like all regulation it would distort the market with older space becoming more preferable for the larger floorplates, reducing new construction and limiting more affordable spaces within the core. Tenants would choose to stick in their older buildings and renovate it instead of jumping off to new product where they need twice the number of floors to hold their footprint.
I agree, it would have that effect.
Pretending any regulation comes for free is a fallacy and needs a greater amount of inclusion in the discourse.
Who was pretending that? I certainly wasn't. In fact, I expressly identified the consequence that grandfathered space would then go for a premium.
This building is just a particularly large offender as it is narrower and wider than typical new office blocks. Other projects are closer to "square" which make the mass not as offending.
You really must make note that I didn't necessarily argue for the change in question, I only illustrated that it was possible; and that the market would not collapse if it was done.
Of course all regulation distorts the market; requiring indoor plumbing in new builds once distorted the market; it made all properties still using outhouses less valuable.
That distortion, unto itself, is not a reason to avoid regulation; but neither is it a reason to adopt it; it's simply a reality, nothing or less.