Who's willing to go with my prediction that we see two 50's-60's on this site instead of one 50 or 60 storey tower? Financing would be easier, they'd sell like hotcakes at market rates and the size of the site could easily support it.
someone in the development industry should be able to make a good guess at what size this project needs to be in order to make money. Considering the land alone is worth ~$55M, I doubt that 40 floors would be profitable.
I don't know if you can make money with a 75 storey tower.
If the land sold for $55 million and land usually accounts for 10% of the cost of a project, and assumming they would also be looking for 15% profit, we would be looking at $630 million in revenue.
With $630 million and a 75 storey bldg (assuming about a 8,000 sf floorplate) you would need to sell at over $1,000 psf?!
I'm sure someone can do better math on this than me.
I assume a 60 storey tower which sells at $750 psf, but that only generates $360 million? So I don't know what is feasible.
Lest anyone forget, the old proposal is a boring, 3rd rate box by a Nth rate architect - quite a few members on here complaining about context seem to have forgotten that just because it is tall. I think the phrase "quantity over quality" seems rather apt. Where were the cries for a design competition, Jean Nouvel et al. then? Nowhere to be heard.
I was just referring to how there seems to be a double standard on the basis of height and nothing else. At the point I am not really terribly concerned or even convinced that we need a design competition, given the track record of GG (and esp. after X). Whatever it is, I wouldn't be surprised to see a proposal that is superior in every aspect to the Bazis project.