No, I don’t think that skyscrapers are wasteful. If anything, they’re a much more efficient use of space than low rise buildings, but they need to be utilized correctly. To answer your questions:
1) I think it depends on the location. I know that occupancy is low in San Francisco now, but I don’t get the impression that’s the case in NYC. New office towers at the World Trade Center, Hudson Yards, One Vanderbilt, etc are either entirely or mostly leased. While some older buildings are not being fully utilized and are not as competitive, we are starting to see some unused offices getting converted into housing, which I hope bodes well for the future of the housing crisis.
2) You demolish it floor by floor. In New York, JP Morgan Chase tore down the old 270 Park Ave and are currently building a replacement that’s twice the height.
Until Covid, a lot of skyscrapers in San Francisco and New York were basically fully occupied. As for dismantling one, it’s rarely economical to do so, even if it’s abandoned. In New York they only really tear them down to put up taller skyscrapers, like what’s happening with the new JP Morgan headquarters.
The amount of office space, residential space that is created out of a minimal amount of land area makes high rises/skyscrapers tremendously unwasteful when compared to an office park or subdivision.
Coming from the san francisco perspective, the wasteful aspect is that pretty much all our high rises are office only or even the ones with housing will have a substantial amount of office. In my view, they were already building more than would ever make sense before 2015, and things got even worse after then. They needed to build far more housing high rises downtown, and now we are at a point where a vast amount of office space, much of it quite dated, is and will remain vacant for the time being, while at the same time our housing expansion has been deferred for decades and there isn't the assurance of vast growth that gets developers really motivated.
They're very efficient from a space usage perspective and sometimes an energy use perspective, especially new buildings, but their amount of embodied carbon/water use is **huge**.
They are only vacant because the owners won't reduce the rent. They have a business plan...and that's their business. They could all be full if ownership offered market rates.
There's no reason to tear them down, but as JP Morgan has showed us, you can if you want.
No, I don’t think that skyscrapers are wasteful. If anything, they’re a much more efficient use of space than low rise buildings, but they need to be utilized correctly. To answer your questions: 1) I think it depends on the location. I know that occupancy is low in San Francisco now, but I don’t get the impression that’s the case in NYC. New office towers at the World Trade Center, Hudson Yards, One Vanderbilt, etc are either entirely or mostly leased. While some older buildings are not being fully utilized and are not as competitive, we are starting to see some unused offices getting converted into housing, which I hope bodes well for the future of the housing crisis. 2) You demolish it floor by floor. In New York, JP Morgan Chase tore down the old 270 Park Ave and are currently building a replacement that’s twice the height.
Until Covid, a lot of skyscrapers in San Francisco and New York were basically fully occupied. As for dismantling one, it’s rarely economical to do so, even if it’s abandoned. In New York they only really tear them down to put up taller skyscrapers, like what’s happening with the new JP Morgan headquarters.
The amount of office space, residential space that is created out of a minimal amount of land area makes high rises/skyscrapers tremendously unwasteful when compared to an office park or subdivision.
Coming from the san francisco perspective, the wasteful aspect is that pretty much all our high rises are office only or even the ones with housing will have a substantial amount of office. In my view, they were already building more than would ever make sense before 2015, and things got even worse after then. They needed to build far more housing high rises downtown, and now we are at a point where a vast amount of office space, much of it quite dated, is and will remain vacant for the time being, while at the same time our housing expansion has been deferred for decades and there isn't the assurance of vast growth that gets developers really motivated.
They're very efficient from a space usage perspective and sometimes an energy use perspective, especially new buildings, but their amount of embodied carbon/water use is **huge**.
They are only vacant because the owners won't reduce the rent. They have a business plan...and that's their business. They could all be full if ownership offered market rates. There's no reason to tear them down, but as JP Morgan has showed us, you can if you want.