4 ms·

>If you can buy the building cheap enough, conventional wisdom can be thrown out the window. Maybe, but you can't throw out the building codes. A warehouse, ce

>If you can buy the building cheap enough, conventional wisdom can be thrown out the window. Maybe, but you can't throw out the building codes. A warehouse, certainly, can be retrofit. But office towers? Almost certainly not. Elevators are not sized for residential; electrical service not sized for residential loads (dishwasher/dryer/microwaves/ovens); HVAC not sized for residential heat loads (same as above); metering requirements means the existing electrical rooms are not large enough (they are never large enough); plumbing and sewer are not sized for residential. It goes on and on. Even if you got the building for free, you'd still want to run the numbers to see if it's still cheaper to demolish and build again. It's not entirely clear whether it is or is not. It can be done if you make huge, expansive apartments, which has to be read as "really expensive". There aren't that many really rich people who can drop 5 figures per month for an apartment.

bobthepanda 2y ago
it's also possible for offices to be doing poorly but also still make more money than as a residential property. while vacancy rates are high, those vacancies are spread around, so some people are still renting in these office buildings. if you want to redevelop them you have to get the existing tenants out.
rovolo 2y ago
I understand electrical and plumbing, but why does the HVAC need to be bigger/smaller?
- MrLeap 2y ago
  Just conjecturing, but I assume an apartment contains more ovens than an office. Would probably make it take more cooling?
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    They also contain lot less people. Average person generates 70-100W at rest. Add that to what ever screens, computers, extra lighting. And it is not that big difference in load.
- deltarholamda 2y ago
  HVAC has to account for the BTUs produced by all equipment. An office might have one or two refrigerators per floor, maybe a dishwasher. Apartments will have one in every apartment. Ditto for ovens, dryers. Even computers and TVs.
  - ArchitectAnon 2y ago
    Offices have a lot more people per m² all of them using computer equipment continuously for 7hrs/day so in my experience they tend to have considerably higher cooling loads. I know from experience that a typical high rise office building in London, UK will have no heating requirement for most of the year; it is in cooling mode most of the time.
    - deltarholamda 2y ago
      You have to account for peak usage, not median. At 7AM and 6PM, everybody has their stove or ovens going to make dinner, plus the washing machines and dryers. Building codes and practices are different for commercial and residential for good reasons.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
underlipton 2y ago
I've never seen a high-rise office elevator bank smaller than a residential one. Dishwashers are negligible; microwaves are a souped-up gaming PC and run a lot less; ovens and dryers are more of a concern, but as with HVAC, I'd like proof that an office's draw (with all its attendant equipment) is more than the what you'd have with a dozen (tops) condos. Plumbing and sewer are the only legitimate concerns I've seen yet. And yet: will, way. >you'd still want to run the numbers to see if it's still cheaper to demolish and build again These numbers never include externalities like the carbon and refuse footprint of demolishing and rebuilding. How many million metric tons of steel and concrete do we need to dispose of if this becomes a de-facto national policy?
- deltarholamda 2y ago
  Most non-mechanical equipment electric loads in standard office buildings are receptacles. This is small. Per NEC, I think it's counted as 180VA/receptacle. So the 208/120V panels are sized for that. Also, the lighting is probably 277V in an office. This precludes any owner-installed fixtures, the super has to do all of that. Moving it to 120V means more transformers, for which there isn't room without sacrificing rentable space. HVAC, assuming CW/HW to VAV boxes, has the pumps sized for the number. Which may be less or more in residential, depending. It also precludes (or at least makes very difficult) the ability to meter HVAC usage per apartment. The point isn't that is is impossible. It's just expensive. That expense has to be borne by somebody.
  - tacocataco 2y ago
    I vote for the construction companies to be held liable. That way any future office buildings they construct will be more easily converted to housing. Tearing down good buildings and building new is wasteful and causes more pollution then repurposing. These for profit corporations externalized these costs upon us repressing. Planning for those who plan to use planned obsolescence to generate a profit.
    - novariation 2y ago
      I don't understand your point: Construction companies build what they were told to build by developers, and developers decide to build stuff by guessing the balance between financial viability and usefulness to users. In the past there was a need for office space, and there was specifically a need for buildings which are cost optimized for office work. So the developers designed their plans and investment that way, and the construction companies built them. What is your idea? That it shouldn't be possible to build something that's expensive to convert to residential housing ? Then that'll just make all other types of buildings more expensive, so you'll hurt manufacturing, businesses, public institutions, etc. If you want the construction companies to pay for it, they'll just not build it.
skinner927 2y ago
In any modern building there should be raceways where new electric can be run vertically and then through hallow drywall walls. Very easy. The big problem will be plumbing. While you can get wall mounted toilets, I don’t think you can avoid having to trench each shower drain into the existing, likely concrete, floor.

bobthepanda 2y ago

it's also possible for offices to be doing poorly but also still make more money than as a residential property. while vacancy rates are high, those vacancies are spread around, so some people are still renting in these office buildings. if you want to redevelop them you have to get the existing tenants out.

rovolo 2y ago

I understand electrical and plumbing, but why does the HVAC need to be bigger/smaller?

MrLeap 2y ago
Just conjecturing, but I assume an apartment contains more ovens than an office. Would probably make it take more cooling?
- Ekaros 2y ago
  They also contain lot less people. Average person generates 70-100W at rest. Add that to what ever screens, computers, extra lighting. And it is not that big difference in load.
deltarholamda 2y ago
HVAC has to account for the BTUs produced by all equipment. An office might have one or two refrigerators per floor, maybe a dishwasher. Apartments will have one in every apartment. Ditto for ovens, dryers. Even computers and TVs.
- ArchitectAnon 2y ago
  Offices have a lot more people per m² all of them using computer equipment continuously for 7hrs/day so in my experience they tend to have considerably higher cooling loads. I know from experience that a typical high rise office building in London, UK will have no heating requirement for most of the year; it is in cooling mode most of the time.
  - deltarholamda 2y ago
    You have to account for peak usage, not median. At 7AM and 6PM, everybody has their stove or ovens going to make dinner, plus the washing machines and dryers. Building codes and practices are different for commercial and residential for good reasons.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

underlipton 2y ago

I've never seen a high-rise office elevator bank smaller than a residential one. Dishwashers are negligible; microwaves are a souped-up gaming PC and run a lot less; ovens and dryers are more of a concern, but as with HVAC, I'd like proof that an office's draw (with all its attendant equipment) is more than the what you'd have with a dozen (tops) condos. Plumbing and sewer are the only legitimate concerns I've seen yet. And yet: will, way. >you'd still want to run the numbers to see if it's still cheaper to demolish and build again These numbers never include externalities like the carbon and refuse footprint of demolishing and rebuilding. How many million metric tons of steel and concrete do we need to dispose of if this becomes a de-facto national policy?

deltarholamda 2y ago
Most non-mechanical equipment electric loads in standard office buildings are receptacles. This is small. Per NEC, I think it's counted as 180VA/receptacle. So the 208/120V panels are sized for that. Also, the lighting is probably 277V in an office. This precludes any owner-installed fixtures, the super has to do all of that. Moving it to 120V means more transformers, for which there isn't room without sacrificing rentable space. HVAC, assuming CW/HW to VAV boxes, has the pumps sized for the number. Which may be less or more in residential, depending. It also precludes (or at least makes very difficult) the ability to meter HVAC usage per apartment. The point isn't that is is impossible. It's just expensive. That expense has to be borne by somebody.
- tacocataco 2y ago
  I vote for the construction companies to be held liable. That way any future office buildings they construct will be more easily converted to housing. Tearing down good buildings and building new is wasteful and causes more pollution then repurposing. These for profit corporations externalized these costs upon us repressing. Planning for those who plan to use planned obsolescence to generate a profit.
  - novariation 2y ago
    I don't understand your point: Construction companies build what they were told to build by developers, and developers decide to build stuff by guessing the balance between financial viability and usefulness to users. In the past there was a need for office space, and there was specifically a need for buildings which are cost optimized for office work. So the developers designed their plans and investment that way, and the construction companies built them. What is your idea? That it shouldn't be possible to build something that's expensive to convert to residential housing ? Then that'll just make all other types of buildings more expensive, so you'll hurt manufacturing, businesses, public institutions, etc. If you want the construction companies to pay for it, they'll just not build it.

skinner927 2y ago

In any modern building there should be raceways where new electric can be run vertically and then through hallow drywall walls. Very easy. The big problem will be plumbing. While you can get wall mounted toilets, I don’t think you can avoid having to trench each shower drain into the existing, likely concrete, floor.