# The total size of office space



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Hartford probably has near 15 million office space in it's downtown...

...and 40 million in the suburbs, we are a small metro, so hey...no edge cities here.


----------



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

brisavoine said:


> Ok, I double-checked your interesting figures, and there's unfortunately a problem. They don't match with the Cushman and Wakefield study that I linked to in my first post. Your figures come from a San Francisco tenant-representation firm called Mihalovich Partners which is not as well known as the world famous Cushman and Wakefield. Mihalovich Partners figure for total office space in the SF Bay Area are indeed 326.5 million sq ft, but that sounds very very high. That would mean not only the Bay Area has more office space than Chicago and Washington DC metro areas, but it has also more office space than Greater London itself! (Greater London figure was 307 million sq. ft in 2005)
> 
> According to the very reputed Cushman and Wakefield's Top 10 Office Markets, the total amount of office space in the SF Bay Area is more like 185 million sq. ft (you can find this in the little graph on page 2 of the document). According to the also world famous real estate company CB Richard Ellis, there is 236 million square feet of office inventory in the SF Bay Area (source). This seems to match the Cushman and Wakefield figure. The discrepancy between 185 million (C&W) and 236 million (CBRE) is due to more recent figures (2006 vs 2001) and to CBRE adding office space in Pleasanton/Dublin and Contra Costa county which C&W did not include in their figure. The discrepancy between the CBRE and Mihalovich Partners figures, on the other hand, can only be attributed to an error in Mihalovich Partners' figures.


Outside of Downtown SF, I tend to disagree with CBRE, Cushman and Wakefield and Colliers. Im not saying that The Bay Area has more office space then London and Chicago but rather the numbers for those cities are greatly undercounted because I dont believe their data covers all the buildings and/or rentable space.

Mihalovich on the other hand, a Bay Area outfit ,has actually quantified the number of buildings in the region. So while they might not have a global presence-its obvious that their database of this area far exceeds that of the other companies.

I would imagine if such a comprehensive list existed for Chicago and London-they both would dwarf the 326 Million sq ft Bay Area.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

brisavoine said:


> Actually there was already a thread about this recently, which you probably missed, but some cities were missing. Here are the figures we got so far (note that this is TOTAL office space, not just grade A):
> - New York metro area: 61.6 million m² / 662.8 million sq. ft (2nd quarter 2001; source)
> - Greater Paris: 49 million m² / 527 million sq. ft (end of 2005; source)
> - Greater London: 28.5 million m² / 307 million sq. ft (2005; source)
> ...


I think its important to point out that your areas are exceptionally large in relation to London.

You for instance list the New York, Chicago and Paris metro areas to the actual political boundaries on London - that doesn't even include the entire urban area, let alone the metro area. Now while I'm not certain of the figure of total office space for metro London, it would have to encompass an area that matches what the GLA stated as the metropolitan region - essentially London's metro area with a population of 18mn. Unfortunately only the GLA know this exact boundary so I'm unsure how you could get appropiate figures for London's metro.


For instance the areas you compare are *vastly* different in size, urbanity and context:
*Greater London - 1,579km²*
Greater Paris - 14,518km²
Chicago Metropolitan Area - 28,163km²
Washington Metropolitan Area - 28,995km²
New York Metropolitan Area - 30,671km²


Also the populations are again *vastly* different in size, urbanity and context:
Washington Metropolitan Area - 5,139,549
*Greater London - 7,500,000*
Chicago Metropolitan Area - 9,661,840
Greater Paris - 11,174,743
New York Metropolitan Area - 21,858,830


This is further highlighted by the density of the areas that you have accidently (or deliberately) fudged:
*Greater London - 4,749.8*
Greater Paris - 769.7
New York Metropolitan Area - 712.68
Chicago Metropolitan Area - 343.0
Washington Metropolitan Area - 177.2


According to your comparison, London is 26.8x denser than Washington DC...yeah thats because you've fudged the figures to somehow illustrate that the London office market is somehow small and insignificant - despite the fact that is the third most important business centre on the planet and the world's leading financial centre - fact is you under-represent in this comparison London to that of the other mentioned cities, who knows why you have this chip on your shoulder regarding London though!

You could have the largest amount of office space in the world but if the companies that fill them are poor performers, bad value for shareholders, poor environments for the employees that reside inside them and are generally not strong within the economy then what really is the benefit of having oodles of office space? 

A tip for next time - just because the word 'Greater' is shared by Paris and London, it doesn't mean that they mean the same thing....because clearly they don't and if you believe they do well more the pity you cause they aren't.


Better luck next time.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

nick_taylor said:


> I think its important to point out that your areas are exceptionally large in relation to London.
> 
> You for instance list the New York, Chicago and Paris metro areas to the actual political boundaries on London - that doesn't even include the entire urban area, let alone the metro area. Now while I'm not certain of the figure of total office space for metro London, it would have to encompass an area that matches what the GLA stated as the metropolitan region - essentially London's metro area with a population of 18mn. Unfortunately only the GLA know this exact boundary so I'm unsure how you could get appropiate figures for London's metro.
> 
> ...


Very nice explanation on how wording terms in urbanity such as "greater" are different in each city or nation!

How about this, if we can compare each of these cities' CBD by its total square feet by number of total buildings(skyscrapers/supertalls)?
For Chicago CBD:
Total Office Space: 119,974,902 sq. ft. 
Number of Buildings: 278 
Now, lets see the same stats for NYC, London, Paris, HK, Tokyo, even San Fran wants to get a piece of action...:cheers:


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

> Originally Posted by brisavoine
> Actually there was already a thread about this recently, which you probably missed, but some cities were missing. Here are the figures we got so far (note that this is TOTAL office space, not just grade A):
> - New York metro area: 61.6 million m² / 662.8 million sq. ft (2nd quarter 2001; source)
> - Greater Paris: 49 million m² / 527 million sq. ft (end of 2005; source)
> ...


BTW, your stats for DC vs Chicago is a bit wacky at best!


> - Washington DC metro area: ca. 21 million m² / ca. 230 million sq. ft (3rd quarter 2001; source)
> - Chicago metro area: 20,3 million m² / 218 million sq. ft (1st quarter 2006; source)


Ok, let look at this and trying to figure out what doesn't make sense here.
So based on your stat, it shows how DC's and Chicago's metro area for this office space thing that you are trying to pull even pretty up to par on both, but DC seems to pull way more office space of square feet than Chicago with a city that has no skyscraper what's so ever?:runaway: now either you are blind or your logic has gone "greater" IMHO! Think about this, how many square feet in DC are occupy by Political government buildings and think about the rest of area that is still left for office space yet can't building pass 4 floors higher??? What on earth can DC even be compare among NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo, San Fran....or even HK for that matter when we are comparing at the same size of metro area???

So without same size of metro area for cities in comparison,particularly in office space, you can't tell which one has the largest office space!r

If you REALLY want to find out which one has the largest, well, give every city the same size of area like 20 square miles of its densest metro area and then find out about its total size office space. I think that it will be more reasonable when you want to find the real office space monster not some "greater" urban stats that simply misconcept every cities difference termed by political boundaries!
Well, if you like "greater", why not try chicagoland or greater chicago? Think about all those huge corporates office buildings not in Chicago CBD, but rather, needing extra warehouse facilities which can't be near Chicago CBD? Just something to think about when you are looking for "greater" instead of "same" size of metro area!


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

nick_taylor said:


> I think its important to point out that your areas are exceptionally large in relation to London.
> 
> You for instance list the New York, Chicago and Paris metro areas to the actual political boundaries on London - that doesn't even include the entire urban area, let alone the metro area. Now while I'm not certain of the figure of total office space for metro London, it would have to encompass an area that matches what the GLA stated as the metropolitan region - essentially London's metro area with a population of 18mn. Unfortunately only the GLA know this exact boundary so I'm unsure how you could get appropiate figures for London's metro.
> 
> ...


Nick Taylor trying to spoil this thread after he has already spoiled other threads with his London chauvinism...

Your observations do not change the validity of office space numbers that we have here. The bulk of office space usually concentrates in the central core of metro areas, so even if we don't include the distant suburbs of London, it doesn't change much the London figure. The London figure is a little underestimated (by not including office space in, say, the distant suburbs of Berkshire or Hertfordshire), but by a small margin.

Besides, the figures we have show that:
- in the 786 km²  (303 sq miles) of NYC there is 44.3 million m² (477 million sq. ft) of office space
- in the 762 km² (294 sq. miles) of the City of Paris and its inner suburbs there is 35.3 million m² (380 million sq. ft) of office
- whereas in the 1579 km² (610 sq. miles) of Greater London there is only 28.5 million m² (307 million sq. ft) of office space
So the ranking remains absolutely the same.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> BTW, your stats for DC vs Chicago is a bit wacky at best!
> 
> Ok, let look at this and trying to figure out what doesn't make sense here.
> So based on your stat, it shows how DC's and Chicago's metro area for this office space thing that you are trying to pull even pretty up to par on both, but DC seems to pull way more office space of square feet than Chicago with a city that has no skyscraper what's so ever?:runaway: now either you are blind or your logic has gone "greater" IMHO! Think about this, how many square feet in DC are occupy by Political government buildings and think about the rest of area that is still left for office space yet can't building pass 4 floors higher??? What on earth can DC even be compare among NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo, San Fran....or even HK for that matter when we are comparing at the same size of metro area???
> ...


The figures I gave are not "my stats", they are figures published by Cushman and Wakefield. Checking on CB Richard Ellis website also confirms that there is more office space in Washington DC metro area than in Chicago metro area. These figures do not include government office space by the way. As for the Chicago figures, they are not for the city of Chicago, they are for the entire Greater Chicago, stretching from the border of Wisconsin to the border of Indiana. There is more office space in Washington DC metro area than in the entire Greater Chicago metro area stretching from Wisconsin to Indiana. Two of the best known real estate firms in the world are saying it, not me.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

brisavoine said:


> The figures I gave are not "my stats", they are figures published by Cushman and Wakefield. Checking on CB Richard Ellis website also confirms that there is more office space in Washington DC metro area than in Chicago metro area. These figures do not include government office space by the way. As for the Chicago figures, they are not for the city of Chicago, they are for the entire Greater Chicago, stretching from the border of Wisconsin to the border of Indiana. There is more office space in Washington DC metro area than in the entire Greater Chicago metro area stretching from Wisconsin to Indiana. Two of the best known real estate firms in the world are saying it, not me.





> - Washington DC metro area: ca. 21 million m² / ca. 230 million sq. ft (3rd quarter 2001; source)
> - Chicago metro area: 20,3 million m² / 218 million sq. ft (1st quarter 2006; source)


Well, that is just wonderful isn't it, thanks for some reliable source of comparison about entire chicagoland against entire DC metro...what a fun comparison? BTW,don't you think that they could have use a slightly more recent stat for DC rather than that 2001 3rd quarter one instead?
Ok, so what you are saying is that they used"entire" chicagoland and its suburbs into this total office space calculation right, so how accurate do you think that will lent to the total result of Chicago only, when we are talking about CBD, when the size of Chicago CBD are merely couple mile square? How in the world did they get the Washington DC metro area nearly the same as Chicagoland+all of its suburbs area?
Why not find a credential source that compile all the major world class cities in the world or in US that have same year, same "defined" metro size(densest metro) and with the result of total square feet in office space instead?


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> I think that, even if you add up all the office space in Hong Kong, it would not surpass that of Chicago's.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Well, Hong Kong (as in Hong Kong alone and not the rest of the Pearl River Delta Megalopolis which forms a huge megalopolis with Hong Kong, Dongguan, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Zhuhai, and Macau) is a small city in terms of area with approximately only 1,000+ square kilometers. Now, a big chunk of that land is actually mountainous. Only about 20% of Hong Kong SAR's Territory is actually urban. Now, note that that the new Territories, Lantau Island, and Kowloon have relatively oblivious office buildings with much of their land used up to house Hong Kong's 6.9 million people in high-rise apartments in numbers seen no where else. WIth that premise established, Hong Kong Island is the only place where Hong Kong's office space can be built in relative huge scale. Now, think for one second...how the hell would this small island (smaller than Manhattan) house the amount of office space that would match Chicago's Loop? Well, the best answer might be: "Let's build upwards!" And so, they did. But this island has simply not enough space to house the needed office space to surpass Chicago's Loop even if they build really tall skyscrapers.


brisavoine, here is another reason why their so called comparison stat are of less credible when a city such as HK that merely has land for sprawly office park build up like Washing DC has. In this case, Chicago Loop is probabily the closest measurement toward what HK metro's office space has which both are famous for building upward office space than sideway office space!
So conclusion is that you really have to pull out same a metro area size in which every city has that area with the most office space present. Do you think that DC would be the same, when it merely has any skyscraper in the district of political? :cheers:


----------



## Phil (Aug 23, 2002)

Just because office buildings are not 300m tall doesn't mean they're sprawly. Not every city has to build like Chicago and HongKong to be true urban city. Look at every major european city, the highrise office buildings are only a tiny minority of the total office space. Does that make it unfair to compare them to Chicago ? i don't think so...


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Phil said:


> Just because office buildings are not 300m tall doesn't mean they're sprawly. Not every city has to build like Chicago and HongKong to be true urban city. Look at every major european city, the highrise office buildings are only a tiny minority of the total office space. Does that make it unfair to compare them to Chicago ? i don't think so...


I don't mean that every cities has to be like Chicago or HK when building office space, just wondering how much sprawl it will take for the same amount of office spaces for vertical metro as oppose to horizontal metro. City that building office spaces upward tend to be less dependent on land and therefore resulting in smaller CBD, but city that building them sideway tend to devouer land with greater sense, hence taking out lots of land for same amount of total office space required for building upward. So my point is that how do you lay out that definition for every city to come to conclusion on how the "total size of office space" will eventually arguable! Unless you have a better idea, until then I would say yes, they are sprawly the way I am seeing!


----------



## Evangelion (May 11, 2005)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> brisavoine, here is another reason why their so called comparison stat are of less credible when a city such as HK that merely has land for sprawly office park build up like Washing DC has. In this case, Chicago Loop is probabily the closest measurement toward what HK metro's office space has which both are famous for building upward office space than sideway office space!
> So conclusion is that you really have to pull out same a metro area size in which every city has that area with the most office space present. Do you think that DC would be the same, when it merely has any skyscraper in the district of political? :cheers:


its been discussed here many times before.

WASH DC has more office space than CHICAGO. DC is number #2 after NYC. 
can you just let it go, let stats speak for themselves, unless you are willing to back it up with other data. Chicago doesnt always have to be #2 or #3 in everything you know....

btw your chicago boosterism is way out of hand


----------



## Evangelion (May 11, 2005)

^ i'm only speaking of within the usa.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

brisavoine said:


> Nick Taylor trying to spoil this thread after he has already spoiled other threads with his London chauvinism...
> 
> Your observations do not change the validity of office space numbers that we have here. The bulk of office space usually concentrates in the central core of metro areas, so even if we don't include the distant suburbs of London, it doesn't change much the London figure. The London figure is a little underestimated (by not including office space in, say, the distant suburbs of Berkshire or Hertfordshire), but by a small margin.
> 
> ...


How is it chauvinism, I've clearly pointed out that for some peculiar reason you are comparing two completely different areas - metro areas compared to cities and the difference is stark - a third lost off of the New York total, so why you muddled that up who knows - maybe you have an inability to understand that Greater London is a political boundary not a metro area akin to Greater Paris or say Greater Toronto.

Now why you didn't post those figures beforehand boggles the mind - its because you've got a chip on your shoulder and just want to downgrade London at every opportunitiy, hence I have to come in and point out your flaws in comparison. Those areas though have comparable populations, but why didn't you compare them in the first place? How comes you didn't provide a source though for those figures?

I still don't get where your going though - what does having more office space mean? It doesn't signify status, because its the companies that fill them that do or the actual value of that office stock which would be a far better comparison.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

my guess that the largest CBD would probably either be NYC or Tokyo, and for NYC, it includes all 5 boros.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> ^^ Yeah...exactly but I'm not to sure about how the Loop is the largest single-cluster of office space anywhere on the planet. I think that distinction belongs to New York's Midtown Area...I mean look at that area from above...it is huge...no gargantuan...no colossal. Hehehe
> 
> Anyway, Chicago's Loop is really big as well (with more supertalls than New York's Midtown) but the sheer number of office towers in New York's Midtown is way to much for any other cluster to compete.
> 
> I would like Chicago to have lighting schemes at night (just like Hong Kong and soon...Singapore) so that it would be the undisputed "King of Skyscrapercities".


Agreed, Midtown has to be the largest commercial/office cluster in the world. 

Downtown used to be third in the US, after Midtown and the Loop, but because of 9/11, it slipped to 4th with DC getting third, but with the WTC getting redone, it will slip back into 3rd no doubt.

American cities CBD's are mainly office. We do not have any need for major residentials going up, unless its obviously NYC. Most of Manhattans tall skyscrapers for example are all individual office buildings, whereas what you get in Hong Kong is groups of residentials. It makes sense that Chicago would have more Office Space that Hong Kong seeing that HK is 3/4ths residential. Most American cities are 3/4ths office.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

this picture from emporis shows the office/commercial area of Midtown Manhattan. 85-90% office, from July 2000.










http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2003/09/215111.jpg


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

that doesnt include downtown either. If Downtown is just after the Loop in Chicago, does that mean downtown alone has more office space than all of HK?


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

Spooky873 said:


> that doesnt include downtown either. If Downtown is just after the Loop in Chicago, does that mean downtown alone has more office space than all of HK?


I wouldnt be surprissed, HK is very residential.

Midtown is definitely the biggest CBD in the world. Tokyo im sure has alot more but its not cetralized like Midtown is anyway.

Btw, your link is working, id really liked to see that though ^^


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Evangelion said:


> its been discussed here many times before.
> 
> WASH DC has more office space than CHICAGO. DC is number #2 after NYC.
> can you just let it go, let stats speak for themselves, unless you are willing to back it up with other data. Chicago doesnt always have to be #2 or #3 in everything you know....
> ...


Oh, yea, where is your stat for your claim?
Chicago CBD has way more office space than DC CBD.

So, my list for world's city CBD total offic space still stand:
1.NYC CBD
2.Chicago CBD
3.London CBD
4.Tokyo CBD
5.Paris CBD
6.DC CBD
7.HK CBD

LOL, DC #2 in total office space...don't think so, do you see how small DC is and nearly 50% of space are reserved for government related buildings with the rest mixing by office spaces and residental zones, do you think that it will have more total office space than Chicago CBD(alot smaller in area size compare to DC) when it doesn't have ANY office building that gone pass 4 floors high...you are insane if you are trying to pull it out. Show me your DC 2006 stat and we will do the talking, until then...Chicago is #2 in US for the total office space!

BTW, If I am such a boosterism, I would definitely say that Chicago is #1 over NYC fore sure! Chicago is usually #1 or #2 in US because it is, simple as that, I don't have to tell you why, but you know why, don't be silly Evangelion, you are just here to troll, just like what you did so many time in that "What do you see Chicago's national role" thread, same old trollie with same intention! Good luck!


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Spooky873 said:


> Agreed, Midtown has to be the largest commercial/office cluster in the world.
> 
> Downtown used to be third in the US, after Midtown and the Loop, but because of 9/11, it slipped to 4th with DC getting third, but with the WTC getting redone, it will slip back into 3rd no doubt.
> 
> American cities CBD's are mainly office. We do not have any need for major residentials going up, unless its obviously NYC. Most of Manhattans tall skyscrapers for example are all individual office buildings, whereas what you get in Hong Kong is groups of residentials. It makes sense that Chicago would have more Office Space that Hong Kong seeing that HK is 3/4ths residential. Most American cities are 3/4ths office.


Yea, good point spooky. Majority of US CBD are heavily office space dominant so the area of most concentrated office space zone are alot smaller in area when compare to European, Asian and SA counterparts, American CBD are more confined and that explains why office buildings here are erect higher as you closer to CBD, it is about that accessibility to downtown office space and that is why its skyline are dominant by office skyscrapers!
Chicago has done really well for its Chicago Loop as CBD until recently, we starting to see many diverse mix zoning properties erect, but it is because chicago's travel attractions are increasing and more and more visitors needing hotel spaces for their stay!


----------



## Phil (Aug 23, 2002)

nick_taylor said:


> I still don't get where your going though - what does having more office space mean? It doesn't signify status, because its the companies that fill them that do or the actual value of that office stock which would be a far better comparison.


It means a lot to have a lot of office space and you know it.
For example, let's see which metro areas have more global 500 HQ :
1) Tokyo (52- 52 in city proper)
2) NYC (38- 24 in city proper)
3) Paris (36- 27 in city proper)
4) London (34- 23 in city proper)

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2006/cities/

And they're far far above any other city. Incidentally, they're also far above the others regarding the total office space. Do you really think that's a coincidence ? Just because London is a leading financial center doesn't mean other cities can't be important too. These 4 cities almost always come on top in every possible city ranking, I don't see why it bothers you so much.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

EtherealMist said:


> Btw, your link is working, id really liked to see that though ^^


its also 6 years old, so there are many new additions in that view. its just ridiculous how massive that office area is. ddddaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmnnn


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

The real estate boom in America now is mainly residential I might add. The American CBD's or 'downtowns' are traditionally office. Pretty much every CBD in America you see is more than half office/commercial. American CBD's are also much more noticeable with signature buildings, seeing as theres hardly any bland residentials to fish through. Theres no need to overdo a residential in the way office buildings are done, ie: Chrysler. Can you imagine a residential like that going up?


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Spooky873 said:


> its also 6 years old, so there are many new additions in that view. its just ridiculous how massive that office area is. ddddaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmnnn


What view so ddddaaammmm ridiculously massive, spooky? Mind sharing with us here!:cheers:


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

nick_taylor said:


> I still don't get where your going though - what does having more office space mean? It doesn't signify status, because its the companies that fill them that do or the actual value of that office stock which would be a far better comparison.





Phil said:


> Just because London is a leading financial center doesn't mean other cities can't be important too. These 4 cities almost always come on top in every possible city ranking, I don't see why it bothers you so much.


It bothers him because Paris has more office space than London. Every time London ranks below Paris he gets all freaked out. I think you've seen him in other threads already.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

Spooky873 said:


> this picture from emporis shows the office/commercial area of Midtown Manhattan. 85-90% office, from July 2000.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


this....ChicagoSkyline.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

that pic only shows about 80% of the area.


----------



## tocoto (Jan 18, 2003)

Everyone needs to go to NYC to see its monumenlal CBD office area. It really is absolutely mind blowing. London and Paris don't even come close. It really is that simple. Chicago with its multitude of ultra-talls pales in the face of NYC.

That said, the USA wth its huge wealth has a number of cities wth gigantic CBDs including LA, Chi, Bos, Dallas and others. All of them are reallly something to see in terms of high density high rise areas.


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

kay: Expect more big things to happen in NYC...


*IDA approves tax breaks for Hudson Yards*


by Julie Satow 
August 08, 2006 

Commercial developers are now eligible for $650 million worth of tax breaks, which are expected to generate $1.8 billion in new revenue. 

Commercial developers on the far West Side are now eligible for $650 million worth of tax abatements. 

The city's Industrial Development Agency Board today approved the tax breaks, which are expected to generate $1.8 billion in new revenue by *spurring the development of 24 million square feet of office space in the 45-block neighborhood.* 

"The Hudson Yards area represents the city's greatest opportunity to create badly-needed space for new office jobs," says Joshua Sirefman, interim chairman of the IDA. "But it will not happen without mitigating rising development costs that would continue to deter development in the area." 

*The city estimates that in 2012 -- the first year an office property is expected to be complete* -- a property owner without any tax abatement will pay $15.27 a square foot. With the breaks, however, that property owner will shell out only $9.16 to $11.45 a square foot, depending on how far west the project is located. 

The IDA today also approved an $11.2 million break on the mortgage recording tax for The Related Cos' development of Gateway Center at Bronx Terminal Market and a $5.6 million break on the mortgage recording tax for the East River Science Park, to be built by Alexandria Real Estate Equities. 


©2006 Crain Communications Inc.


----------



## thunderC (Aug 7, 2006)

I think the arguable subject of the totla office sapce comes out like here.

The first ranked city is NYC with 414.6 mil sq, ft office space of Mid and Low Manhattan
(No Upper Manhattan and other boros are included though........ still lacking in the information) 
No 2 Tokyo ? 348 million sq, ft
No 3 Paris 173 million sq, ft 
No 4 Chicago 120 million sq, ft
No 5 SFcity (not metro) 102.9 million sq, ft
No 6 London 80 million sq, ft
No 7 HongKong 59 million sq, ft
I made a list like this with sources given by brisavoine, hkskyline and bay area on this thread.


----------



## Phil (Aug 23, 2002)

I wonder how you come up with this list. It doesn't compare total office space nor comparable things.

Check this for example :
http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/pdf/2005officemarket.pdf

Market Total Office Space (m2)
(NYC+New Jersey : 52,600,000)
New York 37,800,000
(Washington+ Northern virginia : 23,400,000)
Chicago 21,900,000
Los Angeles 18,400,000
Dallas/Fort Worth 17,700,000
Houston 15,800,000
Toronto 14,900,000
New Jersey 14,300,000
Northern Virginia 13,800,000
Atlanta 12,700,000
Denver 9,900,000
Washington 9,600,000
Miami 9,500,000
...
Montreal 7,600,000
Calgary 4,300,000
Vancouver 4,100,000

and Paris and London should be just below NYC.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

If Chicago has more office space area than all of Hong Kong, and Downtown Manhattan was at one point 3rd after Chicago, then DM might have more office space than all of Hong Kong. More than enough proof that size doesnt matter, Chicago may be smaller and have less buildings, but does it really fuckin matter commercially?


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

thunderC said:


> I think the arguable subject of the totla office sapce comes out like here.
> 
> The first ranked city is NYC with 414.6 mil sq, ft office space of Mid and Low Manhattan
> (No Upper Manhattan and other boros are included though........ still lacking in the information)
> ...



Im not sure this list is official but the NYC numbers seem to be correct, but i could be wrong. Try getting the figure for all of NYC, because if that figure is for Manhattan alone, then its mind boggling to consider that its only 1/5th of the city. Not to mention NJ as well, I wonder how much NJ benefits, it should be included.


----------



## brianchee (Nov 12, 2004)

very very laughable someone said chicago got more office space than tokyo


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

tocoto said:


> Everyone needs to go to NYC to see its monumenlal CBD office area. It really is absolutely mind blowing. London and Paris don't even come close. It really is that simple. Chicago with its multitude of ultra-talls pales in the face of NYC.
> 
> That said, the USA wth its huge wealth has a number of cities wth gigantic CBDs including LA, Chi, Bos, Dallas and others. All of them are reallly something to see in terms of high density high rise areas.


The CBD's that you see in America are 90% office. Theres hardly any residential in it, as seen in places like Hong Kong or Shanghai. I think NYC's office space is mindblowing, and it doesnt need the amount of residentials the Chinese cities, cause then its just ridiculous.


----------



## nick-taylor (Aug 10, 2006)

Phil said:


> It means a lot to have a lot of office space and you know it.
> For example, let's see which metro areas have more global 500 HQ :
> 1) Tokyo (52- 52 in city proper)
> 2) NYC (38- 24 in city proper)
> ...


The listing is a bit awkward - first of all GlaxoSmithKline is in Brentford, but Brentford is inside the London Borough of Hounslow. British Airways is sated as being in Harmondsworth....but Harmondsworth is in the London Borough of Hillingdon - ie where London Heathrow Airport is! As for Ladbrokes, thats in the London Borough of Harrow.

Thats 26 companies located inside London; 7 others are located relatively close to London inside its metro giving a total of 33 for London and its metro while The remaining 6 are located elsewhere around the UK.

That 26 figure means that London has more Fortune G500 (by revenue) than New York despite having less office space; and only one less than Paris with its still larger volume of office space. Quite simply the reason I suspect for a lower office space figure isn't to do with lack of demand, but because the lower amount has forced rates up so high that they are the highest in the world. Essentially its the product of artifical limitation of the London office market and if there wasn't such a limit in place then we'd see far more office space in London. Afterall this isn't a clear cut comparison with a single variable.

Yet why even rely upon the Fortune 500 rankings when you can get access to the Forbes 2000 rankings which are far more extensive, accurate and informative. The most important aspect is that unlike the Fortune 500 rank, it is measured not by one but four criteria to determine the strength and importance of that company: sales, profits, assets and market valuation. These combined highlight the true strength and global ranking of a company, for example General Motors might be a large and very influential company, but its a company on the decline and one not to be associated with due to its uncertain future - its also a company that is causing the decline on Detroit itself! This illustrates my point about the strength of companies.

I did a bit of work and looked at the UK and France from the Forbes 2000 rankings. Of the 130 companies, 4 are DLC's without a HQ in Britain and 2 others are British territories. Of the 124 that remain:

77 - London
21 - London Metro
4 - Edinburgh
3 - Birmingham
3 - Bradford 
3 - Newcastle
2 - Leicester
1 - Abderdeen
1 - Bristol
1 - Burton-upon-Trent
1 - Glasgow
1 - Luton
1 - Nottingham
1 - Perth
1 - Reddich
1 - St Helens
1 - Warrington
1 - York

France as the other comparison has 67 companies (1 DLC with its HQ in paris). All except one in Lille are located in Paris and the Paris Metro Area.

67 - Paris & Paris Metro
1 - Lille

Note that London as the city itself has more companies in the top 2000 than all of France, while the difference below of around a third is quite interesting:

98 - London & London Metro
67 - Paris & Paris Metro

So as it stands the amount of office space is not a direct indicator of the significance of a city in business. I haven't looked at Japan (320 companies) and the US (693 companies) simply because I don't have the time yet to go through and list them, but I wouldn't be suprised if they are well over 100.

Another point to highlight is that London and New York are different from the other two in that these are the entry points to each respective continent - New York is the head of operations for American afairs, while London tends to be the head of operations for European affairs. This is different from say Asia, where Hong Kong tends to be the entry point.

And where did I say that because London was the leading financial centre that other cities weren't important? Remember that I'm neither the one to create these threads nor the one to post inaccuracies in the first place, that my friend is a problem lying closer to home and begins with 'b'...I merely finish them


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Spooky873 said:


> that pic only shows about 80% of the area.


Hey, spooky. That link never worked??? :runaway:


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

brianchee said:


> very very laughable someone said chicago got more office space than tokyo


Yes, in the city's CBD! you dumb laugher....lol! :scouserd:
You think that Tokyo CBD has more total office space than Chicago CBD/Loop?


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> Yes, in the city's CBD! you dumb laugher....lol! :scouserd:
> You think that Tokyo CBD has more total office space than Chicago CBD/Loop?


BTW, How BIG is Tokyo CBD? I figured that its CBD must be the size in area of equavlent to size of Chicagoland...right!


----------



## OtAkAw (Aug 5, 2004)

I think it's really Tokyo because Japan's the 2nd largest economy and the only "main" city for business that it has is Tokyo so naturally companies would flock there.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

I understand that claim, and respect it but it doesnt necessarily equate to more office space.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

So far I couldn't find office space figures for Greater Tokyo. All we have are office space figures for downtown Tokyo, which I posted in a previous message. Perhaps someone (anyone Japanese reading this?) can find office space figures for the whole Greater Tokyo...

Let me write down the figure for downtown Tokyo again: 32.4 million m² (348 million sq. ft; source). I believe what they mean by "downtown Tokyo" are the five central wards (Chuo, Chiyoda, Shinjuku, Shibuya, and Minato) which cover an area of 75 km² (29 sq. miles), i.e. 46% larger than the island of Manhattan.

The island of Manhattan contains 38.5 million m² (415 million sq. mile) of office space, which is more than "downtown Tokyo", but overall there should be more office space in Greater Tokyo than in Greater New York. Hopefully someone will end up finding the figures.


----------



## thunderC (Aug 7, 2006)

not just downtown. The total office space of entire city.
The total office space should be limited to city.(not greater, metro or anything like that) thanks


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

Spooky873 said:


> Im not a fan of the lighting schemes, my eyes are bad enough. I can do without a tacky lightshow on my way home from work everynight.



I agree, even though lighting schemes can look cool for tourist and they grasp your attention I think the novelty would wear off in very short time especially if you are a local. A nicely lit not over the top crown can add a nice touch.

The only kind of lighting scheme that a skyline needs is for the lights in the buildings to be turned on. Cities like Toronto, Chicago, and I think even NYC now discourage this though in an effort for energy efficancy, light pollution, and migrating birds.


----------



## Unsing (Apr 15, 2006)

http://www.nomu.com/column/vol77.html says, as of 2001, those five wards (75 km²) contain 52.03 million m², and the whole ward area (262 km²) 81.06 million m².


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Unsing said:


> http://www.nomu.com/column/vol77.html says, as of 2001, those five wards (75 km²) contain 52.03 million m², and the whole ward area (262 km²) 81.06 million m².


What do you make of this document then?
http://www.nli-research.co.jp/doc/press050526.pdf 

It says that:
東京23 区のオフィスストックは2000 年に延床面積8,000 万㎡（有効面積ベースで5,000～5,500 万㎡） ある。賃貸オフィスビルストック（貸室面積）は2,800 万㎡以上として計算。

How do you understand that? Does it mean that the real office space in the 23 wards is more like 50-55 million m²?

And what about the 賃貸面積? Only 28 million m² of office space are leasable? That's not much. Then the rest is what? Office space owned by companies and not leased?


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

nomarandlee said:


> I agree, even though lighting schemes can look cool for tourist and they grasp your attention I think the novelty would wear off in very short time especially if you are a local. A nicely lit not over the top crown can add a nice touch.
> 
> The only kind of lighting scheme that a skyline needs is for the lights in the buildings to be turned on. Cities like Toronto, Chicago, and I think even NYC now discourage this though in an effort for energy efficancy, light pollution, and migrating birds.


It does look great, but after awhile it gets a little too much. If I wanna see a lightshow ill go to Epcot. 

Would Hong Kong look half as good were it not for the lighting?


----------



## Unsing (Apr 15, 2006)

brisavoine said:


> What do you make of this document then?
> http://www.nli-research.co.jp/doc/press050526.pdf
> 
> It says that:
> ...


有効面積 only includes usable or rentable space, and common spaces, such as lobby, corridor, stairs, etc., are not included, I guess.
Which figure to take depends on the way other cities' figure are made.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Unsing said:


> 有効面積 only includes usable or rentable space, and common spaces, such as lobby, corridor, stairs, etc., are not included, I guess.
> Which figure to take depends on the way other cities' figure are made.


Other cities do not include lobby, corridor, stairs, and elevator shafts. At least in Paris I'm sure. I believe it must be the same in the US. So it looks like the figure for Tokyo 23 wards is more like 50-55 million m². Of course this is just Tokyo 23 wards. The figure for Greater Tokyo would be much higher. Can you find figures for Greater Tokyo (東京圏 )?


----------



## Unsing (Apr 15, 2006)

According to the Ministory, there are 266.488 million m² by 延床面積 in Greater Tokyo (four prefectures combined, 13,556.03km²) in January 1st, 2005. But this figure includes stores or such. Is it what is called office space in other places?
http://wwwwp.mlit.go.jp/hakusyo/syo...=10&DISPITEM=1&ASS_FLAG=OFF&SLVL=&PAGEANCHOR=


----------



## krull (Oct 8, 2005)

^ Nope. In the USA, stores, retail, lobby, corridor, stairs, etc. are not included as office space. Office space is as such.


----------



## bustero (Dec 20, 2004)

You'll need to define if you're using gfa (gross floor area ) or nla(net leasable area). Different countries will list their statistics differently as per their regulations (what their code constitutes as gfa versus cfa (construction floor area) and most specially taxes (their application of it).

You'll find the info you seek on the real estate agent sites , specially the worldwide ones with multiple offices like: colliers, savills, jones lang, lasalle etc. At least their market statistics will use the same apples to apples count, which is ussually net leasable. (the part they make money on)

I would be very surprised if it's not tokyo.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

nomarandlee said:


> I agree, even though lighting schemes can look cool for tourist and they grasp your attention I think the novelty would wear off in very short time especially if you are a local. A nicely lit not over the top crown can add a nice touch.
> 
> The only kind of lighting scheme that a skyline needs is for the lights in the buildings to be turned on. Cities like Toronto, Chicago, and I think even NYC now discourage this though in an effort for energy efficancy, light pollution, and migrating birds.


Actually, having a few neon tubes light up and a few spotlights going consume a lot less electricity than keeping the whole building's lights on. You don't need office lights when there is neon outside.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

hkskyline said:


> Actually, having a few neon tubes light up and a few spotlights going consume a lot less electricity than keeping the whole building's lights on. You don't need office lights when there is neon outside.



Well, haven't thought of it like that, thats true. Obviously office lights shouldn't be left on when not needed regardless. As far as how to best compensate for that I am not sure , for me I am not sure a large neon presence would be the way. Maybe if I lived in a city with them I would be surprised and like them, who knows.




> Would Hong Kong look half as good were it not for the lighting?


 For sure it would. Maybe it would look even better to some. Its got all the elemants, great buildings, great layout, looks great during the day as well.


----------



## thunderC (Aug 7, 2006)

I put NYC at rank 1 on my first list made with sources from some forumers. Yet, seems like Tokyo outranks NYC. Which city has the larger size of total office space…?
I think I have to wait and see for the answer until the real figure about total office space of Tokyo comes out.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

Its either NYC or Tokyo. Tokyo maybe because Japan's the second largest economy in the world, and on wikipedia it says Tokyo has the largest metro economy in the world, and has about 10% of the population of the whole country. Japan puts everything into Tokyo, which sort of cuts off life to the rest, so I wouldnt be surprised. Kinda like putting all their eggs in one basket so to speak. In the U.S., our eggs are all over ie: Chicago, NYC. NYC doesnt have to be as big as it is, all the attention doesnt have to be focused on it, yet its still as large and important.


----------



## Vapour (Jul 31, 2002)

^Osaka-Kobe must be also in the top ten, it's not exactly everything in Tokyo.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Well, if you can find data, provide them. Also waiting for data for Seoul-Incheon...


----------



## Vapour (Jul 31, 2002)

"Osaka has the world’s third largest core central business district, at 1.3 million jobs."

Found at page 2 of http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-cr-okk.pdf

By the way, the document ranks cities according to employment at CBDs (pages 4, 5 and 6)

Employment in CBD (000) 
Tokyo 2,434 
New York 1,733
Osaka 1,380 
London 1,099
Paris 891
Nagoya 500 
Chicago 485

"Jobs" includes employment other than office, but CBDs tend to concentrate the most office space. It's just a figure but supports the evidence that Osaka is up there. The city is still a powerhouse and is home to tons of large companies HQs.


----------



## HDTV (Sep 24, 2005)

*Tokyo has most office space*

Colliers International, a global real estate services firm, confirms this, that Tokyo has most office space (comprises Grade A, B, and C office space) within CBD

Tokyo has 646 million square feet as of Dec 2005 vs 339 million for New York. 

Given the huge differential within CBD, its likely that the entire Tokyo Metropolitan Area will have more office space than New York Metropolitan Area.

Also Tokyo has another 12 million square feet of office space under construction within its CBD vs 5.35 million for New York which should further expand its lead. 

Here is link to source. thx

http://www.colliers.com/Content/Rep...df#search="colliers office global highlights"


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ everyone*

^^ See that's what I was talking about...:yes: 

Tokyo wins this hands down.


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*@ HDTV*

Although Tokyo wins this, how come it does not have a cluster as colossal as New York's Midtown Manhattan? Is it because it is simply too sprawled out?


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

they dont build vertically because of earthquakes.


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

*13 millions square feet* of offices space in Construction in Paris not bad.  
Only three city build more offices space in the World :eek2: 
( Beijing Moscow and Guanghzou )


----------



## ailiton (Apr 26, 2003)

Spooky873 said:


> Would Hong Kong look half as good were it not for the lighting?


Many people said HK looked better without the lighting.


----------



## ailiton (Apr 26, 2003)

Spooky873 said:


> If Chicago has more office space area than all of Hong Kong, and Downtown Manhattan was at one point 3rd after Chicago, then DM might have more office space than all of Hong Kong. More than enough proof that size doesnt matter, Chicago may be smaller and have less buildings, but does it really fuckin matter commercially?


On the world stage, HK is as important or even more important than Chicago.


----------



## ailiton (Apr 26, 2003)

Spooky873 said:


> American cities CBD's are mainly office. We do not have any need for major residentials going up, unless its obviously NYC. Most of Manhattans tall skyscrapers for example are all individual office buildings, whereas what you get in Hong Kong is groups of residentials. It makes sense that Chicago would have more Office Space that Hong Kong seeing that HK is 3/4ths residential. Most American cities are 3/4ths office.


If your theory is correct, HK would still have more office towers than Chicago since HK has like 10X or 20X more buildings than Chicago does. The real reason for HK to have less office space is that it lacks land and space. People there have to live in tiny condos and work in tiny offices.


----------



## ailiton (Apr 26, 2003)

Spooky873 said:


> that doesnt include downtown either. If Downtown is just after the Loop in Chicago, does that mean downtown alone has more office space than all of HK?


Even if that's the case, it doesn't make Chicago a more important city than HK.

Do you even know why you are constantly mentioning HK? If you truly believe that NYC or Chicago are superior cities, you wouldn't even waste your time comparing them with HK. You sounded extremely bitter in all the comments that you have made in this thread (and in other threads as well about HK).


----------



## Kaitak747 (May 13, 2006)

ailiton said:


> If your theory is correct, HK would still have more office towers than Chicago since HK has like 10X or 20X more buildings than Chicago does. The real reason for HK to have less office space is that it lacks land and space. People there have to live in tiny condos and work in tiny offices.


I absolutely agree with you, HK needs to conquer its vertical space due to its lack of land area.


----------



## Kaitak747 (May 13, 2006)

ailiton said:


> Many people said HK looked better without the lighting.


That's very true, HK also looks stunning without the lighting as we can see in the pictures below.


----------



## Rachmaninov (Aug 5, 2004)

I don't think it is justified to say that Hong Kong doesn't look half as stunning without lighting.

For all I know, Hong Kong has way more highrises than Chicago, hence even though 3/4th of Hong Kong comprised of residential towers, there are still way more office towers in Hong Kong when compared to Chicago.


----------



## kub86 (Aug 13, 2004)

Are we just comparing the mega cities?

I know Seattle's CBD has about 30 million square feet of office. It's supposed to double in 10-20 years I think. And Bellevue has almost 10 million. 

I'm curious to know what other mid-sized cities stats are? Maybe Boston, Portland, and Denver? How much office space do they have?

***EDIT: never mind...just found that colliers paper that was posted below...THANKS!


----------



## dom (Sep 11, 2002)

I can't believe anyone was actually arguing over this. Anyone but the most blinkered nationalist who has been to Tokyo, London, New York and Paris and London will agree that Tokyo isn't just bigger that the rest of the quartet but is on a completely different level. 

Tokyo has multiple business/office districts. 

Financial: Otemachi cluster and Shinjuku cluster. 
Government: Akasaka, Kasumigaseki
Media: Shiodome


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

ailiton said:


> Even if that's the case, it doesn't make Chicago a more important city than HK.
> 
> Do you even know why you are constantly mentioning HK? If you truly believe that NYC or Chicago are superior cities, you wouldn't even waste your time comparing them with HK. You sounded extremely bitter in all the comments that you have made in this thread (and in other threads as well about HK).


Im not bitter at all, Im very proud of my cities. Do you have any other suggestions as to what city TO talk about other than Hong Kong? HK is the one with more skyscrapers than Chicago, but Chicago has a bigger CBD. By my theory, 90% of Chicago is office. Still doesnt necessarily mean HK would have more office space because it has 7 times as many skyscrapers. 3/4ths are residential at the least.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

Would you rather have me compare City A with 1,050 skyscrapers with a bigger CBD, to City B with 7,500 skyscrapers with a smaller CBD? 

it doesnt matter, any way you slice it, whether it was intentional or not, Chicago does have a bigger CBD. Why does HK get talked about so much? Because its a skyscraper city. Do you expect any less?

Although HK has more skyscrapers, whats important is CBD, and Chicago has a bigger CBD, and comparing the two puts it into a fairly good perspective of quantity vs quality.

I did not start this, go to page one.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> I think the main reason why it seems surprising that Hong Kong has fewer total office space than cities like Chicago is that almost all the high-rise buildings in Chicago are office buildings while most high-rise buildings in Hong Kong are residential buildings.





polako said:


> My guess is that 75% of the high-rises in HK are residential towers(that look the same, no differentiation whatsoever) and only 25% are office towers. This is the reason why I will never rank HK's skyline as #1 in the world.





The Cebuano Exultor said:


> ^^ Exactly...
> 
> Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai, Sao Paulo and Seoul have over-rated skylines in my opinion in terms of *real size and importance* (and not in terms of beauty and aesthetics). For me, these cities have, indeed, large skylines but a large chunk of the high-rise buildings that make up their skyline are residential.
> 
> On the other hand, cities that are greatly under-rated are Paris, London, Berlin, Tokyo and Beijing. These cities have tons of office towers. Most of these cities, too, are building like crazy when it comes to new office towers--Beijing most especially. Beijing would add approximately 2 million square meters of office space from now until 2008!



first posts of the thread


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

So the whole point of the comparison was...

Chicago and HK present absolutely perfect examples of the subject. Chicago being smaller, but having a larger CBD than the city with way more skyscrapers, but having a smaller CBD (Hong Kong) . City X, City Y, City A, City B, Chicago or HK, doesnt matter. 

Do you see now? in fact, youre only seeing it how you want to. These two cities present perfect examples, it just happens to be Chicago and HK.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

Its just to show that more skyscrapers doesnt necessarily equate to more CBD. Hong Kong and Chicago.


----------



## ailiton (Apr 26, 2003)

Spooky873 said:


> Im not bitter at all, Im very proud of my cities. Do you have any other suggestions as to what city TO talk about other than Hong Kong? HK is the one with more skyscrapers than Chicago, but Chicago has a bigger CBD. By my theory, 90% of Chicago is office. Still doesnt necessarily mean HK would have more office space because it has 7 times as many skyscrapers. 3/4ths are residential at the least.


You just don't see how you are contradicting yourself.

If, according to you, 3/4ths of HK's buildings are residential, HK would still have more office buildings than Chicago. Do the math.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

At the absolute least, 3/4ths of HK is residential, which is more than likely false, I bet its more. Thats just what I know from the top of my head. The point is its just an exaggeration. If I said broccoli came outta my asshole youd take that literally.

My previous statements are not far off nonetheless. 

Chicago has 126 million sqft. of office space in 1,050 skyscrapers.

HK has 52 million sqft. of office space in 7,500 skyscrapers.

Even Downtown Manhattan alone has 88 million sqft. This is also post-9/11. DM lost almost 15 million square feet of office space on 9/11. 

DM used to be third in the US in office space until 9/11, when Washington DC passed it, but with the redevelopment in not only the WTC but Downtown as a whole, it will surely regain the spot at 3. 
Beijing will almost double its office space as well.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

It is the fourth largest central business district in the United States, after Midtown Manhattan, Chicago's Loop, and Washington D.C. The neighborhood was previously the third largest CBD [1]. Lower Manhattan's fall to fourth place can be attributed by the district's loss of the World Trade Center, which contributed over 16 million square feet of office space to the area. The square footage lost in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks was equivalent to the office space in the entire city of Cincinnati in 2001. It is expected that Downtown will regain its third place ranking after the reconstruction of the World Trade Center, which is expected to yield close to the original center's square footage of rentable commercial space, and the construction of financial firm Goldman Sachs' new headquarters.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

I said 15 million sqft., the article said 16 million sqft., give or take. Just showing that my numbers are not approximate, but fairly accurate.


----------



## Kaitak747 (May 13, 2006)

ailiton said:


> On the world stage, HK is as important or even more important than Chicago.


I agree with you though it's a bit out of topic


----------



## trueapprentice (Aug 12, 2005)

Just to re-quote from hkskyline:

Core Central - 13,199,794 sq ft
Admiralty - 4,132,600
Sheung Wan - 3,294,015
Wan Chai - 6,060,460
Causeway Bay - 4,611,255
TST - 7,865,778
Overall Prime - 39,163,902

Decentralised HK - 9,428,862
Decentralised Kowloon - 10,597,114
Overall Decentralised - 20,025,976

Total - 59,189,877


In Hong Kong's CBD, there's not alot of residential skyscrapers that I can see, TST,Central, Admiralty, Causeway Bay, Wan Chai, Sheung Wan ( = CBD) and all those areas are commerical entities & hardly anybody lives residentially there unless u are the business tycoons, it is all mainly offices & working space in those regions


----------



## trueapprentice (Aug 12, 2005)

Obviously for a bigger country in land size, then there'll be more office space. It is more important to consider what you DO with the office space. If you hav heaps of it, but they are all empty, then what is the point ?

In terms of density of office space, then asian cities would be higher given the limited land area that they house the skyscraper offices in, but they are by no means undermined, considering the economic impact that it effects in the world

tokyo, hong kong, shanghai are all big contributors with high density of office space per unit land


----------



## ailiton (Apr 26, 2003)

Spooky873 said:


> At the absolute least, 3/4ths of HK is residential, which is more than likely false, I bet its more. Thats just what I know from the top of my head. The point is its just an exaggeration. If I said broccoli came outta my asshole youd take that literally.
> 
> My previous statements are not far off nonetheless.
> 
> ...


The 52 million sq ft. figure for HK is just the grade A office space. You need to read more carefully.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

HDTV said:


> *Colliers International, a global real estate services firm, confirms this, that Tokyo has most office space (comprises Grade A, B, and C office space) within CBD*


ailiton, who needs to read more carefully? im tired of your retarded antics, please just stop talking to me, honestly. you got an answer for everything, and half the time its garbage.


----------



## ailiton (Apr 26, 2003)

Spooky873 said:


> ailiton, who needs to read more carefully? im tired of your retarded antics, please just stop talking to me, honestly. you got an answer for everything, and half the time its garbage.


You are the one who is constantly spitting out garbage. Deal with your inferior complexity and you will live more happily.



Spooky873 said:


> ailiton, who needs to read more carefully?


You do. You just can't read. Not so surprising considering which country you are from.


----------



## ailiton (Apr 26, 2003)

Spooky873 said:


> ailiton, who needs to read more carefully? im tired of your retarded antics, please just stop talking to me, honestly. you got an answer for everything, and half the time its garbage.


You compared Chicago's total office space with HK's Grade A office space. Who is garbage and who is retarded? Go get some education or your existance will just degrade this forum's quality.


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

HDTV said:


> Colliers International, a global real estate services firm, confirms this, that Tokyo has most office space (comprises Grade A, B, and C office space) within CBD
> 
> Tokyo has 646 million square feet as of Dec 2005 vs 339 million for New York.
> 
> Given the huge differential within CBD, its likely that the entire Tokyo Metropolitan Area will have more office space than New York Metropolitan Area.



Im not surprised that Tokyo has alot more office space than NYC but 646 million square feet in its CBD? How much land area is that?


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

ailiton said:


> You just don't see how you are contradicting yourself.
> 
> If, according to you, 3/4ths of HK's buildings are residential, HK would still have more office buildings than Chicago. Do the math.


ok well it has been stated than HK has significantly less office space than Chicago. So if its not 3/4 I guess its a bigger fraction.


----------



## ailiton (Apr 26, 2003)

EtherealMist said:


> ok well it has been stated than HK has significantly less office space than Chicago. So if its not 3/4 I guess its a bigger fraction.


No. No one has come up with the *total office space* in HK yet so the comparison is invalid.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

says who, you?

those are the figures from a reliable site. its right in your damn face. 

is this guy gonna cut the shit or what?


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

ailiton said:


> You compared Chicago's total office space with HK's Grade A office space. Who is garbage and who is retarded? Go get some education or your existance will just degrade this forum's quality.


*I did nothing more than take the figures of Chicago and Hong Kong, off the Collier office space site,* what the **** more do you want.

simple as that. its not brain surgery, man this guy doesnt quit, he has the intelligence of a pubic hair.

please for the good of this thread, shut up and leave.


----------



## ailiton (Apr 26, 2003)

Spooky873 said:


> *I did nothing more than take the figures of Chicago and Hong Kong, off the Collier office space site,* what the **** more do you want.
> 
> simple as that. its not brain surgery, man this guy doesnt quit, he has the intelligence of a pubic hair.
> 
> please for the good of this thread, shut up and leave.


Try reading what you are writing. You can't even write proper sentences. Are you in grade 3?


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

get this guy outta here.


----------



## ailiton (Apr 26, 2003)

Spooky873 said:


> says who, you?
> 
> those are the figures from a reliable site. its right in your damn face.
> 
> is this guy gonna cut the shit or what?


My advice for you: stop being so bitter. As you grow up, you will learn to appreciate the outside world more.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

dear mr hong kong police man,

thats good advice for someone you hardly know. im not bitter, i think you are, you keep accusing me of things that are completely absurd. this subject matter was not started by me, so take notice and fuckin drop it. no, hong kong is not everything, which you have learned in this thread, and IMMEDIATELY, you will think in response (because im from new york im automatically a bigot) that nyc is not everything either.....

i know.

i wonder if i was from maine or georgia if youd still accuse me of being a bigot. 

fact is no matter which place i represent whether its fuckville or new york city, there are people out there who share the same opinion as myself. this is an international forum, nyc is very under represented on this site, and often looked down on, you have me and a handful of others trying to put it on the map here. and btw, ill compare any city you want.

so the fact is like ethereal mist said, any way you slice it, chicago still has alot more office space than hong kong. some people are surprised because hong kong is a bigger city with more buildings thinking automatically bigger CBD, as they should, but its a mere fucking example to prove otherwise. interesting tidbit i know. case closed.


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

2 very simple questions

how large is the TOTAL SIZE of office space in hk

how large is the A-GRADE office space in chicago


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

qUikSiLvEr4988 said:


> And this proves what, Hong Kong has more than Chicago?
> 
> If Colliers stats are so off seeing that is didnt even take account half of Hong Kong, then I wonder how badly it fucked up the other cities. Chicago might be double the number as well.


well it proves that u guys should give the official data, not those from the the agency, since these companies just collect their data from second hand, how can u know what the method they r using? how accurate the data it is?


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

silly thing said:


> go to this
> http://www.rvd.gov.hk/en/doc/hkpr05/03B.pdf#search="hong kong grade a office space total stock"
> 
> it's hong kong offical data


I did, but it is way too much info for tonite to digest, I am a bit tire right now,about to go :sleepy:  
Can you translate or summarize it for me/us, so we will do Chicago and HK total office space comparison, if they are even close!


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

n do u know how a hker think about what Collier says?

hong kong is hong kong, no metro area, if u say metro of hk, maybe it's american standard then u hv to consider sz and dg as the metro of hk

silly, metro hk? it's just a simple concept, if the company dun hv the basic common sense of the global world, how can others trust the accuracy of the data


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

silly thing said:


> n do u know how a hker think about what Collier says?
> 
> hong kong is hong kong, no metro area, if u say metro of hk, maybe it's american standard then u hv to consider sz and dg as the metro of hk
> 
> silly, metro hk? it's just a simple concept, if the company dun hv the basic common sense of the global world, how can others trust the accuracy of the data


can you type slower, because it is hard to keep track of what you are saying at this point, thanks! :runaway:


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

Wow, this guy will fight to the death. Take it easy. To say Colliers International Firm is not credible is completely absurd. Its a global leader in commercial real estate.

Company History 


1976 - Colliers International Property Consultants Begins in Australia
Several successful property companies merge and take the name of their mentor, Ronald Collier, a Chartered Surveyor who was instrumental in the development of the profession in Australia. Colliers rapidly grows throughout the Asia Pacific and Canada.

1985 - The Merger
Professionals at opposite ends of the globe form an alliance of shareholding members. American Realty Services Group takes the Colliers name and a corporation is formalized with a headquarters established in Boston.

1986 - Asia Pacific Division Grows Stronger
Colliers becomes partners with Jardine Matheson Ltd., a trading company founded in 1832 in China. Jardine today operates in 20 countries, employing 120,000 people. Colliers Jardine has grown to include 35 property offices throughout Asia Pacific.

1989 - On Line…Worldwide
Communication reaches a new level when Colliers electronically links its offices.

1990 - Colliers Adjusts to New Boundaries and Emerging Markets
Colliers reconfigures its European coverage. Established offices throughout the region join the company while Colliers exports or develops talent in the new markets of the former Eastern bloc.

1995 - Colliers Continues Growth
Colliers continues to pursue its growth strategy aimed at anticipating clients needs and providing services in emerging markets. This year, we add new offices in South America and South Africa.

1997 - Retail Takes Off
In 1997, Colliers' efforts to coordinate and develop strong retail relationships bear fruit with more than 100 Colliers professionals attending the ICSC convention.

1998 - Strong Firms Get Stronger
Colliers firms merge to better serve their clients through an expansion of services. Colliers revenue climbs to more than $760 million worldwide. New firms are welcomed in Salt Lake City, Las Vegas and Honolulu.

1999 - Corporate Services Initiative Gets Underway
Provision of cohesive national corporate services takes top priority for the US organization. Worldwide, Colliers welcomes new firms in locations as diverse as Sweden and Colombia, Serbia and Montenegro and the Caspian Region in 1999.

2002 - Expansion Continues
By the end of 2002, Colliers offers expert service in 7 South American countries and 27 countries in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, as well as throughout the United States and Asia Pacific.

2004 - Colliers Launches Corporate Solutions
Colliers brings its Corporate Solutions platform to a new level with the addition of a dedicated team of professionals based in New York and Los Angeles.

2006 - Colliers Named a Global Outsourcing 100 Company
Colliers is recognized as one of only three commercial real estate firms to win this coveted designation from the International Association of Outsourcing Professionals and Fortune Magazine.

silly thing, you are a nutcase.


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

qUikSiLvEr4988 said:


> Wow, this guy will fight to the death. Take it easy. To say Colliers International Firm is not credible is completely absurd. Wow.


lol, then tell how me how come the data from collier about is just half of the fact that the actual number provided from hk offical? even smaller than the grade A space


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

silly thing said:


> n do u know how a hker think about what Collier says?
> 
> hong kong is hong kong, no metro area, if u say metro of hk, maybe it's american standard then u hv to consider sz and dg as the metro of hk
> 
> silly, metro hk? it's just a simple concept, if the company dun hv the basic common sense of the global world, how can others trust the accuracy of the data


Hahahaha, this guy is scrambling to put bullshit together. Its not an American based company. :bash:


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

I can see why Spooky isnt here wasting his time anymore, this guy doesnt quit, its like talking to a wall. Well I hope this is a good read for those of you who browse this thread. You can see just how idiotic silly thing and ailiton are.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

qUikSiLvEr4988 said:


> Wow, this guy will fight to the death. Take it easy. To say Colliers International Firm is not credible is completely absurd. Its a global leader in commercial real estate.
> 
> Company History
> 
> ...


 :runaway: 
The credibility there said it all! :cheers:


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

qUikSiLvEr4988 said:


> I can see why Spooky isnt here wasting his time anymore, this guy doesnt quit, its like talking to a wall. Well I hope this is a good read for those of you who browse this thread. You can see just how idiotic silly thing and ailiton are.


LOL, that is what happen to these kinda thread when its life is extending few more pages


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

Chicagoskyline, we should just leave, his username says it all.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

qUikSiLvEr4988 said:


> Chicagoskyline, we should just leave, his username says it all.


could'nt agree more, nite from Chicago!


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

qUikSiLvEr4988 said:


> Hahahaha, this guy is scrambling to put bullshit together. Its not an American based company. :bash:


wow u blame on my manner?
huh? who started to ask other to **** up ? y dun u blame on him but me?

here is a forum, it's to discuss, i ljust want to discuss, not to shout at others, at the very beginning, i just asked 2 questions, but someone asked me to **** up, gosh? what the logic u guys hv? huh?


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

You lack common sense. How many of us are trying to explain this simple concept and subject matter to you, you are the only one, let alone your grammar, which you are trying, i'll give you that.


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

qUikSiLvEr4988 said:


> You lack common sense. How many of us are trying to explain this simple concept and subject matter to you, you are the only one.


huha i just wanna prove the credibity, ok it's not the usa based firm, so now the point is, is the data from this company credible, thats what i wanna prove, ok?


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Just one last question, why did you pick out your user name as silly thing?
Serious answer only...nite


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> Just one last question, why did you pick out your user name as silly thing?
> Serious answer only...nite


seriously, plx see the topic of this thread

just wanna discuss, to make the fact clear ok?


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

You are just trying to scapegoat America for some reason, and its not working.


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

Read this whole thread starting from POST #1. Do it unless you just wanna talk about nothing by yourself.


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

Heres something to think about...

if the statistics for Hong Kong were in fact wrong by a whole 50%, can you imagine what the others must be?


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

qUikSiLvEr4988 said:


> You are just trying to scapegoat America for some reason, and its not working.


ha, i just showed the offical data from hk government, trying to discuss more about the credibilty of the data u guys hv shown

but seems that u guys dun wanna discuss more n trying to move to other topics, ok i understand, but what im here to say is just all about the total size of office space, that's it nth more, if u guys still wanna talk about other things n dun stick to the topic, it's up to u


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

qUikSiLvEr4988 said:


> Heres something to think about...
> 
> if the statistics for Hong Kong were in fact wrong by a whole 50%, can you imagine what the others must be?


ok, so tell me y, 

the exact fact, 

the other cities' officla data,

it's to disucss, not to ask other to **** up

understand?


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

You dont make sense, we are on topic. Colliers link is on topic, that proves total inventory of office space as of Dec 2005. I'll take their word for it.

Nonetheless, Chicago has a commanding lead on HK even though HK is bigger with more buildings. 

It also appears Tokyo has the most total office space followed by New York. 

You would already know that if you just READ THE WHOLE THREAD.

GO BACK.


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

qUikSiLvEr4988 said:


> You dont make sense, we are on topic. Colliers link is on topic, that proves total inventory of office space as of Dec 2005. I'll take their word for it.
> 
> Nonetheless, Chicago has a commanding lead on HK even though HK is bigger with more buildings.
> 
> ...


the fact is that the total number from hk government is double than the data u hv shown


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

It was brought in by HDTV, not anyone else.


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

silly thing, GO TO PAGE ONE AND GET A PAIR OF GLASSSES.


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

qUikSiLvEr4988 said:


> silly thing, GO TO PAGE ONE AND GET A PAIR OF GLASSSES.


again, i'd just stick to the topic


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

brisavoine said:


> Actually there was already a thread about this recently, which you probably missed, but some cities were missing. Here are the figures we got so far (note that this is TOTAL office space, not just grade A):
> - New York metro area: 61.6 million m² / 662.8 million sq. ft (2nd quarter 2001; source)
> - Greater Paris: 49 million m² / 527 million sq. ft (end of 2005; source)
> - Greater London: 28.5 million m² / 307 million sq. ft (2005; source)
> ...



Here is another source, click on those links. 

I clicked on the New York link, and it says this and I QUOTE:

*'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY*
*
KEY FINDINGS:*

- The New York region, Manhattan as a whole, and Lower Manhattan in particular constitute the nation and world's largest concentration of office properties.'


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

It is .pdf file and cannot copy and paste, but it says NYC metro area has over 650 million square feet of office space inventory.


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

qUikSiLvEr4988 said:


> Here is another source, click on those links.
> 
> I clicked on the New York link, and it says this and I QUOTE:
> 
> ...


im not talking about ny, im talking about hk


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

That link sites its findings, as a study, and lists Colliers as one of many sources.


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

qUikSiLvEr4988 said:


> That link sites its findings, as a study, and lists Colliers as one of many sources.


im talking about the exact data of hk


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

qUikSiLvEr4988 said:


> You dont make sense, we are on topic. Colliers link is on topic, that proves total inventory of office space as of Dec 2005. I'll take their word for it.
> 
> Nonetheless, Chicago has a commanding lead on HK even though HK is bigger with more buildings.
> 
> ...


LOL, still silly around...lol

Ok, just thought that befor I head to sleep, like to drop a link for silly thing to think about!
Here is the link for you silly thing: The truth to enlightment of total office space (hint: you will know what we mean if you choose to click  )
Nite all!


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

It appears you have already done hk data. It conflicts with Colliers.


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

qUikSiLvEr4988 said:


> It appears you have already done hk data. It conflicts with Colliers.


im here to discuss the reasons


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

As far as total size of office space its either NYC or Tokyo. There are too many conflicting sources to pick one.


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

silly thing said:


> im here to discuss the reasons


I dont know. hows that?


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> LOL, still silly around...lol
> 
> Ok, just thought that befor I head to sleep, like to drop a link for silly thing to think about!
> Here is the link for you silly thing: The truth to enlightment of total office space (hint: you will know what we mean if you choose to click  )
> Nite all!


lol, it doesnt prove that u r right, just show that u r trying to shift the topic by laughing at other


----------



## silly thing (Aug 9, 2004)

qUikSiLvEr4988 said:


> I dont know. hows that?


thats y we need to discuss


----------



## qUikSiLvEr4988 (Apr 1, 2006)

read this.



brisavoine said:


> I think there is a misconception here that skyscrapers mean lots of office space. In fact, with skyscrapers a lot of space is lost (elevator shafts, access to the towers, etc.), and it's often possible to pack more office space in low or mid-rise buildings than in skyscrapers. In downtown Paris for example, which is mostly made up of mid-rise buildings, there is more office space than in downtown Chicago: 16.1 million m² (173 million sq. ft) in downtown Paris (excluding La Défense) (source) vs. 11.1 million m² (120 million sq. ft) in downtown Chicago (source).
> 
> Downtown Chicago has more office space than the City of London (7.43 million m² / 80 million sq. ft; source), but less than downtown Tokyo (32.4 million m² / 348 million sq. ft; source), less than Midtown Manhattan (28.5 million m² / 306.9 million sq. ft; source), and less than downtown Paris (16.1 million m² / 173 million sq. ft).


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

brisavoine said:


> So now that some datas for Asian cities were mentioned, here is the ranking we have so far:
> 
> 1- Tokyo metro area: more than 100 million m² / 1 billion sq. ft (Central Tokyo: ca. 55 million m² / 600 million sq. ft)
> 2- New York metro area: 61.6 million m² / 662.8 million sq. ft
> ...



Paris has a population of 10 million. 527 million sq. ft means every person (baby, kid, and homemaker) in Paris has an office 52 sq ft in size??? Do they count in industrial and retail space?

As for Tokyo, i know for sure families do not live in houses bigger than 700-1000 sq ft, so it looks like their offices are as big as than their homes if the statistics are true.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

touchring said:


> Paris has a population of 10 million. 527 million sq. ft means every person (baby, kid, and homemaker) in Paris has an office 52 sq ft in size??? Do they count in industrial and retail space?


The Paris metro area has a population of 11.6 million, not 10.

No they don't count industrial and retail space. The 527 million sq. ft figure is purely for office space.
As of March 2006 there were:
- 527 million sq. ft of office space
- 323 million sq. ft of industrial space
- 301 million sq. ft of warehouses
- 110 million sq. ft of retail space



touchring said:


> As for Tokyo, i know for sure families do not live in houses bigger than 700-1000 sq ft, so it looks like their offices are as big as than their homes if the statistics are true.


There are 36 million people in the Tokyo metro area. That's a hell lot of people. According to the Japanese census, in Central Tokyo alone the daytime population is 3.7 million people.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

brisavoine said:


> So now that some datas for Asian cities were mentioned, here is the ranking we have so far:
> 
> 1- Tokyo metro area: more than 100 million m² / 1 billion sq. ft (Central Tokyo: ca. 55 million m² / 600 million sq. ft)
> 2- New York metro area: 61.6 million m² / 662.8 million sq. ft
> ...


Yeah New York! I wonder how much it has with 100 million m²?


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

Not many

I think *NY* is the number 2
and the number 3 maybe *Paris*


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

oh i didnt realize that was metro already. i thought it was city.


----------



## HelloMoto163 (Aug 13, 2005)

brisavoine said:


> So now that some datas for Asian cities were mentioned, here is the ranking we have so far:
> 
> 1- Tokyo metro area: more than 100 million m² / 1 billion sq. ft (Central Tokyo: ca. 55 million m² / 600 million sq. ft)
> 2- New York metro area: 61.6 million m² / 662.8 million sq. ft
> ...


7- Chicago metro area: 20.3 million m² / 218 million sq. ft

8- Berlin: 17,4 million m² !

9- Hong Kong: 9.8 million m² / 105 million sq. ft


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

Metro Toronto has about 160 million sq. ft (I could be wrong though)


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

Offices space

1-*Tokyo metro area*:more than 100 million m² / 1 billion sq. ft (Central Tokyo: ca. 55 million m² / 600 million sq. ft)
2-*New York metro area*:61.6 million m² / 662.8 million sq. ft 
3-*Paris metro area*: 49 million m² / 527 million sq. ft
4-*Greater London*: 28.5 million m² / 307 million sq. ft
5-*Washington DC metro area*: ca. 21 million m² / ca. 230 million sq. ft
5-*Bay Area of San Francisco*: ca. 21 million m² / ca. 230 million sq. ft
6-*Chicago metro area*: 20.3 million m² / 218 million sq. ft
7-*Berlin metro area*:18.1 million m² / 194.7million sq. ft
8-*Munich metro area*: 16 million m² / 172 million sq. ft
9-*Toronto metro area*: 15 million m² / 164 million sq. ft
10-*Hamburg metro area*:13 million m² / 139.9million sq. ft
11-*Brussel metro area*: 12.7 million m² / 136.6million sq. ft
12-*Rome metro area*: 12 million m² / 129 million sq. ft
12-*Frankfurt metro area*: 12 million m² / 129 million sq. ft
14-*Milan metro area*: 11.1 million m² / 119 million sq. ft
15-*Vienna metro area*: 10 million m² / 108 million sq. ft
16-*Zurich metro area*: 9.8 million m² / 106 million sq. ft
17-*Hong Kong*: 9.8 million m² / 105 million sq. ft
18-*Madrid metro area*: 9.36 million m² / 100.7 million sq. ft

source
http://www.colliers.com/Content/Rep...df#search="colliers office global highlights" 

Office space would be high in Osaka metro area


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

^ Just checked Colliers myself and it has metro Toronto at 164 million sq. ft so that should be official now.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

cool list.


----------



## thunderC (Aug 7, 2006)

minato ku said:


> Offices space
> 
> 1-*Tokyo metro area*:more than 100 million m² / 1 billion sq. ft (Central Tokyo: ca. 55 million m² / 600 million sq. ft)
> 2-*New York metro area*:61.6 million m² / 662.8 million sq. ft
> ...


So this is the ranking of the total size of office space. Thank you for info  
It is a surprise to see that Bay Area metro of SF is listed among the top 5.
However, some cities are still missing such as Los Angeles metro, Shanghai metro, Seoul metro and Sao Paulo metro.
I believe that some of these metro should be up in the ranking because of the size of population and the number of buildings if you talk about the total office space of city metro area.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

brisavoine said:


> The Paris metro area has a population of 11.6 million, not 10.
> 
> No they don't count industrial and retail space. The 527 million sq. ft figure is purely for office space.
> As of March 2006 there were:
> ...


If you count them(the bold ones) Chicago is undoubtly #1, no bias, it is famous for industrial and commercial crossroads and it has the land for them! :runaway:


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

brisavoine said:


> So now that some datas for Asian cities were mentioned, here is the ranking we have so far:
> 
> 1- Tokyo metro area: more than 100 million m² / 1 billion sq. ft (Central Tokyo: ca. 55 million m² / 600 million sq. ft)
> 2- New York metro area: 61.6 million m² / 662.8 million sq. ft
> ...


BTW, what about every cities having the equal size of area to see who has the most office spaces in their densest big block? The list is based on varied area size, so you can't see who has the most, set them with equal area in size and then pull out their office spaces in stat for the list! :cheers:

How about using only *10 million m² * for every cities above and show their *densest area * for office spaces number in sq. ft? :cheers:


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

thunderC said:


> So this is the ranking of the total size of office space. Thank you for info
> It is a surprise to see that Bay Area metro of SF is listed among the top 5.
> However, some cities are still missing such as Los Angeles metro, Shanghai metro, Seoul metro and Sao Paulo metro.
> I believe that some of these metro should be up in the ranking because of the size of population and the number of buildings if you talk about the total office space of city metro area.


I find no data for L.A metro only for for L.A cbd
Shanghai too
Sao Paulo metro has 8.7 million m² / 94 million sq. ft
Seoul metro has only 6.4 million m² / 68.8 million sq. ft of offices


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Spooky873 said:


> Yeah New York! I wonder how much it has with 100 million m²?


Yea, that is so true, I wounder how the Chicago, Tokyo and NYC would fair when compare on 10 million m2 for their densest part? :cheers:

How about densest block for total size of office space?
I think that Chicago easily snatch the title then!


----------



## unoh (Aug 13, 2005)

Let's compare office area of tokyo and new york through pics

Tokyo



















NYC


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

NYC and Tokyo are both at the top of the game when it comes to office space, with Tokyo having the most, but they are also unique examples of how different they are as well. Tokyo being the low-rise radial city and NYC being the high-rise vertical city, but both very dense. NYC comprises a smaller area, im sure if it were like Tokyo itd spread out as well. 

Thanks for the pics, I havent seen them in a long time. The last NYC pic you can see Midtown, Downtown, Jersey City, Brooklyn, Newark, and the developing Queens skyline.

That pic in 5 years will be more definitive as well, with each skyline area becoming bigger.


----------



## jjbradleynyc (Jul 8, 2004)

Those figures are for "finished" office space, right? So the NYC figures do not count the New York Times tower (50 plus stories), Bank of America Tower (50 plus), Goldman Sachs tower (47 stories), or the future World Trade Center tower--all under construction. 
These complexes should add 5-6 million more sq ft of space to NYC total--not counting other projects under construction I'm leaving out.


----------



## jjbradleynyc (Jul 8, 2004)

I'm also very surprised how far back Chicago is. NYC has 3 times the office space...hm, interesting.


----------



## thunderC (Aug 7, 2006)

Tokyo has the most office space for sure  ,Yet it seems to have less advantages in other business-oriented elements. 
I found this.










According to a Tokyo municipal government survey rating the attractiveness of cities in 6 categories (living environment, office environment, business environment, information, shopping, others), Tokyo rates high when compared to select Western cites for information and shopping, and low for living, business, and office environments. New York received the highest ratings among 4 cities for all categories.
http://www.mid-tokyo.com/12_e/aboutthis.html











When compared to other Asian cities, Tokyo received the highest ratings for information and shopping. As a living environment, however, the rating is low: the graph is markedly distorted in form. Hong Kong is rated high as a business environment, and Singapore as a living environmen


----------

