Re:LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in ...
by refurb on Thursday August 08, 2019 @09:11AM
(#20644145)
The value of the owner’s asset (the building) is based on more than just the building itself, but also on the surrounding area and the quality of life.
It doesn’t help an owner if they build units nobody wants to live in because of shadows, no parking, etc.
Re:LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in ...
by eesmith on Thursday August 08, 2019 @09:34AM
(#20644377)
It seems that your answer to my question "What is the mechanism by which "the market" balances out the desire by the megarich to live in tall towers in NYC, with the desire by those who use Central Park to not be in shadows more?" is that the megarich should build as many towers as they want until the megarich themselves no longer want to live with Central Park in shade.
That is, if the megarich enjoy the 50 mile views and don't care about Central Park at all, then it can smother in shadow, yes?
And the only mechanism for the people who want to have sunlight in the Park is to make the megarich either socially or physically uncomfortable enough (perhaps by threats of violence?) that they decide it's time to move away ... or buy more security?
If so, your mechanism seems rather prone to encourage social unrest.
Consider Japan, which has building restrictions to avoid eternal shadows. Building height is a function of the setback from the street.
A buyer may well want a taller building, and a builder might well be happy to provide it, when the city is dead set against it.
What is the mechanism by which "the market" balances out the desire by the megarich to live in tall towers in NYC, with the desire by those who use Central Park to not be in shadows more?