4 ms·
Perhaps I should have given a different example, but I don't think that your objection affects the substance of what I wrote. Sure, the projects are totally dif
by three14 10y ago
Perhaps I should have given a different example, but I don't think that your objection affects the substance of what I wrote. Sure, the projects are totally different. Still, an extremely advanced building at the time cost a tiny fraction of what an extremely advanced building costs now, and the tenants still just get office space. It is not clear that we get a steady improvement in productivity across all areas of the economy.
- icebraining 10y agoI think you've chosen a bad example, because the One WTC is a special case, with all the legacy it represents. The Bank of America Tower, for example, has about the same floor space as the Empire State Building, and "is considered a worldwide model for green architecture in skyscrapers", yet cost $1B.
- three14 10y agoOK, so use your example. The Empire State Building was 2/3 the price, took 1/3 the time, and hilariously, from Wikipedia: "The magazine Time found out in August 2013 that the Bank of America Tower used twice as much energy overall as the Empire State Building did, due to the large energy usage in the Bank of America Tower and the comparatively small occupancy rate of the Empire State Building." Even if you want to throw in the $120 million for fixing the Empire State Building's energy efficiency in 2009, it still doesn't say great things for modern productivity.