Downtowns are dead, dying or on life support, says expert with over 50 years of researching urban policy
Downtowns are dead, dying or on life support, says expert with over 50 years of researching urban policy
The Reagan White House moved to lower tax rates for developers in the 1980s and then years of low interest rates glutted downtowns with office buildings. Time's up.
You're viewing a single thread.
We have a dramatic shortage of residential property. We have a dramatic oversupply of commercial property. IF ONLY THERE WAS A SOLUTION
IF ONLY THERE WAS A SOLUTION
Middle managers: I agree. From now on you'll be required to be in office 4 days a week instead of 2!
Speaking of which:
You can ‘smell history’ in Tampa cigar factory becoming student housing
They'll never get the smell out either. Not completely. I feel sorry for the students.
Unfortunately, in most cities that is illegal. Zoning laws prevent turning commercial property into residential even when it is possible. It also prevents developers from building moderate, high, and even certain types of low density housing.
In most US cities. Hmm, I wonder if we can spot a solution...
Oops, thanks
Be careful what you wish for. Houston is notorious for abolishing its zoning laws, which means that residential and commercial properties are haphazardly scattered rather than concentrated into distinct areas.
People never know when a CVS will pop up next door to their home. Now you know why they form HOAs.
For the millionth time it’s not that simple. Retrofitting commercial buildings is often impossible or more expensive than just demolishing and building new which is also ungodly expensive especially with how high interest rates are right now. Unless cities step in with millions of dollars per project it’s usually not financially possible.
If the problem is money then there is no problem. It becomes a necessity and you can't just not afford necessity. We allegedly are the richest country they need to figure it out regardless of cost. That simple.
It's like climate change, there is no issue with money it just has to get done. Pay for it regardless of the cost. It is necessary
But what if we let the children pay for it when they grow up? Yes, the cost will be several orders of magnitude more, but we don't have to think about that now.
Just jubilee the debt away? Bro money is fake, who cares?
I mean, hopefully fewer people from the future generation will be homeless. It's pretty rough starting out now, especially if you aren't lucky enough to have a wealthy family.
What we've been doing for the last number of years just isn't working. The solution isn't to keep procrastinating it indefinitely. There has always been debt that's pushed onto future generations, but this debt might actually help them.
I wish that people started building more housing many years ago. If housing was cheaper, increased taxes wouldn't be as big of a concern. This is because there would also be more money available to spend. This means spending money for food, transportation, schooling, and more.
Instead, currently many people are using the limited housing as investments and retirement plans. Life expectancies are increasing, and births are still happening. Where do you propose people live if there isn't housing available?
Rural forests in uninhabited areas also aren't a legitimate option for most people. No running water, no heat, no medical care available, no pharmacies, no stores, no places to work, and nowhere to buy tools to build shelter. That sounds like a very bad time for most people.
I live on the North end of the SF Bay Area and literally every empty lot and a shit load of pasture land and open space is currently being developed into either low income apartments, high end apartments, town houses or track homes. It's honestly kind of shocking. Everywhere you go, new residential development.
Sonoma County supervisors were supposed to vote on a housing development plan in January, but failed to do so until August, and in the meantime there was a special rule that allowed builders to go ahead without most of the red tape they usually face. They took the opportunity and ran with it.
Retrofitting commercial buildings is often impossible or more expensive than just demolishing
That sounds like a "them" problem.
They can watch their investments dry up and lose billions, or pivot to the new market. Not our fault they're stuck in the 80s.
This is such bullshit. It doesn't cost millions of dollars to add new plumbing, HVAC, and interior walls.
Say you have an average size house, with a 2-car garage on the side. You decide to change that garage into a small apartment for renting. You need to add a wall or two, add insulation, build up a kitchen area (with proper water and power) and a bathroom.
Imagine how much that would cost you for that single apartment. Now multiply that by, say, 50, to convert a large office building into 50 residential rental units. Even with economies of scale, that's still going to cost millions...
Dude... you're arguing that it's better to tear down, and build from scratch then it is to retro fit. This is obvious bullshit. In your example it would be more practical to retro fit the garage then to tear it down, and build a new building. Like fuck man.
“ In parts of the country where land is relatively cheap, it's far less expensive to build housing from scratch than to convert old offices.”
Actually it’s not bullshit. Most office buildings are designed with large core space where the elevators and stairs etc go. That’s not at all how apartment buildings are designed. Changing that is extremely expensive.