[SUBMITTED]Empty Edifices

[Noahs Second Country]

Thanks to whatever mechanism gave me issue 643 and Jutsa for the inspiration.
Many skyscrapers across the world remain vacant as foreigners have stopped being able to afford these high rise luxury condos in places such as Manhattan or China. I don't think anything really addresses this yet. Interestingly enough, this issue is almost the exact opposite of 725.

[validity]chose either 643.1, 68.1 or 725.1.

[desc] @@NAME@@ has been constructing a greater quantity of skyscrapers than ever before. However, these high rise residences simply aren't selling like they used to. The new tallest building in @@REGION@@, standing a full 2 centimeters higher than the former record thanks to a 222 meter spire, has been nicknamed 'Dump Tower' for its 70% vacancy rate. Somewhat surprisingly, you've encountered a few others on the elevator trip to the top.

[option]"Isn't this place so big, shiny, and expensive?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, pressing every single button on the elevator panel. "Except there's kind of an issue... nobody wants to live here because apparently they can't afford it. Perhaps if your government did a better job of promoting our luxurious condos to foreigners looking for their seventh house then we would not have this kind of problem. Honestly, the tourism industry in general needs more government promotion."

[effect]foreigners now own more square footage in @@CAPITAL@@ than its entire land area

[option]"Maybe these condominiums should try and appeal to the people who matter instead of some dumb rich foreigners," claims @@RANDOMNAME@@, resident of a nearby suburb. "Why not apply a government cap on housing prices, then encourage rural country dwellers to get jobs in the city? Employers win, workers win, and I'm sure some other people win too. Heck, you can even start building more skyscrapers to improve on the lackluster @@CAPITAL@@ skyline."

[effect]farmers are moving from the country into cramped studio apartments for marginally higher wages

[option]"Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting," swipes @@RANDOMNAME@@, the window-washer of the tower. "There are hundreds of homeless people in the streets of @@CAPITAL@@, yet plenty of empty living space in every building! We should be moving all of the homeless into these vacant spaces when they aren't in use. You should probably also halt any future skyscraper construction too, because they are a pane to clean."

[effect]declaring homelessness is the most effective way to acquire a penthouse suite

[option]"Yo, you know what would be a totally sick way to make money?" shoots Tony Bumgardener, sporting an energy drink and a suspiciously large duffel. "What if you let people do cool stuff with the building, like base jumping, climbing, parkour, and a bunch of other totally radical sh-." The elevator opens and security guards quietly take him away.

[effect]skyscrapers are just adult playgrounds

[Honeydewistania]

I feel like there should be on option that allows me to stop building a ton of skyscrapers.

[Noahs Second Country]

I feel like there should be on option that allows me to stop building a ton of skyscrapers.

I considered this but it doesn't make much sense to tear down a bunch of infrastructure for no reason. What else would the space be used for anyway?

[Honeydewistania]

I feel like there should be on option that allows me to stop building a ton of skyscrapers.

I considered this but it doesn't make much sense to tear down a bunch of infrastructure for no reason. What else would the space be used for anyway?

I mean like maybe just don’t build anymore, cause from the way this reads it doesn’t look like any of the three options are stopping further construction of skyscrapers.

[Noahs Second Country]

I considered this but it doesn't make much sense to tear down a bunch of infrastructure for no reason. What else would the space be used for anyway?

I mean like maybe just don’t build anymore, cause from the way this reads it doesn’t look like any of the three options are stopping further construction of skyscrapers.

That's a good point. I'll edit option 2 to add this, thanks.

[Honeydewistania]

I mean like maybe just don’t build anymore, cause from the way this reads it doesn’t look like any of the three options are stopping further construction of skyscrapers.

That's a good point. I'll edit option 2 to add this, thanks.

https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the ... 825121606/

[Australian rePublic]

Stop building new sky scrappers

[Noahs Second Country]

Stop building new sky scrappers

You should probably also halt any future skyscraper construction too, because they are a pain to clean."

Option 2 explicitly states this.

[Australian rePublic]

Stop building new sky scrappers

You should probably also halt any future skyscraper construction too, because they are a pain to clean."

Option 2 explicitly states this.

Why would anyone choose anything but option 2

[Noahs Second Country]

You should probably also halt any future skyscraper construction too, because they are a pain to clean."

Option 2 explicitly states this.

Why would anyone choose anything but option 2

Option 1 is pretty much what happens irl. Luxury condos are sold to foreigners in big cities for occasional use.

Option 2 has some pretty obvious downsides, too. Who would pay for building maintenance, why do homeless people get to live there, etc..

Option 3 is the typical 'crazy option that's very slightly rooted in real life events'.

[Noahs Second Country]

bump

[Pythaga]

I think you're missing an option. Consider adding one that downgrades the existing luxury condos so they're more affordable, and starts a government campaign to get people to move from the suburbs/country to @@NAME@@'s metropolises. Frame it such that it'll slash the developer's profits and tank some industries like farming so that it's more of a trade off.

[Noahs Second Country]

I think you're missing an option. Consider adding one that downgrades the existing luxury condos so they're more affordable, and starts a government campaign to get people to move from the suburbs/country to @@NAME@@'s metropolises. Frame it such that it'll slash the developer's profits and tank some industries like farming so that it's more of a trade off.

That's a good suggestion. Not sure how government-encouraged urbanization wasn't on my mind when initially writing this issue.

I've added option 2, though it lacks a bit of taste right now. I'll come back to it and clean it up later, thanks for the input.

[Noahs Second Country]

As promised, option 2 received a small upgrade in the form of another sentence, though I'm afraid the effect line could be a bit too matter-of-fact.

The draft has also been moved to last call.

[Westinor]

It'd be funny if the random button pressing in option 1 resulted in you being locked in the elevator with the rest of these people, though that has no relation to the issue and has already been employed as a premise in another issue

The transition from

"Isn't this place so big, shiny, and expensive?"

to

"Except there's kind of an issue

Doesn't feel quite right. It might be an issue with the first sentence, or just my own preference. It doesn't flow quite right imo.
Also, "they can't afford it" -> "promote to foreigners" doesn't feel like a completely logical conclusion in my opinion, though I suppose it's still fine.

"Maybe these condominiums should try and appeal to the people who matter,"

"people who matter" might not be the right term to refer to rural country dwellers here, though rereading it a couple of times in my head makes it sound better.

Option 3 is nice though you don't need "probably" in the last sentence.

Is there supposed to be a question mark as opposed to a comma in the first sentence in option 4?

Sorry this isn't at all super useful you've got a nice draft here though

[Noahs Second Country]

The transition from

"Isn't this place so big, shiny, and expensive?"

to

"Except there's kind of an issue

Doesn't feel quite right. It might be an issue with the first sentence, or just my own preference. It doesn't flow quite right imo.

That's understandable, my intent was something along the lines of "This place is great, BUT" (juxtaposing a strong positive with an immediate negative for full effect of the problem)
I think some of that may be taken away by the quote being broken up. I'm leaving as is for now but definitely thinking of potential ways to either strengthen the message or outright change it.

Also, "they can't afford it" -> "promote to foreigners" doesn't feel like a completely logical conclusion in my opinion, though I suppose it's still fine.

People in @@NAME@@ cannot afford it, but foreigners may be able to. Effectively "hey can you help us get rich people to buy our stuff?"

"people who matter" might not be the right term to refer to rural country dwellers here, though rereading it a couple of times in my head makes it sound better.

The intention was a rich-hating middle class suburb dweller to, well, hate on the rich. I'm thinking of ways to change this though, thanks.

Option 3 is nice though you don't need "probably" in the last sentence.

Another stylistic choice on my part, intended to be an important decision that just happens to be thrown in to the end of the character's statement, where the main claim is to move the homeless in.

Is there supposed to be a question mark as opposed to a comma in the first sentence in option 4?

The intention was a badly articulated, run-on suggestion from a stereotypically less educated character. However, I see your point and will make this change.


Thanks for the feedback!

[Westinor]

Yep, sorry it's not terribly useful. Best of luck

[Noahs Second Country]

Yep, sorry it's not terribly useful. Best of luck

Nah it's definitely useful, even if a suggestion isn't implemented I take it into consideration making changes going forward.

[Trotterdam]

People in @@NAME@@ cannot afford it, but foreigners may be able to.

Why would foreigners have more money than locals? That might make sense if @@NAME@@ is a poor nation, but you require no such thing in the validity.

[Noahs Second Country]

People in @@NAME@@ cannot afford it, but foreigners may be able to.

Why would foreigners have more money than locals? That might make sense if @@NAME@@ is a poor nation, but you require no such thing in the validity.

I am operating under the assumption that there are rich people outside of @@NAME@@. The intended consumers of skyscrapers tends to be rich foreigners. I wouldn't exactly consider the US or China a poor nation(these 2 nations in particular served to inspire this issue).

They were also made for foreigners with tens of millions of dollars to spare. Developers bet huge on foreign plutocrats—Russian oligarchs, Chinese moguls, Saudi royalty—looking to buy second (or seventh) homes. - issue inspiration

Another interesting read

[Paffnia]

Overlap with Issue #1021?: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88&start=50#1021

[Noahs Second Country]

Overlap with Issue #1021?: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88&start=50#1021

Thanks for pointing this out, I was unaware of this issue.

I think this is a bit of a different problem though, that one deals with foreigners actually buying the space, while in this issue the space is simply sitting empty as a result of prices being too high/lack of foreign interest. There are a couple of similar options, but they provide separate reasoning from what is expressed here so I believe this is enough of a difference to warrant a separate issue.

1021 could actually serve as a good follow-up to option 1 here.

[Noahs Second Country]

Submitted with a few last minute edits.

[Australian rePublic]

Good Luck!