Well, surely this can't be the least bit surprising. The businesses involved are aware now, in a way that they never were, of the attractiveness and effect of having a consolidated financial district as a target. Add in the fact that lower Manhattan will be disrupted for up to two years by clean-up, and for up to a decade following by reconstruction of some sort, and you've got a situation tailor made for businesses to decide to leave Manhattan. Add to that the lower costs of office space elsewhere, and the fact that any facilities they move into will be at least somewhat long-term, and you've got a net business loss for New York that's likely to be permanent. (Frankly, I don't quite understand why Morgan Stanley would have their two major facilities within one square block of each other in the first place; that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.) Living in the area promises to be a nightmare for years to come, as well.
What I wonder is if this is going to have a similar effect in other large cities. The Sears Tower is already reporting difficulties with tenants in the upper floors. (Some of the businesses are buying parachutes for their employees. Just in case. Urgh.) And it would make sense for businesses in the central cities of Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Houston, and other places to decide that perhaps a bit more physical dispersal and paper and data redundancy would be an ideal to strive for.
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!