Another view on the sale of federal buildings: need for updated facilities | Impact comparable to the closure of city-based navy shipyards?

I have been quick to criticize the Trump Administration for its agenda on shrinking its real estate portfolio.  While some of it, like abrogating leases, was a part of Trump/Musk DOGE agenda of destruction of the federal government without any connection to need for a functioning government--e.g. leases for Social Security offices and federal land management offices were broken--there is another issue.

The buildings, many built before 1980 are old, often poorly maintained and expensive to renovate.  Then it may make sense to sell and rebuild, or since the government is shrinking, lease smaller buildings.

The JFK Federal Building in Boston. Photo: Paul Marotta/Getty Images

From the Boston Globe article, "The federal government could soon sell these three big downtown Boston buildings The JFK, O’Neill, and McCormack federal buildings span 2.6 million square feet, combined. A federal board is considering putting them up for sale":

... much of the federal government’s 180 million-square-foot property portfolio needs extensive repair, and is riddled with expensive problems such as antiquated air systems, leaking roofs, unusable elevators, and flooding basements, the board said. Buildings managed by the GSA are on average more than 50 years old.

“Congress cannot appropriate its way out of this maintenance backlog,” said Nick Rahall, a former congressman from West Virginia and PBRB board member. “The inventory needs to be shrunk so tax dollars can be invested in properties where employees are actually coming to work.”

Like a broken clock being right twice a day, the Trump Administration has, amongst its chaotic and authoritarian decision making, made a couple of good decisions.  This may be one at least partially,.

-- "Trump Policies Shake the Foundations of the US Office Market," Natixis

-- "Trump May Sell Up to 67% of Government's Office Portfolio," CRE Daily

However, proponents of the sale of federal property argue that there is a lot of profit to be made ("Chance favors the prepared mind: residential conversion of federal buildings in Downtown DC needs "A Vision Plan for Judicious Conversion of Federal Properties in the District of Columbia."" [2025]) and that's a problem.  

The buildings are old, the commercial property market is soft, especially in Boston ("One of Boston’s skyline-defining towers is on the auction block — and expected to sell at a big discount," Boston Globe) and DC (The Increasing Levels of Vacant Office Space: The Achilles’ Heel of DC's Office Market), made only worse by federal government shrinkage and federal real estate being a significant element of the local market ("Trump wants to move 100K federal jobs out of D.C. What could that look like?," Virginia Public Media), and the buildings may not lend themselves to refurbishment, making the property valuable only in that it can be redeveloped after the expense of demolition of current facilities.

And, still, these decisions will be negative for most major downtowns where a sell off will occur ("The 443 federal buildings Trump administration could sell," Boston Globe).

=====

Impact as significant as closure of federal Navy Yards.  In the 1960s and later, the Department of Defense closed naval facility shipyard functions in cities like Brooklyn, DC, Boston, Charleston, South Carolina, and Philadelphia.  

Thousands of workers at the sites lost their jobs ("Military cutback will eliminate 37,000 jobs," AP, about a later round of closures), some functions were dispersed, often to suburbs, and with the multiplier effect even more jobs were lost (about the closure of the Navy Yard in Long Beach, "In Long Beach, an Era Ends in Tears," Los Angeles Times).

Blog commenter Will makes the point that this had significant impact on what was called 1960s "urban decline."  A lot of the jobs were industrial.  The closure shifted cities to a post-industrial economy but with fewer jobs overall, and fewer blue collar jobs especially.  (This is one of the arguments made by William Junious Wilson in When Work Disappears.

For example, at its peak in WW2, the Washington Navy Yard had 20,000 employees working on ships and munitions manufacturing, the Philadelphia Navy Yard, 40,000 employees (that facility didn't close until the 1990s), 42,000 at the Brooklyn Navy Yard.

At the time, too, these facilities were developers of innovative technology, although the concept of spinoff commercial technology transfer wasn't an issue then.

The shrinkage of the federal government under the Trump Administration will likely have similar effects.