’s not using, the bill actually represents the latest salvo in the telework war in the federal sector. Treating office space as a settled matter with clear delineations of “60% occupancy” makes little sense until we see the final outlines of what the long-term telework policies look like for the federal government.
The efforts to shortcut the process by a use-it-or-lose-it mentality pose a serious risk of the kind of unanticipated consequences often accompanying short-sighted government policies. Consider, for example, the comprehensive February 2024 report from the National Capital Planning Commission and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, which studies housing affordability.
Telework’s surge during the pandemic was more than an emergency response; it was a revelation of an alternative work model’s viability and its far-reaching implications on urban living and sustainability. The report navigates through a series of telework adoption scenarios, with the maximum telework scenario—a model where half of the federal workforce is eligible for 8-10 days of telework per fortnight—emerging as a harbinger of significant socio-economic shifts.
This maximum telework scenario represents a linchpin in the efforts to mitigate the DC’s longstanding housing affordability crisis. By diminishing the daily necessity for proximity to federal offices, the report estimates that this scenario would catalyze a decentralization of housing demand, easing the pressure on the overheated housing market in and around DC This shift would broaden the horizons for federal employees, opening up a spectrum of more affordable housing options beyond the traditionally expensive urban core.
The implications of this shift extend beyond individual benefits to broader urban sustainability goals. The reduced need for vast office spaces presents a golden opportunity to rethink and repurpose commercial real estate – the very ones the House voted on. Imagine transforming these spaces into affordable housing units, community centers, and green spaces, thereby enhancing urban livability and resilience in DC.
Certainly, the transition towards a telework-centric model is not without its challenges. The report rightly cites concerns about the vitality of urban centers and the financial viability of public transportation systems in the face of decreased ridership are valid. Yet, these challenges are not insurmountable, but rather opportunities for innovative urban planning and policy-making.
The potential decrease in public transportation usage calls for a reimagined approach to urban mobility, one that emphasizes efficiency, sustainability, and accessibility. Redirecting the financial savings from reduced office space needs towards enhancing public transportation infrastructure could address these concerns head-on. Doing so would ensure that the shift towards telework contributes to a more sustainable and interconnected urban ecosystem.
The narrative that urban centers derive their vibrancy exclusively from a 9-to-5 office-bound workforce is ripe for reevaluation. A more flexible work model could usher in a new era of urban vitality, characterized by diverse, multi-use spaces that cater to a broader range of activities and needs throughout the day. This shift would enrich the urban fabric, making cities more dynamic, inclusive, and livable.
The prospect of maximum telework also aligns with broader environmental sustainability goals. By significantly reducing the daily commuting grind, we would see a marked decrease in carbon emissions, contributing to cleaner air and a healthier environment. This alignment with sustainability objectives underscores the multifaceted benefits of embracing a telework-centric model.
By contrast, the minimum telework model forecasts a return to a predominantly in-office working model. This scenario would lead to a rebound in demand for housing in closer proximity to federal offices, potentially reigniting upward pressure on prices in these areas.
The report notes that, from the onset of the pandemic, the DC metropolitan area has witnessed a substantial 12% escalation in average rental costs, soaring to $2,000, while average home prices have surged by a remarkable 22%, reaching $533,000, mirroring a nationwide trend. For marginalized communities, these increments bear a more pronounced impact; the report reveals a staggering $156,000 disparity in median home valuation between Black and white residents, underscoring the persistent inequities.
Thus, if we follow the demands by House Republicans to minimize telework, we are setting up DC for a huge spike in house prices – much higher than the average nationwide trend, with potentially bigger disparities for marginalized communities. This spike in housing prices will also fall on the shoulders of DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has strongly demanded that federal workers return to their offices. Given the difficulty of building in DC, it’s much easier to fix the problem of lower ridership than soaring house prices.
Thus, it’s imperative that policymakers and urban planners view telework not merely as a temporary fix or a perk but as a strategic lever for positive urban transformation. The maximum telework scenario offers a compelling blueprint for a more equitable, sustainable, and vibrant DC. It’s a vision that requires bold action and innovative thinking, but the potential rewards—a more livable, equitable, and sustainable capital region—are well worth the effort.
