MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973174404 · doi:10.1108/14630010910985904

Vertical phasing as a corporate real estate strategy and development option

2009· article· en· W1973174404 on OpenAlex
Anthony C. Guma, Jason R Pearson, Kate S Wittels, Richard de Neufville, David Geltner

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Corporate Real Estate · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCapital Investment and Risk Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate Real EstateReal estateOriginalityCorporationReal estate developmentValue (mathematics)BusinessService (business)Building designFinanceMarketingEngineeringComputer scienceArchitectural engineeringSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the potential value of significant vertical phasing – that is, the addition of five or more stories to an existing building – as a valuable real option in real estate development, in particular for corporate real estate strategy. Design/methodology/approach The demonstration is done through in‐depth case studies of four major projects in North America: the 24 story, 880,000 square feet expansion of the Health Care Service Corporation building in Chicago; the Court Square Citicorp Campus in New York City; the Bentall Five project in Vancouver; and the Tufts University School of Dental Medicine building in Boston. Findings Vertical expansion appears to have significant organizational and logistical advantages for corporate developers, such as the ability to keep staff in one building, and the elimination of the need to relocate with its resulting inconvenience and potential to lose employees. Further, the financial analysis indicates that the option to expand vertically is a reasonable way for corporate developers to access convenient expansion space, while limiting their downside risk. Commercial developers on the other hand may find that the ability to scale back designs in the case of market downturns is particularly valuable. The case studies also confirm by example that the vertical expansion of buildings is technically possible. Although the process of erecting a major new building on top of a fully occupied building is clearly complex, it is not extraordinary difficult so long as the possibility of vertical expansion is built into the original design. Originality/value Vertical expansion of buildings has not been appreciated as an attractive feasible option for flexible development of real estate in a risky environment. These case studies and analysis bring this possibility to the attention of the real estate industry and corporate real estate managers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it