Rantings and tirades of a frustrated economist.
I remember when the monstrosity went up: many old neighborhoods and hundreds of small businesses destroyed by eminent domain. All for the sake of the massive ego of Robert Moses.
Mark Thornton (and possibly others) use skyscrapers, particularly record-setting ones as bubble indicators:http://mises.org/daily/3038
Not real news to those of us who don't buy the government's series of events on 9/11. The other irony is that it may have not been built either if all those money losing public transport projects had remained in private hands. Funny how the private sector did just fine running the subway system profitably until the government came in and seized it.
Whats wrong with them? They are from the time when US penis was hards, now it all obama and bananas ;)
That is the Gov for you! Building something that will not make money for them as it stays empty!I could just imagine how much its going to cost to rent some office space there now!What can i say the NY Gov Mafia at work!
Working in RE I actually really like skyscrapers, but there is definitely diminishing returns after a certain height threshold is reached so I can't say I'm surprised. I have a theory that in terms of office towers that you either are going to pick a space because you want to give off an image, ego, or cost effectiveness, prudence. This means that I would postulate that in a building that isn't fully leased, that you will find more units leased at the top and bottom than you would in the middle.
I seem to remember reading somewhere years ago ( it may have been in "Parkinson's Law") that vibrant innovative start ups operate out of trailers. As soon as the marble temple goes up at corporate headquarters, one knows that the company is headed down.
Post a Comment