Quote:
Originally Posted by brian.odonnell20
Umm I never referred to it as a wasteland or a seperate deal from the waterfront, you put words in people's mouths like it's your job lol. I'm not really biased, I'm just looking at what has and hasn't worked in history. Building from demand has worked, and building to create demand is very risky and for the most part hasn't worked. It just so happens that developed countries use the former strategy more and developing countries moreso use the latter.
I can, contrary to your inane hostility, fathom the idea that this could be sound. As I said before, this strategy can work at much smaller scales. That being said, you would have to either crazy or just ignorant to think that the risk of this isn't immense. You really need to stop pretending like an expert when it comes to something that has never been done before.
Obviously, this isn't the same deal as Dubai, although there are more than enough similarities to warrant a comparison. Kings blowing their oil money to fund speculative development would be the main connecting point tho.
And Blacktrojan, that's what they said in Dubai and China; their doors are open econimically to the world so let the leasing storm begin !!!!! Oh wait..
I can't wait for the oil to run out in this region so people can stop thinking that it is worth anything besides that.
|
My overall point was that all development is speculative...it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say that because one project is in NYC, that makes it less speculative. What we would be talking about in that case, is risk, which isn't the same thing, right (e.g. the Chicago Spire wasn't a very risky development, in terms of the expected returns and cost to build it - it would have had to completely bomb for them to not be able to eek out a modest profit - , but it was highly speculative)?
That being said, the development scheme at hand is going forward with the premise that enough residents and commercial interests will want to be in new, modern space near the airport (that's the speculation). The risk is trying to finance (coax) that along by building a 1000m building. That's all I wanted to point out.
Honestly. I'm not some booster or anything. Yes, the [public] investment company that's financing the scheme is headed by a prince, but I don't particularly find why that all of a sudden means it's any less a responsible project (in the same way that people don't take a Trump development less seriously because he's a rich billionaire). Is it possible to fail (again, it's speculation - as is all development - so it very well could), though it's obvious that the risks are such that it enough of the parties involved have deemed it worthwhile to attempt [and spend money on] it.
All I wanted to point out is they've done due diligence and have an end-game. This isn't just a case of someone waking up one day and deciding they want to build 1000m skyscraper, which - again - is the constant refrain of this thread. You have to be willfully blind to go on as if the vast majority of comments on this haven't been of the "it's in the middle of nowhere" variety.
This entire thread smacks of some kind of paternalistic, consternation that the project just doesn't make any sense (despite the fact that there are dozens upon dozens of examples of this developmental model everywhere). The difference in this case is a peculiar emphasis upon height. I simply wanted to point out that that's irrelevant - from the perspective of development - as the end game is to simply lease the space (i.e. it's the amount of space, rather than how it's [generally] configured, that matters).
My comment was neither inane nor was it hostile. I was pointing out that a simple google search was enough to figure out where the project is in relation to the city, that the tower is part of the total waterfront district (not a white elephant), and that it is not going up with a "dearth of infrastructure" (they're not idiots).
No one here is saying that this would be going up at all were it not for investment from the Kingdom Group (they put their name on the tower, for crying out loud). That, however, is not the point at hand. The ability to finance the tower and the ability to fill it are two separate things. I still maintain that the argument that somehow, because the wealth is based in oil, this development is any less valid is hogwash.
Prev
Linear Mode
