View Single Post
  #132  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2010, 11:19 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.John View Post
As a few people pointed out already it really doesn't make economic sense to build higher than 70-80 floors(one reason... elevator shafts use up too much space and you can't rent space in elevator shafts) just look at cities like NY and HK where the vast majority of skyscrapers (over 95%) are under 70 floors
You can also look at the history of some of the bigger buildings like the Empire State or WTC in NYC. These were built to be impressive and remained partly vacant for a long time. This is even more obvious if you look at places like Dubai - the tallest building in the world is a half-hour drive from empty desert.

I hear stuff like "it's cheaper to build up than out" but this is an oversimplification. A more correct saying would be "optimal height in terms of price per square foot increases as land value increases". This is true but land costs even in downtown Toronto aren't high enough on their own to explain building a 300 m office tower.

The argument of companies wanting to be located in one building may or may not be true but doesn't explain 300 m office towers either. FCP is 2.7 million square feet - I wonder how many floors are taken up by the Bank of Montreal?
Reply With Quote