Printable View
meh, it can add to the character of the place. Problem is many of them aren’t economically fit for purpose anymore - the big old courtyards/large open interior spaces in old buildings are now just spaces that don’t make moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by Supermoon
I think there are definitely buildings that should be preserved for history, but if something has been vacant for decades, what historical role is it playing at this point?Quote:
Originally Posted by dunfree
Building, art, book, music, film script, just because nobody’s doing anything with it right now doesn’t mean it’s shit. plenty of vacant stuff gets redeveloped into cool spaces all the time (muse d’orsay, pinsult collection)Plenty of vacant stuff gets demolished and turned into a parking lot - those shitty flyover towns and cities people here don’t care about are filled with spaces like that. Not trying for historical preservation tyranny here - just point out once it’s gone it’s goneQuote:
Originally Posted by Supermoon
There is value in the contemporary rarity of old methods / materials / labor and knowing they will not likely be duplicated. I really enjoy walking old cities to look at the architecture.
As part of a larger development recently in a suburb of a major metro, the client wanted to repurpose an old school house from the late 1800s into a restaurant space. Its was so old, and nothing had been done with it in such a long time (vacant since the 50s) that as part of the feasibility we found out that one of the uses it was still zoned for was a brothel. Unfortunately that didnt happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by dunfree
Zooming out on the commercial-to-residential discussion, there are still four walls, a roof, and however many floors that don't need to be built. Is the problem the requisite renovations don't fit existing formulas for slapping up shit as cheap as possible as fast as possible, or is there something more?
New York state offered some tax incentives for renovating buildings. A lot of commercial buildings-department stores, office buildings, etc have been turned into residential around here. They had to also have some commercial or retail in the building
It doesn’t pencil out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazderati
Option A - Demoing a dilapidated low rise and building the standard a 5 over 2 podium, mixed use building.
Option B - Complete interior gut of a Type 1 office tower, complete systems removal. Update structure to current code. Update facade to current energy code. New systems. New interior construction with Type 1 standards. Possible upsize the sewer, water, power POCs. Possible access/egress mods. etc etc etc
It’s more expensive to buy the office tower
It’s likely more expensive to do a full interior gut than to tear down a smaller building.
It’s more expensive to build Type 1 vs Type 3.
As long as there are vacant lots and dilapidated low rises; Option A has better ROI.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Exactly what attracts me to so much of Yurp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazderati
Thinking back on the large commercial buildings I worked in, some may have worked for residential as you could refit every office to rooms with windows to the outdoors, BUT not all buildings will do that as they were built in the wrong shape so there is a fuck ton of interior rooms with no outside windows. That type of building may be ok for a temp shelter, but not a permanent living situation for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazderati
No one is advocating for the complete ignorance of building codes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ::: :::
But you, an architect, surely understand that at least some of those codes are completely superfluous. You probably won't admit it though because you directly benefit monetarily from the increased costs those superfluous codes add to a project.
Can you point to any specific superfluous code that results in large cost adds?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
to make these big projects feasible, you need to be looking to save big money, not the nickel and diming that superfluous code requirements typically add. And you also need to remember that the quality of the end product directly influences the rent/lease that can be charged which determines if the the project will break even and be profitable.
For Option A, empty need not be dilapidated. There seem to be quite a few empty buildings that are plenty serviceable but currently empty.Quote:
Originally Posted by nickwm21
For Option B, demo is generally a small number relative to the total budget isn't it? Can the cost be offset through repurposing or selling materials? New systems, new interiors, new pipes - all those are needed with new construction, too.
Cost to purchase a building wouldn't be an issue for current owners.
I'm not saying these aren't valid considerations but it seems like a common reaction among those in the industry is to figure out why it cannot or should not be done instead of how it can be done or why it should be done. Or at least make those noises in hopes of getting waivers and subsidies.
In my example, the permitted building type drives different building materials. Option A the resi units are built with wood stud, romex, pex, and PVC. Option B is built with light gauge stud, armored cable, copper and cast iron… it all adds up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazderati
Most commercial property companies are not in the resi business and vise versus… hence why I assumed a sale.
I’ve done a handful of seismic retrofits and full remodels of old landmarked buildings. I find that work more interesting, challenging, and enjoyable than my usual projects. Its not that the industry doesn’t want the office tower to resi retrofit work, it’s just that in the current market that retrofit will make a developer less money than a ground up 5 over 2. If the market changes or the government steps in and adjusts the market, then sure as shit those projects will happen.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Youd get better density and thus a higher ROI with a tear down and 5/2 compared to a remodeled lowrise/industrial bldg.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazderati
Demo is pretty cheap (even with asbestos abatement). No such thing as reselling building demo, unless you are a methhead looking to get cash for your next fix.
Why would a current owner try and turn into a developer (lot of risk and something they likely know nothing about) as opposed to selling to a developer and cashing out? If the current owner has a development arm, i assure you they have already thoroughly looked through all options for their current property.
To figure out how to get something built, you need to identify the major roadblocks and issues first, so you can figure out what solutions need to be created and where so you dont run into project stoppers. And FWIW, these projects can be done as everyone has said... they just dont make financial sense currently.
They're doing a lot with old mill buildings around here, there's a lot of them around and New England has a preservationist attitude in general. Plus the buildings were built like brick shithouses to hold tons and tons of heavy machinery. Wamsutta Mills was once one if, if not the, largest cotton cloth manufacturers in the world, they're working through the buildings and doing a nice job from what I can see and apparently making money: https://www.loftsatwamsuttaplace.com/
NY Times article on the trend from 2019: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/b...developed.html
The old mills are a bit more straightforward from what I understand as most are just shells with a few floor levels as the equipment took up the bulk of space, so once that's gone you have a pretty open space to build whatever.
I'm personally curious as my current company is vacating a pretty large building that's maybe 10 years old.
I have to imagine you could do some adaptation of each side of a wing without too much expense if it's a modern building as you have drop floors/ceilings and open floors for the cube farm.
Can’t get through that paywall - but an old mill building from the 1860s is probably landmarked - so not a lot of other choices. Plus the economics are different when you can probably rent/sell the units for a premium because they are in a cool old building…. No one is excited about the architecture or history of a 1990s curtainwall clad office tower that use to be the home of some insurance company….Quote:
Originally Posted by ötzi
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
If you turn off javascript for the NYT site, the paywall goes away. Most photos won't load, but at least you get the text.Quote:
Originally Posted by nickwm21
I'll add that some buildings are better than others for re-purposing for residential use. Old mills and schools are pretty good as they tend to be rectangular, and are generally 2-4 stories in height. For mills, that means you can add a central corridor and create units on either side. For schools, the central hallway is already there with classrooms on either side. The floor height tends to be taller in both, so the windows let in a lot of natural light. In contrast, office buildings have floor dimensions that are closer to square-shaped, so configuring a hallway and units is a little tougher. The floors aren't quite as tall as in mills or schools, so there can be less natural light, and I can't recall seeing an office-to-resi conversion where balconies were added. So at some point in an office-to-resi deal, there are traits created that the market does not prefer. Now add in the fact that office buildings suitable for re-development are 5-15 stories (requiring extra work to punch through concrete floors and such), and most office-to-resi deals don't offer as good of a return as pretty much anything else. A property tax abatement or tax credits can help, but generally not enough to make the office conversion a financial winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by ötzi
Used to live in the Charlestown navy yard in a repurposed “factory” building.Quote:
Originally Posted by ötzi
Attachment 448583
They took all the old navy buildings around there and turned them into condos or office space.
Sure, take shots at me…I’m easyQuote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
The building code represents the cheapest, least safe, least energy efficient building you can legally build.
Jfc, the race to the bottom can’t happen cheaply enough for the folks who will reap a profit on these reduced “superfluous” codes.
When there are no standards, we get Turkey. Actually Turkey has codes, and the building culture there was to ignore the inconvenient ones…
And as evidenced by Turkey and all the folks calling for reducing superfluous codes (or environmental regulations or those stifling financial ethics rules, etc), there is an enormous interest in making money via resisting improving safety and energy use.
Figure out how to make money on the system in place.
Or, how about reduce your profit margins as a developer so that cities can solve housing? You don’t need a Porsche to develop the building, certainly not more than a resident on the fourth floor deserves appropriate exit width or fire protection or hvac that works or access to daylight or an elevator from the 4th floor.
People love to hate on “regulations”, but they also don’t tell you they don’t give a shit if their business plan rakes in money at the expense of society.
Especially when it comes to building for the poor…
While the bureaucracy of things pisses us all off sometimes, I’m not immediately coming up with any “completely superfluous codes”…name some.
Yeah AR, what you got?Quote:
Originally Posted by ::: :::
As for Turkey, I've read that in California the code isn't going to do much if a big one hits, because as you said represents "the cheapest, least safe...building you can legally build." And parts of it are going to look like Turkey when it happens. What do you think ::::::? Not my lane of course, so just wondering.
For the tldr crowd: the problem is pro formas, not codes
Just go back to images of Northridge for a hintQuote:
Originally Posted by muted reborn
Newer buildings are vastly improved & not just in CA as a result
Here in portland, we have a fault going right thru downtown…it won’t be pretty
This is about the PNW but imo is must reading. This motherfucker is late now: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...really-big-oneQuote:
Originally Posted by muted reborn