The past and future of non-residential-to-residential conversions in New York City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns over rising office vacancy rates and falling office building property values in many urban areas have increased the pressure on cities and developers to consider converting underused office space to residential use. To aid in current and future conversations surrounding the feasibility of conversion, we look to the recent past. In doing so, we provide an account of conversion and redevelopment activity in New York City over the past decade to uncover associated structural and locational characteristics. We find that office-to-residential conversions contributed the greatest share of residential rental units of all non-residential conversions from 2010 to 2020, with nearly 5900 units created. However, there is suggestive evidence that more recent obsolete office buildings generate significantly fewer units as compared to office conversions of the 1990s. We additionally model the probability of conversion and redevelopment. We find that hotels have the highest conversion probability, followed by loft, retail, industrial, and office. In general, relatively taller, narrower, older buildings with diminished value are more likely to be converted. • Conversion is an important source of housing supply often occurring in very high-demand neighborhoods • Office buildings generate the greatest number of residential units per converted building than any other building class • The number of residential units generated per office conversion has declined substantially from the 1990s • Older, taller (shorter), smaller (larger) low-valued properties tend to attract conversion (redevelopment) rather than redevelopment (conversion)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".