Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown
It sure seems deceptive to me. People have a pretty good understanding of what constitutes a floor in a building.
|
I guess this is what you don't understand.
What people think of skyscrapers in terms of height is relative to floors (or "stories" if you like). Someone
may be able to tell you, for example, that the Empire State or the World Trade towers had 100 floors or more. What almost
no one short of the skyscraper-nerd brigade will tell you is that the Empire State is a 1,250 ft building, or that the Twin Towers were 1,368 and 1,362 ft. Someone
may be able to tell you that the GE building is 70 stories. Ask them how tall it is in terms of
feet (or meters, it hardly matters), and you'll get a blank stare.
Around here, we may throw around height figures casually, but most people not only don't care about such things, they wouldn't keep those figures in their heads anyway. You can tell someone that they will be overlooking a city from a vantage point of 800 ft, and they may find it acceptable. Tell them they'll be 70 stories up in the sky, and they immediately have a better sense of how high they will be. That's just the way it is. The most accessible form of identifiable height is by the number of floors (or stories).
Now if you as a developer know this, and the primary force driving such buildings is the upper floor height factor, you'd be foolish not to market the buildings that way. Trying to sell someone on 800, 900, or even 1,000 ft is nowhere near the same as 80, 90, or 100 floors. An apartment on the 62nd floor at 1,000 ft is not as impressive as one on the 90th floor at 900 ft. Think about it. These developers have, they know what they are doing.
There's nothing deceptive about it as long as the height is there to back it up. In other words, you couldn't sell a unit at 500 ft as the 90th floor. Now
that would be wrong.