Buying Airspace?

[Neutraligon]

I would consider those existing structures.

Fair enough, though most are more like this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ooklyn.jpg
Structure is probably too nice a word.

More like “deadly poles of boat sinking doom”.

Good thing is the city already owns them, and nobody is living on them.

Not sure above the water is the best place to put affordable housing... particularly with global warming.

[The New California Republic]

I actually think that even Hamilton's mansion is more energy efficient than the building I have in mind.

Hmmm. Something like the metropolitan museum of art is surprisingly efficient on how it handles HVAC. I need a hint.

It was completed in 1958.

[Ethel mermania]

I would consider those existing structures.

Fair enough, though most are more like this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ooklyn.jpg
Structure is probably too nice a word.

More like “deadly poles of boat sinking doom”.

Good thing is the city already owns them, and nobody is living on them.

As an fyi river views command a premium in rents. Affordable housing isnt going to go there either. Besides when a private investor wanted to build a public park on the waterfront it got shot down by other rich people.

This isnt the article I was looking for but it does show some of the issues in developing that space.

https://observer.com/2008/04/on-the-wat ... velopment/

[Ethel mermania]

Hmmm. Something like the metropolitan museum of art is surprisingly efficient on how it handles HVAC. I need a hint.

It was completed in 1958.

The seagram's building by van der rohe?

[Telconi]

Hmmm. Something like the metropolitan museum of art is surprisingly efficient on how it handles HVAC. I need a hint.

It was completed in 1958.

The Guggenheim?

[The New California Republic]

It was completed in 1958.

The seagram's building by van der rohe?

[Ethel mermania]

The seagram's building by van der rohe?

58 did give it away. Our first glass and steel box. It is landmarked as a significant building. Which is an arguement SL should have used when he just said "the splinters are ugly".

[Novus America]

Fair enough, though most are more like this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ooklyn.jpg
Structure is probably too nice a word.

More like “deadly poles of boat sinking doom”.

Good thing is the city already owns them, and nobody is living on them.

As an fyi river views command a premium in rents. Affordable housing isnt going to go there either. Besides when a private investor wanted to build a public park on the waterfront it got shot down by other rich people.

This isnt the article I was looking for but it does show some of the issues in developing that space.

https://observer.com/2008/04/on-the-wat ... velopment/

Sure you have to deal with NIMBY shit, but you have to deal with that shit everywhere.
Also those issues were largely because the city did not find the private sector plans beneficial enough.

If the city more actively planned the development instead of relying on private companies to decide what to do with it, that problem gets resolved.

Sure riverfront views command high prices, but if the city continued to own the buildings it could set the rates below market.

And where else are you going to build affordable housing?

Not like there is as much empty unused space anywhere else.

Sure there would be issues to work through, but so would building affordable housing anywhere else.

[Novus America]

Fair enough, though most are more like this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ooklyn.jpg
Structure is probably too nice a word.

More like “deadly poles of boat sinking doom”.

Good thing is the city already owns them, and nobody is living on them.

Not sure above the water is the best place to put affordable housing... particularly with global warming.

Not like there is tons of space anywhere else.

But those used to hold huge buildings.

Besides what else are you going to do with it?

And build them high enough off the water then. The could be raised.

Though if rising sea levels is your primary concern forget NYC altogether.

[Telconi]

58 did give it away. Our first glass and steel box. It is landmarked as a significant building. Which is an arguement SL should have used when he just said "the splinters are ugly".

Glass shoeboxes are ugly...

[Ethel mermania]

58 did give it away. Our first glass and steel box. It is landmarked as a significant building. Which is an arguement SL should have used when he just said "the splinters are ugly".

Glass shoeboxes are ugly...

I agree, I get the significance of the seagram's building as it was the first but as to the others they want to landmark, bleh.

[Zyris]

A new trend?

[Gun Manufacturers]

See these are two separate issues. The fact you think they are ugly, or the fact the are expensive.
The fact you think they are ugly is of no consequence.

The fact they are expensive does not change the fact that there is plenty of unused space to go around and that these take up very little land space.
So they are not the problem.

The problem is the city government failing to properly develop the vast amount of space it already owns.

Ok and why not build apartments the average person can afford and not allow these buildings for the mega rich?

Why can't they build apartments the average person can afford, AND allow these buildings for the mega rich?

Which part of these buildings offends you the most? Is it the aesthetics? Aesthetics are subjective. Is it because they're not always occupied? That doesn't seem like any of your business. Is it because the people buying these apartments are rich? Who else is going to buy them?

[Yusseria]

No one is forcing anyone to live anywhere, let alone NYC. Can't afford it? Tough shit. Live somewhere else.

Why don’t we just make all major cites gated communities that only the rich can afford? It’s more profitable after all

I doubt there's enough rich people for that

[San Lumen]

Ok and why not build apartments the average person can afford and not allow these buildings for the mega rich?

Why can't they build apartments the average person can afford, AND allow these buildings for the mega rich?

Which part of these buildings offends you the most? Is it the aesthetics? Aesthetics are subjective. Is it because they're not always occupied? That doesn't seem like any of your business. Is it because the people buying these apartments are rich? Who else is going to buy them?

Because its more profitable to build this and these people have the money to build them. That's all the city council cares about.

[Free Arabian Nation]

Why can't they build apartments the average person can afford, AND allow these buildings for the mega rich?

Which part of these buildings offends you the most? Is it the aesthetics? Aesthetics are subjective. Is it because they're not always occupied? That doesn't seem like any of your business. Is it because the people buying these apartments are rich? Who else is going to buy them?

Because its more profitable to build this and these people have the money to build them. That's all the city council cares about.

Yeah, the city council makes money so it can, you know do stuff?

Are you a closet libertarian/anarchist or something?

[San Lumen]

Because its more profitable to build this and these people have the money to build them. That's all the city council cares about.

Yeah, the city council makes money so it can, you know do stuff?

Are you a closet libertarian/anarchist or something?

No but its not fair to the average resident to push them out so rich folk can by up all the land and build monasteries no one will occupy

[The Emerald Legion]

Yeah, the city council makes money so it can, you know do stuff?

Are you a closet libertarian/anarchist or something?

No but its not fair to the average resident to push them out so rich folk can by up all the land and build monasteries no one will occupy

Yes it is.

[The New California Republic]

Yeah, the city council makes money so it can, you know do stuff?

Are you a closet libertarian/anarchist or something?

No but its not fair to the average resident to push them out so rich folk can by up all the land and build monasteries no one will occupy

I'd imagine that various orders of monks would be pretty happy about occupying them?

[San Lumen]

No but its not fair to the average resident to push them out so rich folk can by up all the land and build monasteries no one will occupy

Yes it is.

how?

[Free Arabian Nation]

Yeah, the city council makes money so it can, you know do stuff?

Are you a closet libertarian/anarchist or something?

No but its not fair to the average resident to push them out so rich folk can by up all the land and build monasteries no one will occupy

It's not like the poor could afford it anyway.

The land these uber-expensive towers are built on is in areas where land is too expensive anyway. A person buying a 100$ Ice Cream is not forcing the poor to not buy Ice Cream.

Also, this is ignoring the fact that it's still building rooms for people to live in. I think what's causing the problem you're having in New York is not because of some "Ugly Towers kicking people out somehow", but rather the fact that big cities with overpopulation are a massive problem. When you have 8.6 Million people stuck inside an area smaller than Malta, you're gonna have problems with there not being enough room, resources, and money to house all of them sufficiently.

[San Lumen]

No but its not fair to the average resident to push them out so rich folk can by up all the land and build monasteries no one will occupy

It's not like the poor could afford it anyway.

The land these uber-expensive towers are built on is in areas where land is too expensive anyway. A person buying a 100$ Ice Cream is not forcing the poor to not buy Ice Cream.

Also, this is ignoring the fact that it's still building rooms for people to live in. I think what's causing the problem you're having in New York is not because of some "Ugly Towers kicking people out somehow", but rather the fact that big cities with overpopulation are a massive problem. When you have 8.6 Million people stuck inside an area smaller than Malta, you're gonna have problems with there not being enough room, resources, and money to house all of them sufficiently.

8 million dont live in Manhattan. There are five other boroughs.

[Free Arabian Nation]

It's not like the poor could afford it anyway.

The land these uber-expensive towers are built on is in areas where land is too expensive anyway. A person buying a 100$ Ice Cream is not forcing the poor to not buy Ice Cream.

Also, this is ignoring the fact that it's still building rooms for people to live in. I think what's causing the problem you're having in New York is not because of some "Ugly Towers kicking people out somehow", but rather the fact that big cities with overpopulation are a massive problem. When you have 8.6 Million people stuck inside an area smaller than Malta, you're gonna have problems with there not being enough room, resources, and money to house all of them sufficiently.

8 million dont live in Manhattan. There are five other boroughs.

Overpopulation is a problem in all of New York, not just Manhattan.

[San Lumen]

8 million dont live in Manhattan. There are five other boroughs.

Overpopulation is a problem in all of New York, not just Manhattan.

So whats your solution then?

[Free Arabian Nation]

Overpopulation is a problem in all of New York, not just Manhattan.

So whats your solution then?

Well banning homes for rich people certainly ain't on the top of my list, but I think a massive growth horizontally is needed. Crowding humans, a creature that needs fresh air and open spaces, in a small area is a bad idea IMO.