Many cities have lopsided employment distributions: the center of business is tied to one side of the city, while residences sprawl out in the other direction. This means average distances to employment are further than they would be in a symmetric city – increasing commute times. In this paper, I investigate the costs of such lopsidedness, its impact on inequality and possible policy responses. Calibrating a quantitative urban model to Sydney, I show that a counterfactual city with a more centralised employment hub has 11% higher output and 2.5% higher worker welfare, with higher gains for graduates. I then investigate the effects of a government policy to try to directly alter the spatial distribution of employment: the 2018-2022 shift of over 10,000 government jobs to a more central location in Sydney. Using a synthetic control method, I find that land values surrounding the new offices increased substantially compared to comparable locations. I also find that local approvals for new private office constructions increased by over 1 billion AUD, consistent with space for 7,000 new private workers, though there is insufficient post period data to test whether they have been realised. Using the model to consider general equilibrium effects of the public sector jobs move, I show these significant local effects are consistent with small effects for the city as a whole: total output falls slightly along with welfare of high skill workers due to decentralisation out of the CBD, but welfare of low skill workers marginally increases.