Talk:1:5:200
Add topic | This page was proposed for deletion by UnitedStatesian (talk · contribs) on 17 January 2008 with the comment: no sources to indicate this concept has sufficient notability for a WP article It was contested by Uncle G (talk · contribs) on 17 January 2008 with the comment: Kerrrzapp! Started again, this time with sources. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Further reading
[edit]You might be interested in: {
Hughes, W.P.; Ancell, D; Gruneberg, S; Hirst, L (2004). "Exposing the myth of the 1:5:200 ratio relating initial cost, maintenance and staffing costs of office buildings". Proceedings of the 20th Annual ARCOM Conference. Heriot-Watt University: 373–381. Retrieved 7 November 2013. {{cite journal}}: Check |authorlink1= value (help); External link in |authorlink1=
This paper claims that 1:5:200 is more of a marketing buzz with few evidence from a scientific point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.59.105.184 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 8 February 2007
Missing
[edit]The article forgot to mention whether run cost is 200x build cost or 1/200th build cost —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tabby (talk • contribs) 01:06:48, August 19, 2007 (UTC). The article also forgot to use skyscraper as a study subject. Normal life cost calculation are based on 35 years instead of 25 years. For eg. the International Commerce Centre (ICC) of Hong Kong. It's 108 levels rented by 3 investment banks, Morgan Stanley, Swiss Financial Bank and Deutsche Bank. The ratio may well over 1:5:200. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.164.242 (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)