1802023 年 4 月

New Spaces and New Places:

The Growth and Spatial Expansion of Flexible Offices in theTokyo Metropolitan Area

Yoh Kawano(Department of Economics, Reitaku University)
Andrew Schouten(Faculty of Urban Innovation, Asia University)
Chihiro Shimizu(School of Social Data Science, Hitotsubashi University,
Center for Spatial Information Science, University of Tokyo)

New Spaces and New Places: The Growth and Spatial
Expansion of Flexible Offices in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area *Yoh Kawano †・Andrew Schouten ‡・Chihiro Shimizu §ABSTRACTDuring the first two decades of the 21st century, advances in information technology provided a
growing number of workers with more freedom and more choice in their work locations. At the sametime, a new type of office environment—often called “flexible offices” or “co-working spaces”—
started to spread, in part to meet the needs of a workforce increasingly equipped to work remotely.
With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, remote work quickly shifted from being an exception to
being commonplace. Against this background, it is important to understand the evolution of theflexible office market, particularly trends in the spatial location of these spaces. This analysis examines
flexible offices in the Tokyo metropolitan area. Results show moderate growth and modest evidenceof spatial diffusion prior to the onset of the pandemic, followed by rapid expansion and diffusion into
suburban areas during the COVID era.

Key Words: flexible offices, COVID-19 pandemic, remote work, Geographic Information System(GIS), Tokyo Office Market.
JEL Classification Numbers: C31, R31* We would also like to thank Xymax Real Estate Institute for their helpful comments. This paper is based in parton the research results of Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A): 20H00082, Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science.
†
Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Reitaku University‡
Lecturer, Faculty of Urban Innovation, Asia University§
Professor, School of Social Data Science, Hitotsubashi University, 2-1 Naka,Kunitachi,Tokyo,186-8601, e-mail: c.shimizu@r.hitu.ac.jp.

1. INTRODUCTION
Of the many aspects of day-to-day life that have been affected by the spread of COVID-19, the impactof the pandemic on how and where people work has been particularly dramatic. Telework, work-fromhome, and other remote working arrangements had been increasing slowly for the first two decades ofthe 20th century, growing in parallel with advances in information technology that made alternative
styles of work more feasible. The onset of the pandemic functioned as a massive accelerant for thesetrends. Recommendations and regulations regarding in-person contact and social distancing initiatedan intense and almost immediate shift—particularly among white-collar professions—away from thetypical commute and towards remote work.
Despite the resumption of many, if not most in-person activities, several of the work-related pandemicera changes have proven durable. Rates of remote work remain well above their pre-pandemic levels,and many professionals have come to expect their employers to accommodate a hybrid approach tocommuting (Alexander et al., 2021; Dahik et al., 2020).
Amidst the spread of these non-traditional working arrangements, the role of non-traditional officeenvironments such as co-working spaces or flexible offices is of particular interest. In the decade prior
to the outbreak of COVID-19, flexible offices increasingly catered to a relatively small population ofworkers who faced few geographical restrictions in their work locations. Given the vast expansion ofworkers who now fit this definition, the way in which flexible office locations adapt to these needs
provides insight into how and where people want to live and work in the post-COVID era.
In this analysis, we aim to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the spatial distribution offlexible office spaces in the Tokyo metropolitan area. After an overview of the literature regarding
flexible offices, we provide an outline of our study area, and then discuss spatial and temporal trends
in flexible office openings both before and during the pandemic. Results show a strong tendency
toward the suburbanization of flexible office spaces during the COVID era, with newly establishedflexible offices being far more likely to locate outside the central business district from 2020 onward.
While evidence points to a positive correlation between rates of remote work and the spatial diffusionof flexible offices, the unsettled nature of remote work in Japan makes it difficult to speculate about
future trends in the demand for flexible office spaces.

2. FLEXIBLE OFFICE SPACES: CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS
The growth of flexible office spaces, also known as shared offices or co-working spaces, has largely
coincided with the expansion of internet-based technologies that reduce the need for workers to be
fixed to one location (Mariotti, Akhavan, & Rossi, 2021; Moriset, 2014). Starting in the early 2000s,
freelancers, entrepreneurs, consultants, and small business owners aimed to recreate the social andcollaborative aspects of office work without the rigidity and hierarchies associated with corporate life
(Mariotti et al., 2017). Initially cafes, and to a lesser extent, libraries and public spaces in hotels,offered a combination of atmosphere and infrastructure (particularly free wireless internet) that
attracted those interested in alternative working environments (Berbegal-Mirabent, 2021; Bilandzic,
2016; Bilandzic & Foth, 2013; Bizzarri, 2014; Di Marino et al., 2018; Mariotti et al., 2017).
As the demand for co-working arrangements grew, however, so too did the need for spaces specificallyoutfitted for remote workers. Coffee shops, hotels, and libraries were often unable and/or unwilling tofully support the needs of a diverse and growing remote workforce. Consequently, the market for
dedicated flexible, shared office space quickly matured. Although the world’s first “official,” full-time
flexible office was not established until 2005 (Botsman & Rogers, 2010), by the eve of the COVID19 pandemic, over 2 million people were working in flexible offices in roughly 22,000 places
worldwide (Deskmag, 2023).
While flexible office tenants tend to enjoy a high degree of locational freedom, their motivations forseeking out flexible spaces vary. Many occupants express substantial dissatisfaction with working
from home. Excessive distractions, inadequate space, an inability to separate private life and work
demands, and difficulty with self-motivation are prominent reasons for renting flexible office spaces(Spinuzzi, 2012). Feelings of social isolation while working at home are also a common reason for
renting a flexible office (Gabrielli & Fiorentino, 2022). Not surprisingly then, opportunities forcollaboration and social interactions are key components of flexible offices (Bilandzic, 2016;
Capdevila, 2015; Clifton et al., 2014; Spinuzzi, 2012). Occupants often mention the social atmosphereof a shared workspace as an explicit advantage, and many tenants specifically seek out flexible spaces
with a strong sense of community and collegiality (Waters-Lynch & Potts, 2017).
Beyond these social aspects, flexible offices offer concrete professional advantages. For many tenants,
the chance to make business connections, develop partnerships, get feedback on ideas, and meet andlearn from others in the same field are important qualities (Capdevila, 2015; Mariotti et al., 2017;
Moriset, 2014). Some occupants also note the significance of physical amenities in flexible offices.
These features range from relatively simple luxuries like comfortable desks and chairs to theavailability of conference rooms to meet with clients and high-end technical infrastructure (Spinuzzi,2012).
Spatial location is also a key factor for tenants. Flexible offices are overwhelmingly located in centralcity neighborhoods of large urban areas, specifically the types of vibrant communities that are most
likely to attract young, creative workers (Florida, 2002; Mariotti, Akhavan, & Rossi, 2021; Stam &van de Vrande, 2017; Waters-Lynch & Potts, 2017). These areas, with high levels of activity density,
generally contain substantial agglomeration economies, clusters of innovation, business opportunities,
and chances for knowledge spillovers and knowledge exchange (Mariotti, Akhavan, & Rossi, 2021).
Flexible offices tend to be established in neighborhoods that promote information sharing,collaboration, and both formal and informal interactions—activities that may be less likely to takeplace in more peripheral locales (Engel et al., 2018). Urban core neighborhoods are also advantageousfrom a social perspective: an array of attractive urban amenities like community events, restaurants,
bars, and entertainment facilities are often located within easy walking distance of flexible offices(Akhavan et al., 2019; Hölzel et al., 2022), helping to promote intra-office comradery and supplement
their sense of community.
Perhaps the most important reason for flexible offices’ centralized locations are the accessibility
advantages that they provide (Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2021; Rådman et al., 2022). Transportation
infrastructure—particularly public transit—is generally designed to funnel users toward a denselypopulated urban core (Coulombel, 2018; Kilani et al., 2010). Centralized locations near transit
infrastructure allow office operators to accommodate a spatially diverse population of renters (andpotential renters) with a relatively high degree of efficiency (Stam & van de Vrande, 2017). In addition
to maximizing access for occupants, center-city locations also expand the pool of potential flexible
office collaborators. Easy access via public transit helps to ensure that renters’ clients and colleagues
can easily reach flexible spaces for meetings and consultations. The centralized geography of flexible
offices can not only facilitate connections at the metropolitan-area level, but also promote exchanges
at the regional and international scale. Locations with direct rail access to airports or other major cities
provide a foothold for non-local and foreign workers who might otherwise struggle to obtain officespace via the traditional real estate market (Capdevila, 2015).
Despite the clear advantages that flexible offices and their occupants draw from being located in dense
urban neighborhoods, there are benefits to spatial diffusion. Tenants regularly cite “close to home” asone of their primary reasons for choosing a given flexible office space (Clifton & Reuschke, 2022;
Spinuzzi, 2012). Furthermore, while urban amenities such as bars, restaurants, and entertainment
options are clearly draws for occupants of shared offices, the access to more mundane destinations

such as supermarkets, day care, schools, and medical facilities—destinations which are less likely to
be concentrated in city centers—are also important for renters (Spinuzzi, 2012).
The changes in working style brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic have important implications
for both owners and tenants of flexible offices. Occupancy of flexible offices dropped dramaticallyduring early 2020, and concerns about open plans, sanitization, and the difficulties of social distancing
in flexible spaces led to fears about the future of the industry (Berbegal-Mirabent, 2021; Cabral & vanWinden, 2022; Mariotti, Akhavan, & Di Matteo, 2021). As time passed, however, the potential offlexible spaces to serve a “new normal” style of work became apparent. Co-working industry reportssuggest that, given the rapid shift to remote work and the acceptance of more flexible working styles,
both the number flexible offices and the number of tenants using these spaces could double their preCOVID levels by 2024 (Cabral & van Winden, 2022; Coworking Resources, 2020).
The ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic has affected (and will affect) the spatial demand forflexible office space is of particular significance. On one hand, the rapid normalization of remote andhybrid work may accelerate demand for less centralized flexible offices. While growing in popularity
during the first two decades of the 21st century, remote work and telecommuting was hardly awidespread phenomenon at the onset of the pandemic (Bloom et al., 2015; Mateyka et al., 2012;
Oettinger, 2011). COVID-19 protocols hastened the exposure of the labor force—particularly whitecollar workers—to working outside of a traditional office setting for the first time (Okubo, 2022;
Ozimek, 2020). Because many of these workers live in peripheral, suburban locations, decentralized
flexible offices may be an attractive option for those who hope to minimize their commute but alsoprefer not to work from home (Hölzel et al., 2022; Mariotti, Akhavan, & Rossi, 2021). In this vein,
evidence from the U.S. suggests that commercial real estate demand shifted away from central
business districts toward suburban areas during the pandemic, with the most dramatic shifts in demandoccurring in large metropolitan areas (Ramani & Bloom, 2021).
Somewhat counterintuitively, however, the weakening demand for urban real estate may actuallypromote further centralization of flexible office spaces (Delventhal et al., 2022). Companies with large
footprints in central business districts have been saddled with excess office space as work-from-homeand hybrid work has become the norm (Fiorentino et al., 2022; Hensher et al., 2023; Naor et al., 2021).
In this context, flexible offices could provide a physical space not only for freelancers and other typicaloccupants of flexible spaces, but also for more traditional employers seeking cheaper and shorter-termleases (Fiorentino et al., 2022; Fiorentino & Livingstone, 2021). Furthermore, while hybrid work
policies are generally popular among employees (Beck & Hensher, 2021; Hensher & Beck, 2023), alack of dedicated workspace is a strong determinant of dissatisfaction with at-home work (de Klerk etal., 2021). Consequently, demand for flexible offices may be strongest in dense urban areas—places
where the cost of housing, and thus the cost of an at-home workspace, is most prohibitive (Gabrielli& Fiorentino, 2022). Other research suggests that, while hybrid styles of work are likely to become
increasingly common, the need for in-person contact and interaction has not diminished (Florida et al.,2021). In this context, centrally located, geographically efficient meeting places will likely continue
to play an important role for a range of business enterprises.

3. STUDY AREA, DATA, AND METHODOLOGY
Our research focuses on the spatial changes in flexible office spaces in the Tokyo metropolitan area.
To do so, we first provide an overview of the spatial layout of the region. Unlike “traditional”
monocentric cities, it is somewhat difficult to pinpoint a single dominant center of economic activity
in the Tokyo metropolitan area. The 34.5km Yamanote Line forms a loop around what might beroughly considered the metropolitan area’s urban core. The most intense areas of economic
concentration are centered around several terminal train stations at intervals along the line. Figure 1
shows the location of six primary termini—Shinjuku, Shibuya, Shinagawa, Tokyo, Ueno, andIkebukuro—and Figure 2 provides an overview of daily ridership for each station for 2019 and 2020
(the most recent data available at the time of analysis). Intense land use around these hubs has createdlarge, mixed-land-use zones that, if located smaller urban agglomerations, could easily qualify as
stand-alone central business districts.

Figure 1: Tokyo’s major terminal stations

Figure 2: Daily ridership at Tokyo’s major terminal stations
Despite not being monocentric in a traditional sense, Tokyo is a highly centralized city. An
overwhelming proportion of economic activity in the metropolitan area occurs both in and around the
major stations mentioned above, as well as within the areas bounded by the Yamanote Line. The ratioof daytime and nighttime population from the 2020 national census provides an overview
concentration. Figure 3 shows a high degree of daily inflows into Tokyo Prefecture and heavy daily
outflows from Kanagawa, Chiba, and Saitama, the three prefectures closest to Tokyo’s urban core.

Figure 3: Day/night population ratios, by Prefecture
Because our primary research focus is on the spatial evolution of flexible offices in the Tokyo
metropolitan area, we must establish a metric by which geographical change can be evaluated. To thisend, we create a simple and straightforward three-level classification system for the over 300 citylevel jurisdictions in the metropolitan area. We define Tokyo’s Central Business District (CBD) as thefive wards with the highest concentration of businesses and the highest inflow of commuters in thearea: Minato, Shinjuku, Shibuya, Chuo, and Chiyoda Wards. The remaining 18 city-level wards ofTokyo Prefecture are then defined as Urban Residential Areas (URAs). Surrounding jurisdictions—those in Tokyo Prefecture but not inside the 23-ward area, and jurisdictions in the adjacent prefecturesof Chiba, Kanagawa, and Saitama—are defined as Suburban Areas (SAs). Figure 4 shows thegeographical location of the three categories.

Figure 4: Geographical classifications in the Tokyo metropolitan area
While this classification system is to some degree based on both convenience and simple jurisdictional
geography, a more refined look at the day/night population ratios presented above confirm the validityof these categories. As Figure 5 shows, the CBD is marked by heavy commute flows, with the
population swelling by over a factor of five during the daytime. SAs, by contrast, have by far thelowest day/night population ratio, suggesting relatively low levels of employment concentration andlarge outflows of commuters. Finally, the average day/night population ratio of URAs is slightly overone, highlighting a relatively balanced mix of employment density and residential concentration.

Figure 5: Day/night population ratios, by location classification
Figures 6a and 6b provide a closer look at population flows by classification level. The five wards thatcomprise the CBD are by far the largest receivers of population, with all of the CBD wards at least
doubling in population during the day. URAs are also well represented as population receivers, withfive URA wards growing in population by at least 20% during the day. Some suburban jurisdictions—particularly those in major urban sub-centers like Yokohama, Kawasaki, Chiba City, and Saitama
City—also receive an inflow of population. Finally, jurisdictions with the highest outflow of
population are almost exclusively SA areas (with the exception of Nerima Ward, a URA).

Figure 6a: Inflows and outflows by jurisdiction (heaviest inflow jurisdictions)Figure 6b: Inflows and outflows by jurisdiction (heaviest outflow jurisdictions)
To evaluate changes in the spatial location of flexible offices, we measure office openings by year ineach of the three geographical classifications. Data on office openings come from the Xymax
corporation, a real estate and property management company headquartered in Tokyo. Xymax
compiles a yearly census of flexible offices in Japan, detailing the location, size, opening date, andmaximum occupancy of each establishment. The most recent census was conducted from October toDecember of 2022.
Given the fluid nature of the real estate market and possibility of incomplete listings by flexible office
operators, our data, while wide-ranging, fall somewhat short of being comprehensive. Additionally,
the exact opening date for several flexible office spaces in the database could not be obtained. In thesecases, we define the opening date for a given space as the first year in which the space is included in
the flexible office census. While the incomplete nature of the data is undoubtedly a limitation, there isno indication that there is a geographical component associated with unlisted locations or locations
with missing opening dates. Thus, while our data may be incomplete, our conclusions with regard to
spatial changes in flexible offices should be largely unbiased.

4. FINDINGS
Early growth in flexible spaces reflects Tokyo’s heavy centralized employment distribution as well as
the tendency for flexible offices to cluster in city centers. Prior to 2015, growth in flexible offices wasrelatively modest, with no more than 8 flexible office locations opening per year until 2013, when 18
locations were established, followed by 32 locations in 2014 and 28 in 2015. Like most major cities
around the world, the vast majority of these flexible offices were located in Tokyo’s urban core: 62.4%
were established in the CBD, with 26.1% in URAs and just 11.5% in SAs. Figure 7 shows thepercentage of flexible office spaces opening in each year by their spatial location.

Figure 7: Percent of flexible offices opening by location
In the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an acceleration in the number of flexible
spaces opening. Eighty-three locations opened in 2016, 111 in 2017, 135 in 2018, and 294 in 2019.
This growth in the flexible office market was also marked by a modest spatial expansion: between
2016 and 2019, approximately 20% or more of newly opened spaces were in SAs.
In contrast to the steady but moderate growth prior to 2020, flexible office space openings spiked
during the COVID-19 era. In 2020, 326 flexible offices opened, followed by 553 in 2021, and 960 in
2022. In addition to this notable growth in the volume of flexible offices, there was also a marked
expansion of flexible spaces into URAs and SAs is following the onset of COVID-19. In both 2021
and 2022, nearly two-thirds of new flexible offices opened outside of the CBD. Figure 8 represents
this expansion visually.

Figure 8: Flexible office openings by year
Simple logistic regressions confirm a statistically significant association between the onset of the
COVID-19 pandemic and the likelihood of a given flexible office space being opened outside of thecity center. Table 1 shows the results of four models: the dependent variable for models 1 and 2 is adummy variable indicating whether a flexible office was opened in an SA (“1”) versus being opened
in a URA or the CBD (“0”); the dependent variables for models 3 and 4 indicate whether a flexible
office was opened outside of the CBD (either in an SA or a URA) (“1”) or inside the CBD (“0”). A
continuous year variable and a “post COVID” dummy variable are the sole independent variables inall of the models. Models 1 and 3 represent the naïve condition, where the COVID-era association
with the spatial location of newly established flexible offices is assumed to function independently of

the year-to-year trend. Models 2 and 4 interact the continuous year variable with the “post COVID”
dummy variable to capture the combined association between yearly-to-year trends and trends specificto the COVID-19 era.
Table 1: Logistic regressions
Dependent variable:
Likelihood in Suburb(1)(2)

Likelihood outside CBD
(3)
(4)

year

0.143***(0.030)0.074**(0.028)0.521***(0.060)post COVID

0.259(0.174)-726.954*** -0.470(139.589) (0.260)-1,407.905***(195.122)0.360***(0.069)0.697***(0.097)

year * post COVID

0.122*(0.058)Constant-289.569*** -148.726** -1,053.850*** -248.012*(60.945) (56.290) (121.956)(117.077)

Observations
Log Likelihood
Akaike Inf. Crit.

2,628
2,628
2,628
-1,731.537 -1,718.201 -1,545.293
3,469.074 3,444.402 3,096.586

Note:*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p< 0.001

2,628-1,523.730
3,055.459

Positive, statistically significant coefficients on the “year * post COVID” variables in both models 2
and 4 highlight the diffusion of flexible office spaces in SAs and non-CBD jurisdictions. Put simply,
the increase in the likelihood of a flexible office being established in an SA or a URA accelerated
during the COVID era. Figures 9 and 10 below illustrate this diffusion using predicted values derived
from the models above. Simple year-to-year trends suggest a 0.19 probability that a given flexible
office would be located in an SA in 2022; by contrast, with COVID-era trends are also considered in
combination with yearly trends, the probability of a SA location rises to 0.47. Similarly, assuming acontinuation of pre-COVID patterns suggests a 0.48 probability that a given flexible office opening in
2022 would occur outside of the CBD; when incorporating pandemic-era trends, however, theprobability rises to 0.67.

Figure 9: Predicted likelihood a suburban opening (Model 2)

Figure 10: Predicted likelihood of a non-CBD opening (Model 4)

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The conceptual relationship between a rise in remote work and the spatial diffusion in demand forflexible offices is rather clear: as workers have more freedom in where they work, many may choose
to work in suburban areas close to their homes. Flexible office spaces can be well situated to meetthese needs by being located in residential neighborhoods outside of the city center. Against thisbackground, it may be tempting to attribute the spatial diffusion of flexible office spaces in Tokyo
during the COVID-19 era to the growth in remote work during the pandemic.
Before drawing this conclusion, however, it can be instructive to examine spatial trends in flexible
offices prior to the pandemic. Data from Figure 7 above shows slow but steady growth in flexible
office spaces in SAs and URAs during the four years prior to the COVID-19 outbreak (2016-2019). It
is not clear, however, that this suburban growth was a response due to increased demand due to remotework. While data from the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare note growth in the proportion ofcompanies that had instituted a system of remote work from 13.3% in 2016 to 20.2% in 2019, a survey
by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transportation, and Tourism (MLIT) found that the proportionof workers in the Tokyo region who worked remotely remained relatively steady during the same
period (MLIT, 2022). Thus, before the onset of the pandemic, some degree of spatial diffusion
occurred in flexible offices without a substantial shift in the proportion of the population that worked
remotely.
The pandemic, of course, was a catalyst for a large proportion of the population to work remotely forthe first time. MLIT data show that in 2021, 27% of non-self-employed workers engaged in remote
work, compared to 23% in 2020 and just 14.8% in 2019. In the Tokyo metropolitan region, rates ofremote work were higher, reaching 42% of non-self-employed workers in 2021 (MLIT, 2022). Other
research notes lower overall levels of remote work, but similar post-pandemic increases. Okubo (2020),
for example, found only 6% of workers participated in remote work on the eve of the pandemic(January 2020), compared to 11% in March 2020, and 17 percent in July of the same year. The Japan
Productivity Center (2023) noted remote work rates as high as 31.5% in May 2020.
While we are unable to establish any sort of causality regarding this relationship, circumstantial
evidence does suggest that, unlike the pre-pandemic period, a rise in remote work—particularly thechallenges associated with performing remote work at home—was a strong driver of suburban demand
for flexible offices. As remote work surged in 2020, satisfaction with working conditions was low inJapan: in May 2020, two-thirds of workers stated that their productivity had declined due to remote
work, and only 18.8% of workers were “very satisfied” with working remotely (Japan Productivity
Center, 2023). To be sure, the causes for these productivity declines and low levels of satisfaction weremyriad. However, surveys suggest that, in particular, dissatisfaction with the home working
environment was widespread. A lack of adequate facilities and equipment, social isolation, andcommunication difficulties were common complaints among remote workers (Goto & Hamano, 2020;
Japan Productivity Center, 2023; Kitagawa et al., 2021; Umishio et al., 2022). Since their inception,
flexible offices have served as an outlet for workers dissatisfied with their work-from-homeenvironment, and thus were well positioned to respond to this expanded customer base when the
pandemic hit.
However, a willingness to expand the spatial footprint of flexible office locations was essential to
growth. Despite the aforementioned frustration with many aspects of work-from-home, many remoteworkers expressed a high degree of satisfaction regarding their reduced commute burden (Goto &Hamano, 2020). Given the centralized nature of the Tokyo area and the heavy concentration of flexible
offices in the CBD during the pre-COVID era, new remote workers in suburban regions were likely
underserved in terms of flexible office options at the onset of the pandemic. This suggests the spatial
expansion of flexible offices following the onset of the pandemic was, at least in part, a response to a
rapidly expanding customer base in suburban areas.
Despite the spatial diffusion and rapid increase in volume of flexible office spaces during the COVID
era, questions persist regarding future trends. Remote work in Japan remains relatively low comparedto other highly developed economies. A July 2020 survey of workers in eight countries found workers
in Japan were the least likely to participate in remote work (31%). By contrast, 75% of workers in
China, 61% in the U.S., 61% in Italy, and 55% in the U.K. worked remotely (Mori, 2021). Furthermore,
although satisfaction with remote work increased over time among Japanese workers, remote work
rates have declined slightly as the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic has receded (Japan
Productivity Center, 2023). Thus, while the association between the rise of remote work and thedemand for suburban flexible offices in Tokyo is notable, the durability of these alternative work
arrangements will be a key component in shaping the spatial demand for flexible office spaces in the
coming years.

References:
Akhavan, M., Mariotti, I., Astolfi, L., & Canevari, A. (2019). Coworking Spaces and New Social
Relations: A Focus on the Social Streets in Italy. Urban Science, 3(1), Art. 1.
https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3010002
Alexander, A., Smet, A. D., Langstaff, M., & Ravid, D. (2021). What employees are saying about the
future of remote work. McKinsey & Company.
Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Weijs-Perrée, M., Orel, M., Gauger, F., & Pfnür, A. (2021). User preferences
for coworking spaces; a comparison between the Netherlands, Germany and the Czech Republic.
Review of Managerial Science, 15(7), 2025–2048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00414-z
Beck, M. J., & Hensher, D. A. (2021). Insights into Working from Home in Australia in 2020: Positives,
Negatives and the Potential for Future Benefits to Transport and Society [Working Paper].
https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/24765
Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2021). What Do We Know about Co-Working Spaces? Trends and Challenges
Ahead. Sustainability, 13(3), Art. 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031416
Bilandzic, M. (2016). Connected learning in the library as a product of hacking, making, social
diversity

andmessiness.

Interactive

Learning

Environments,

24(1),

158–177.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.825811
Bilandzic, M., & Foth, M. (2013). Libraries as coworking spaces: Understanding user motivations andperceived

barrierstosociallearning.

LibraryHiTech,31(2),

254–273.

https://doi.org/10.1108/07378831311329040
Bizzarri, C. (2014). The Emerging Phenomenon of Coworking. A Redefinition Of Job Market in
Networking Society. In K. Muller, S. Roth, & M. Zak (Eds.), Social Dimension of Innovation.
Linde. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2533911
Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does Working from Home Work? Evidence
from a Chinese Experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 165–218.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption.
Harper Collins.
Cabral, V., & van Winden, W. (2022). The reaction of coworking spaces to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Adynamic

capabilities

perspective.

ServiceBusiness,

16(2),

257–281.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-022-00489-6
Capdevila, I. (2015). Co-Working Spaces And The Localised Dynamics Of Innovation In Barcelona.
International Journal of Innovation Management (Ijim), 19(03), 1–28.
Clifton, N., Fuzi, A., & Loudon, G. (2014). New in-house organizational spaces that support creativity
and innovation: The co-working space. R & D Management Conference, Stuttgart.
Clifton, N., & Reuschke, D. (2022). The diverse coworking landscape and implications for commercial
real estate provision: Lessons from individual preferences and practice. Journal of Property

Investment & Finance, 40(5), 508–523. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPIF-12-2021-0109
Coulombel, N. (2018). Why housing and transport costs should always be considered together: A
monocentric analysis of prudential measures in housing access. Transport Policy, 65, 89–105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.04.011
Coworking Resources. (2020). Global Coworking Growth Study 2020: Market Size & Industry Trends.
https://www.coworkingresources.org/blog/key-figures-coworking-growth
Dahik, A., Lovich, D., Kreafle, C., Bailey, A., Kilmann, J., Kennedy, D., Roongta, P., Schuler, F.,
Tomlin, L., & Wenstrup, J. (2020). What 12000 Employees Have to Say About the Future of
Remote Work. Boston Consulting Group.
de Klerk, J. J., Joubert, M., & Mosca, H. F. (2021). Is working from home the new workplace panacea?
Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic for the future world of work. SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 47(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v47i0.1883
Delventhal, M. J., Kwon, E., & Parkhomenko, A. (2022). How do cities change when we work fromhome? Journal of Urban Economics, 127, 103331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2021.103331
Deskmag.

(2023).

Free

CoworkingStatistics.

Deskmag’s

CoworkingStatistics.

https://coworkingstatistics.com/general-coworking-statistics-free
Di Marino, M., Lilius, J., & Lapintie, K. (2018). New forms of multi-local working: Identifying multilocality in planning as well as public and private organizations’ strategies in the Helsinki region.
European

Planning

Studies,26(10),

2015–2035.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1504896
Engel, J. S., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., & Piqué, J. M. (2018). The renaissance of the city as a cluster ofinnovation. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1532777.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1532777
Fiorentino, S., & Livingstone, N. (2021). Contemporary Coworking in Capital Cities: Evolving
Geographies of Workspace Innovation in London and Rome. In I. Mariotti, S. Di Vita, & M.
Akhavan (Eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development
Trajectories: A Worldwide Investigation (pp. 149–167). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_9
Fiorentino, S., Livingstone, N., McAllister, P., & Cooke, H. (2022). The future of the corporate office?
Emerging trends in the post-Covid city. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society,15. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsac027
Florida, R. L. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure,community and everyday life. Basic Books.
Florida, R. L., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2021). Cities in a post-COVID world. Urban
Studies, 00420980211018072. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980211018072
Gabrielli, L., & Fiorentino, S. (2022). Co-working spaces after COVID-19. The differences between

sharing office spaces in urban cores and peripheral locations. Journal of Property Investment &Finance, 40(5), 445–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPIF-08-2022-196
Goto, M., & Hamano, W. (2020). Trends in Surveys about Teleworking During the COVID-19
Pandemic in Japan. INSS Journal, 27, 252–274.
Hensher, D. A., & Beck, M. J. (2023). Exploring how worthwhile the things that you do in life are
during COVID-19 and links to well-being and working from home. Transportation Research Part
A: Policy and Practice, 168, 103579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.103579
Hensher, D. A., Wei, E., & Beck, M. J. (2023). The impact of COVID-19 and working from home on
the workspace retained at the main location office space and the future use of satellite offices.
Transport Policy, 130, 184–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.11.012
Hölzel, M., Kolsch, K.-H., & de Vries, W. T. (2022). Location of Coworking Spaces (CWSs)
Regarding Vicinity, Land Use and Points of Interest (POIs). Land, 11(3), Art. 3.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land11030354
Japan Productivity Center. (2023). 第 12 回働く人の意識に関する調査：調査結果レポート. 日
本生産性本部.
Kilani, M., Leurent, F., & de Palma, A. (2010). Monocentric City with Discrete Transit Stations.
Transportation Research Record, 2144(1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.3141/2144-05
Kitagawa, R., Kuroda, S., Okudaira, H., & Owan, H. (2021). Working from home and productivity
under the COVID-19 pandemic: Using survey data of four manufacturing firms. PLOS ONE,16(12), e0261761. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261761
Mariotti, I., Akhavan, M., & Di Matteo, D. (2021). The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the
Effects on the Urban Context: Are Pole Areas Gaining? In I. Mariotti, S. Di Vita, & M. Akhavan(Eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories: A
Worldwide

Investigation(pp.

169–194).

SpringerInternational

Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_10
Mariotti, I., Akhavan, M., & Rossi, F. (2021). The preferred location of coworking spaces in Italy: An
empirical investigation in urban and peripheral areas. European Planning Studies, 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1895080
Mariotti, I., Pacchi, C., & Di Vita, S. (2017). Co-working Spaces in Milan: Location Patterns and
Urban Effects. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(3), 47–66.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1311556
Mateyka, P. J., Rapino, M. A., & Landivar, L. C. (2012). Home-Based Workers in the United States:2010. U.S. Department of Commerce.
MLIT. (2022). Telework Population Survey in FY2021『令和３年度のテレワーク人口実態調査』.
https://www.mlit.go.jp/report/press/toshi03_hh_000085.html
Mori, T. (2021). The Coronavirus Pandemic and the Increase of Teleworking in Eight Countries.

Center for Strategic Management and Innovation, Normura Research Institute.
Moriset, B. (2014). Building new places of the creative economy. The rise of coworking spaces. 24.
Naor, M., Pinto, G. D., Hakakian, A. I., & Jacobs, A. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on officespace utilization and real-estate: A case study about teleworking in Israel as new normal. Journalof Facilities Management, 20(1), 32–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-12-2020-0096
Oettinger, G. S. (2011). The Incidence and Wage Consequences of Home-Based Work in the UnitedStates,1980–2000.

Journalof

Human

Resources,46(2),

237–260.

https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.46.2.237
Okubo, T. (2022). Telework in the spread of COVID-19. Information Economics and Policy, 60,
100987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2022.100987
Ozimek, A. (2020). The Future of Remote Work [SSRN Scholarly Paper].
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3638597
Rådman, E., Johansson, E., Bosch-Sijtsema, P., & Raharjo, H. (2022). In search of member needs incoworking spaces. Review of Managerial Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00546-4
Ramani, A., & Bloom, N. (2021). The Donut Effect of Covid-19 on Cities [Working Paper]. National
Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28876
Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working Alone Together: Coworking as Emergent Collaborative Activity. Journalof Business and Technical Communication, 26(4), 399–441.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912444070
Stam, E., & van de Vrande, V. (2017). Solopreneurs and the rise of co-working in the Netherlands.
Entrepreneurial Neighbourhoods, 65–79.
Umishio, W., Kagi, N., Asaoka, R., Hayashi, M., Sawachi, T., & Ueno, T. (2022). Work productivity
in the office and at home during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional analysis of office
workers in Japan. Indoor Air, 32(1), e12913. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12913
Waters-Lynch, J., & Potts, J. (2017). The social economy of coworking spaces: A focal point model ofcoordination. Review of Social Economy, 75(4), 417–433.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2016.1269938