That’s really not true though. The facilities beyond the “poor doors” aren’t any different from how most normal people live, they’re just right next to luxury accommodation for rich people. The contrast is obviously more apparent, but the developers aren’t doing anything to screw over the poors (what’d be the point?).
> If we really wanted, the government could build appartements of better quality and sell them at same price, AND make a profit on it.
Of course, but the politicians would rather virtue signal about “poor doors” than actually solve problems.
I'm sure that politicians are incompetent and corrupt. That being said, we can agree that there is a market failure here.
Isn’t that just… normal? Until a few years ago I thought that apartment building gyms were something that only exist in american movies.
Parking is hardly a given for any apartment in European cities, London even has tons of luxury apartments without parking.
It's more profitable for them to sell appartements at 700$/sqft for only half of them to sell, costing them 350$/sqft to build, than to sell for 400$/sqft an appartment that cost 250$/sqft to build.
The disaster isn't that there is no access to the pool. The issue is that they're trying to spite the poors and shame them, because they're trying to prevent them from moving in.
If we really wanted, the government could build appartements of better quality and sell them at same price, AND make a profit on it.
As the above commenter said, it's simply a market failure. It has nothing to do with the price of the land or anything, it's that the appartements are seen as an investment asset and will be bought at an exorbitant price eventually, as long as the price of the appartment doesn't fall in that "luxury" building. It's gross resource misallocation.