Re:NYC Skyscrapers Sit Vacant, Exposing Risk City Never Pred...
by chimeracoder on Thursday May 18, 2023 @12:14PM
(#35990179)
> Yup, do this. "Young people who can't afford anything else" in New York are a population comparable with that of Atlanta [1].
You can't just link to the age distribution and cite the number of "20-24 year olds in NYC" as evidence that there are half a million people in NYC who can't afford to live in anything other than an SRO.
Re:NYC Skyscrapers Sit Vacant, Exposing Risk City Never Pred...
by JumpCrisscross on Thursday May 18, 2023 @03:10PM
(#35992657)
I’m saying there are half a million New Yorkers aged 20 to 24. Is your argument really that there isn’t a market for a cheap, minimal build in New York?
Re:NYC Skyscrapers Sit Vacant, Exposing Risk City Never Pred...
by blep_ on Thursday May 18, 2023 @07:18PM
(#35995666)
You're also pulling "can't afford anything else" into that as if the two groups are the same, which is what they're complaining about. (I'm not expressing an opinion myself, I've never been to New York.)
Yup, do this. "Young people who can't afford anything else" in New York are a population comparable with that of Atlanta [1].
> no way that you can seriously argue that doing this for newly-constructed skyscrapers would result in units that can be sold at the price that the building owners are demanding
The buildings' owners are screwed. Their leverage constrains them. The question is whether the structures have positive value. Retrofitting to current code leaves most with negative value, i.e. it's cheaper to abandon. The question I was answering is if it's possible to economically convert these to housing for somebody. Under current code, the answer is no.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/911456/new-york-populati... 20 to 24
[a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...