Buying Airspace?

by **San Lumen** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:45 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019 ... super-rich

A new trend in NYC is for uber rich people to buy up literal airspace to build ugly pencil like towers for apartments they will never live in. Its a investment nothing more. There is a housing shortage in the city and officials have the nerve to wonder why? Fix the loophole in the law that allows this and build only affordable housing.

Housing should not be a privilege only the rich can afford. They should fix the law and stop construction of these luxury towers and tear these eyesores down.

Let these rich people build mansions instead how about a novel idea of them not having investments at the expense of everyone to flaunt their wealth?

Your thoughts NSG?

by **Loben** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:49 pm

San Lumen wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/05/super-tall-super-skinny-super-expensive-the-pencil-towers-of-new-yorks-super-rich

A new trend in NYC is for uber rich people to buy up literal airspace to build ugly pencil like towers for apartments they will never live in. Its a investment nothing more. There is a housing shortage in the city and officials have the nerve to wonder why? Fix the loophole in the law that allows this and build only affordable housing.

Housing should not be a privilege only the rich can afford. They should fix the law stop construction of these luxury towers and tear these eyesores down.

Let these rich people build mansions instead how about a novel idea of them not having investments at the expense of everyone to flaunt their wealth?

Your thoughts NSG?

an investment which they can make money off of rent?

fuck no, hell i applaud them for it, and depending on how you market it and manage it, recession proof.

by **San Lumen** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:50 pm

Loben wrote:
San Lumen wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/05/super-tall-super-skinny-super-expensive-the-pencil-towers-of-new-yorks-super-rich

A new trend in NYC is for uber rich people to buy up literal airspace to build ugly pencil like towers for apartments they will never live in. Its a investment nothing more. There is a housing shortage in the city and officials have the nerve to wonder why? Fix the loophole in the law that allows this and build only affordable housing.

Housing should not be a privilege only the rich can afford. They should fix the law stop construction of these luxury towers and tear these eyesores down.

Let these rich people build mansions instead how about a novel idea of them not having investments at the expense of everyone to flaunt their wealth?

Your thoughts NSG?

an investment which they can make money off of rent?

fuck no, hell i applaud them for it, and depending on how you market it and manage it, recession proof.

No one is renting these places out. Its merely a place for uber rich to park their massive wealth. No one lives in these towers. They are eyesores and a waste of space.

by **Trumptonium1** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:52 pm

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the same kind of luddite who opposed skyscrapers in the first place when art deco came in, or glass towers when postmodernism began.

As a non-NYC resident, these pencil towers completely ruin my image of NYC. They're extremely ugly. No wonder IKEA wallpapers don't even include them. My utopian view of NYC will forever be held in images of 2007 or GTA 4 or wallpapers, and never in reality. Shame.

by **Loben** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:52 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Loben wrote:
an investment which they can make money off of rent?

fuck no, hell i applaud them for it, and depending on how you market it and manage it, recession proof.

No one is renting these places out. Its merely a place for uber rich to park their massive wealth. No one lives in these towers. They are eyesores and a waste of space.

K.

They are eyesores and a waste of space.

so is modern art, your point?

by **San Lumen** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:53 pm

Loben wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
No one is renting these places out. Its merely a place for uber rich to park their massive wealth. No one lives in these towers. They are eyesores and a waste of space.

K.

They are eyesores and a waste of space.

so is modern art, your point?

Why should the rich get luxury towers that push people out of the city for apartments they will never live in?

by **Loben** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:55 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Loben wrote:
K.

so is modern art, your point?

Why should the rich get luxury towers that push people out of the city for apartments they will never live in?

did you know money talks? amaze right?

by **San Lumen** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:56 pm

Loben wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Why should the rich get luxury towers that push people out of the city for apartments they will never live in?

did you know money talks? amaze right?

And they could fix the loophole in the law that allows this and these towers would be illegal.

by **Trumptonium1** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:56 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Loben wrote:
K.

so is modern art, your point?

Why should the rich get luxury towers that push people out of the city for apartments they will never live in?

The poor can't live there anyway, so what?

No matter if you even let them live rent free there's still extremely high food costs, transport costs .. why should everyone subsidise them?

Much cheaper and better to move them out to suburbs. Or other cities in NY.

by **San Lumen** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:57 pm

Trumptonium1 wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Why should the rich get luxury towers that push people out of the city for apartments they will never live in?

The poor can't live there anyway, so what?

No matter if you even let them live rent free there's still extremely high food costs, transport costs .. why should everyone subsidise them?

Much cheaper and better to move them out to suburbs. Or other cities in NY.

Why not just ban towers like this by fixing the loophole? Suburbs are bad for the environment anyway

by **Loben** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:57 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Loben wrote:
did you know money talks? amaze right?

And they could fix the loophole in the law that allows this and these towers would be illegal.

what loophole?

by **San Lumen** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:58 pm

Loben wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
And they could fix the loophole in the law that allows this and these towers would be illegal.

what loophole?

did you even read the article?

by **Loben** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:59 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Loben wrote:
what loophole?

did you even read the article?

no?

by **San Lumen** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:00 pm

Loben wrote:
San Lumen wrote:did you even read the article?

no?

How about you do so?

by **Loben** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:01 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Loben wrote:
no?

How about you do so?

i dont read the guardian.

by **San Lumen** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:03 pm

Loben wrote:
San Lumen wrote:How about you do so?

i dont read the guardian.

Don;t comment if your not going to read the article. What do you have against the guardian?

by **Loben** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:05 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Loben wrote:
i dont read the guardian.

Don;t comment if your not going to read the article

do you own this thread?

did you pay max berry a premium in which you could decide who responds to your OP?

no?

well fuck me running.

by **San Lumen** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:07 pm

Loben wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Don;t comment if your not going to read the article

do you own this thread?

did you pay max berry a premium in which you could decide who responds to your OP?

no?

well fuck me running.

No. What do you have against the guardian?

by **Bear Stearns** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:07 pm

If we abolished zoning laws and construction restrictions, this wouldn't be an issue.

by **San Lumen** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:08 pm

Bear Stearns wrote:If we abolished zoning laws and construction restrictions, this wouldn't be an issue.

This is exactly why we need zoning laws and construction restrictions. Housing is a right not a privilege.

by **The Black Forrest** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:08 pm

Loben wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Don;t comment if your not going to read the article

do you own this thread?

did you pay max berry a premium in which you could decide who responds to your OP?

no?

well fuck me running.

Hmmm. It's called ignorance. Don't worry. Many here comment without reading.

by **Bear Stearns** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:10 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Bear Stearns wrote:If we abolished zoning laws and construction restrictions, this wouldn't be an issue.

This is exactly why we need zoning laws and construction restrictions. Housing is a right not a privilege.

Sure, but location is not.

You want affordable housing? Live in a place that's affordable. Not Midtown.

by **Loben** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:11 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Loben wrote:
do you own this thread?

did you pay max berry a premium in which you could decide who responds to your OP?

no?

well fuck me running.

No. What do you have against the guardian?

their opinion section and editorial team, its bland ass typical online news bullshit half of which can be found on BETTER websites if i could be assed to actually watch the news or read about it. i didnt give a fuck for years and dare i say ive been happier since.

by **Bear Stearns** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:11 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Loben wrote:
an investment which they can make money off of rent?

fuck no, hell i applaud them for it, and depending on how you market it and manage it, recession proof.

No one is renting these places out. Its merely a place for uber rich to park their massive wealth. No one lives in these towers. They are eyesores and a waste of space.

The owners pay property taxes on them, and they employ people to maintain these. What's it to you what someone does with their building? That isn't harming anyone.

by **Wunderstrafanstalt** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:11 pm

So if the evil eyesore bourgeois castle is destroyed and we stack more zoning laws, will the poor magically have access to affordable housing in the middle of NY?

Buying Airspace?

Buying Airspace?

Who is online