Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian
There's more to the value of being in a downtown core--and hence the value of land there--than the physical inability to sprawl (as exists in NY or SF). Lawyers want to be near courts for example and techies tend to cluster together for mutual inspiration (which is one reason why the ability to work from home may not be the death of offices). But in cities without industries that feel the need to cluster--and I won't try to catalogue all the reasons myself--there should be no reason not to put up low rise buildings on cheap land in the suburbs rather than expensive tell ones in the core. That pretty much leaves the reason to buiold tall in such places to ego and there's a limited market for expensive office space where ego is the only reason to shell out the extra cost (back to the lawyers--they really like to pay up for fancy offices because they think it gives the clients confidence, hence it does have an economic motive).
|
Urban cores can make it much easier for companies to attract staff. Companies are often very clear about this when they relocate. It's particularly important with younger staff. The caveat is that this applies only (or mostly) to healthy urban cores.
Being close to transit is a huge factor, and related to the ability to attract workers. It's also a big part of basic tower economics. You can build far less parking in an urban core. If you're two blocks from a train station you'll do better than if you're six blocks or up a hill. Land might be in the four figures per square foot, but you can use much less of it.
Views are another factor, particularly in a scenic city.
The ability to support mixed-use is still another factor. Mixed-use has its own challenges, but you can find win-wins, and each component is a smaller bet. This is easier in a city where office, hotel, housing, and retail are all strong.