If anything, the novel coronavirus disease (COVID -19) pandemic has taught us to rethink our lifestyles and question our need to travel to work every day. After all, in the age of internet, zoom meetings and webinars can be virtually conducted and physical distancing is possible. A large nature of work in cities is of tertiary nature, a major part of which can be done from home. This can affect the way offices function and reduce the need for all employees to be physically present every day. Information Technology companies are already contemplating a move of making many of its employees work from home and make this a ‗new normal‘. If more firms follow suit, the need for huge office buildings and central business districts would change. Apartments cannot get bigger at the same rate, and people may not have the space or atmosphere to work from home. This would mean that more people would opt for co-working spaces close to their homes. This could be a game changer, for it would provide the cities to better distribute their activities throughout the spaces and rid themselves of the idea of zoning. Only a handful of professionals are allowed to function from residential zones, including doctors, lawyers, architects, etc. This needs serious rethinking. Many more professions of similar nature that do not disturb surrounding residence and have no requirements of special services should be added to the list. This new work culture would bring associated demand for food joints, cafés, stationary shops, etc.
[Excerpt from „Down to Earth‟ Magazine, Blog authored by Sugeet Grover, August 17, 2020]

Which of the following weakens the author‘s argument that ‗Work from home‘ culture will enable better city planning?

The correct answer is All of the above.

Step-by-step Explanation:

The author argues that adopting a 'Work from Home' (WFH) and co-working culture will lead to better city planning by distributing activities across urban spaces, eliminating rigid zoning, and reducing the demand for concentrated Central Business Districts (CBDs).

To weaken this argument, we need to identify statements that challenge the notion that this new work culture improves or simplifies city planning, or highlight negative consequences associated with it:

1. Development of Co-working spaces will further create chaos in terms of land planning: This directly contradicts the author's claim that co-working spaces will help cities better distribute activities. If co-working spaces actually create spatial chaos and planning issues in residential zones, it weakens the author's argument that WFH improves city planning.

2. City planning is not only about reducing spaces: The author primarily focuses on reducing big office buildings/CBD spaces and redistributing activities. Reminding that city planning involves multi-dimensional infrastructure, transport, services, and zoning regulations beyond just space reduction highlights a critical flaw/limitation in the author's narrow perspective on city planning.

3. Work from home will also reduce the flow of money in the economy: While the author highlights local business growth (food joints, cafés, etc.), a widespread reduction in CBD activity, commercial real estate demand, and traditional transit usage can cause economic downturns in central urban hubs, challenging the overall benefit of this shift on urban economic sustainability.

Since each of these statements presents a valid counterargument or drawback to the author's vision of urban transformation via work-from-home culture, All of the above effectively weaken the author's argument.