When I worked in Birmingham, my office was located downtown, and you could easily walk to restaurants and offices. During one fire alarm, I remember taking off with my photographer friends, and walking around the neighborhood. In my current job, my office is located at least a mile from downtown. You can walk to a deli, and there are some nearby businesses, such as a car mechanic and the local transportation authority. But the location of the DG has always displeased me. I've always believed newspapers should be located in the heart of the community they cover, rather than the suburbs or the outskirts of town.
In the New York Times, Louise Mozingo, a professor of landscape architecture and environmental planning, builds a compelling case against suburban offices. (My office isn't located in a suburb, but it often feels like it is. The Albany Times Union is located in an even more horrible location, out near the airport in the town of Colonie.) She writes, "IN an era of concern about climate change, residential suburbs are the focus of a new round of critiques, as low-density developments use more energy, water and other resources. But so far there’s been little discussion of that other archetype of sprawl, the suburban office.
Rethinking sprawl might begin much more effectively with these business enclaves. They cover vast areas and are occupied by a few powerful entities, corporations, which at some point will begin spending their ample reserves to upgrade, expand or replace their facilities."
Click here to read the whole thing.