Its certainly possible to convert COM to RES but its not likely to happen at significant capacity unless the WFH trend really destroys commercial real estate.

Some obstacles are the basic requirements of housing (kitchen, bathroom, windows) don't really match office space. You need lots of water/waste/electric/hvac pipes distributed across a space for residential, not the same for commercial where they can be more centralized in the floor. The space distribution is also not the same - eg. "deep" buildings are worse for residential because the ideal window frontage to room depth ratios don't match - you can have a desk or communal space very far from the window in commercial real estate and its usable, but you can't really put residential rooms far from a window because no one wants a windowless room and laws usually prevent it.

Additionally, I've seen office windows that don't open but you usually need (by law) to allow opening windows for residential use (for ventilation purposes I think). This can be a VERY expensive fix. Most people also want windows that open too.

On the other hand, the way these are often overcome is with huge "loft-style" apartments - very high ceiling and large spaces. The bigger window height helps with the depth issues. The big spaces are then catered to rich people, who fund the massive Reno bills. (note: historically, lofts existed because artists could bypass zoning laws to live in warehouses they used as a studio, then it became trendy)

> This can be a VERY expensive fix.

The question for this sort of thing isn't how expensive it is absolutely but weather or not it's more expensive than building more housing in the area, and I doubt it's more expensive than that.

> The big spaces are then catered to rich people, who fund the massive Reno bills.

Ye Olde "luxury apartments are expensive" argument. If supply actually met demand then it would look more like the east coast where younger people with low salaries can afford these sorts of apartments with no roommates.

Hey, never said it couldn't happen, but this is why its not the first choice of developers... its totally possible. The parent just asked why its not readily done.

> but weather or not it's more expensive than building more housing in the area

that's for the market to decide. This area has very expensive office space, and you'd have to factor in the loss in revenue in office rent. of course, in a world where the offices stayed vacant, that's 0 anyways.

> look more like the east coast I lived on the east coast, the parts that people want to live often aren't cheap either (NYC, Bos, etc). They're also not increasing housing by much.

> Ye Olde "luxury apartments are expensive" argument

This wasn't an argument against, its more a "where does this money come from" point. Expensive things are expensive to produce. Thankfully they're expensive so they can cover construction expenses. SF needs more new luxury housing so people with lots of money stop living in existing housing, leaving room for poorer people. No one would build market rate housing when there are millionaires living in rundown walkups.