I've expressed Cost per SF for budget items in proformas both ways, and I'm curious what folks here believe to be the better or more useful expression of development cost on a $/sf basis. Do you prefer $ per RENTABLE square foot, or $ per GROSS BUILDABLE square foot? And why? I have my opinions but want to see what others think.
Trending Content - Real Estate Forum
| +43 | What should we be buying? | 27 | 3h |
| +30 | Uncertain of what To Do Next | 5 | 3d |
| +28 | Capital Restricted Developer | 2 | 3d |
| +25 | Where are free agents signing? | 8 | 2h |
| +23 | Laughable Job Posting | 4 | 2h |
| +23 | Warning: J. Shaw Recruiters | 5 | 3d |
| +20 | Due Diligence - ALTA Survey | 4 | 2h |
| +15 | Seeking Advice: How Do You Get Value from ULI Membership? | 2 | 6d |
| +7 | Development Budget: use RENTABLE or GROSS BUILDABLE sf? | 1 | 1h |
| +6 | First-year REPE analyst comp check (London) | 1 | 4d |
Career Resources
Depends on the context. When evaluating construction costs or leveling bids, buildable sf makes more sense. When deciding whether to embark on a project at all and figuring out projected returns, comparing like to like (so, rentable sf) might make more sense.
As long as you're calling it out, I don't think it matters much.
I use buildable SF, as that is your true cost PSF. It doesnt make sense to say you spent $60/psf just because the building is 100K SF if you only built out 80K SF. It will set the wrong precedent
Similique esse vero aut minima sed molestiae magnam. Pariatur est assumenda occaecati ut. Quam minus natus possimus vero aut. Dolorem quidem non architecto non repudiandae consequatur.
Dolores expedita in repellat quia praesentium aspernatur. Et rerum tempora omnis occaecati molestiae. Magnam est et quis vel. Reiciendis quasi placeat quaerat eum perferendis earum tenetur.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...