I see your point, but if an office tower is vacant and will never again be occupied, then are the costs to rehab really more than razing the building and starting over?
Admittedly, I’m not that familiar with the code requirements.
are the costs to rehab really more than razing the building and starting over?
I didn’t mean to imply that; of course starting from something is going be cheaper than doing it from scratch, but in the case of retrofitting office-buildings to apartments, the savings could maybe amount to ~20%, optimistically. Now, savings of 20% isn’t anything to scoff at, but when you’re talking about a scyscraper (which, in New York) that costs upwards of 20-million USD per floor, is a final savings of 20% on the final bill worth it, for a developer, when you could raze the building and make new everything that you can price higher? Keep in mind in this scenario the reused building is supposed to house “affordable” apartments, meaning yes the developer saves 20% on the final bill, but they also lose out on lower rents.
I see your point, but if an office tower is vacant and will never again be occupied, then are the costs to rehab really more than razing the building and starting over?
Admittedly, I’m not that familiar with the code requirements.
I didn’t mean to imply that; of course starting from something is going be cheaper than doing it from scratch, but in the case of retrofitting office-buildings to apartments, the savings could maybe amount to ~20%, optimistically. Now, savings of 20% isn’t anything to scoff at, but when you’re talking about a scyscraper (which, in New York) that costs upwards of 20-million USD per floor, is a final savings of 20% on the final bill worth it, for a developer, when you could raze the building and make new everything that you can price higher? Keep in mind in this scenario the reused building is supposed to house “affordable” apartments, meaning yes the developer saves 20% on the final bill, but they also lose out on lower rents.
You need to incentivise this.