4 ms·

The numbers don't make sense to me. LA at the top at around 445,000 sqft per year is equivalent to a gross floor area given by a square of sides 667 feet, or ~6

by inasio 4y ago

The numbers don't make sense to me. LA at the top at around 445,000 sqft per year is equivalent to a gross floor area given by a square of sides 667 feet, or ~66 meters. It's probably off by like three orders of magnitude

inconceivable 4y ago
lol do you actually live in LA to witness the towers going up everywhere over the last 10-15 years? also, 3 orders of magnitude is 100% -> 10% -> 1% -> .1% of reported numbers.
- inasio 4y ago
  The other way around, to me this means that the total floor space is the size of a 66 meter square, which is ridiculously small. I think it must have been at least 1000X times that
  - jeeeb 4y ago
    I assume the numbers are normalised for the number of buildings, otherwise the comparison would be meaningless.
zamadatix 4y ago
"Average construction speed of skyscrapers completed in 2000 and 2020, in square feet per year" While a bit unclear I take that to mean it's presenting the construction speed of individual skyscrapers and giving the measurements in square feet per year then averaging those rates by presented location. In this measurement a 200x200 square foot floor building with 20 stories would be 800k square feet, if it took 4 years to complete that would factor in as 200k/square feet per year in the city average, not as +200k/square feet per year to the bar. Looking at the graphs it seems a building with 4,000,000 square feet doesn't take much longer than a building with 400,000 square feet: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6a900dbe-165e-4c5b-ba38-6a9768fdd27b_509x322.png https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr... and there are a lot more smaller ones to weigh down the speed.
- fragsworth 4y ago
  Yes, this is what it is. I'm also not surprised that L.A. is at the top, as it is both: 1) Vast, with large roads, and lots of vendors competing to sell building materials. 2) Expensive to rent. Hurry the hell up and finish. Gotta rent it out now.

by inasio 4y ago

inconceivable 4y ago

lol do you actually live in LA to witness the towers going up everywhere over the last 10-15 years? also, 3 orders of magnitude is 100% -> 10% -> 1% -> .1% of reported numbers.

inasio 4y ago
The other way around, to me this means that the total floor space is the size of a 66 meter square, which is ridiculously small. I think it must have been at least 1000X times that
- jeeeb 4y ago
  I assume the numbers are normalised for the number of buildings, otherwise the comparison would be meaningless.

zamadatix 4y ago

"Average construction speed of skyscrapers completed in 2000 and 2020, in square feet per year" While a bit unclear I take that to mean it's presenting the construction speed of individual skyscrapers and giving the measurements in square feet per year then averaging those rates by presented location. In this measurement a 200x200 square foot floor building with 20 stories would be 800k square feet, if it took 4 years to complete that would factor in as 200k/square feet per year in the city average, not as +200k/square feet per year to the bar. Looking at the graphs it seems a building with 4,000,000 square feet doesn't take much longer than a building with 400,000 square feet: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6a900dbe-165e-4c5b-ba38-6a9768fdd27b_509x322.png https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_pr... and there are a lot more smaller ones to weigh down the speed.

fragsworth 4y ago
Yes, this is what it is. I'm also not surprised that L.A. is at the top, as it is both: 1) Vast, with large roads, and lots of vendors competing to sell building materials. 2) Expensive to rent. Hurry the hell up and finish. Gotta rent it out now.