you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 162 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

We have a dramatic shortage of residential property. We have a dramatic oversupply of commercial property. IF ONLY THERE WAS A SOLUTION

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Unfortunately, in most cities that is illegal. Zoning laws prevent turning commercial property into residential even when it is possible. It also prevents developers from building moderate, high, and even certain types of low density housing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    In most US cities. Hmm, I wonder if we can spot a solution...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Be careful what you wish for. Houston is notorious for abolishing its zoning laws, which means that residential and commercial properties are haphazardly scattered rather than concentrated into distinct areas.

    People never know when a CVS will pop up next door to their home. Now you know why they form HOAs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -27 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    For the millionth time it’s not that simple. Retrofitting commercial buildings is often impossible or more expensive than just demolishing and building new which is also ungodly expensive especially with how high interest rates are right now. Unless cities step in with millions of dollars per project it’s usually not financially possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If the problem is money then there is no problem. It becomes a necessity and you can't just not afford necessity. We allegedly are the richest country they need to figure it out regardless of cost. That simple.

    It's like climate change, there is no issue with money it just has to get done. Pay for it regardless of the cost. It is necessary

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    But what if we let the children pay for it when they grow up? Yes, the cost will be several orders of magnitude more, but we don't have to think about that now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    I mean, hopefully fewer people from the future generation will be homeless. It's pretty rough starting out now, especially if you aren't lucky enough to have a wealthy family.

    What we've been doing for the last number of years just isn't working. The solution isn't to keep procrastinating it indefinitely. There has always been debt that's pushed onto future generations, but this debt might actually help them.

    I wish that people started building more housing many years ago. If housing was cheaper, increased taxes wouldn't be as big of a concern. This is because there would also be more money available to spend. This means spending money for food, transportation, schooling, and more.

    Instead, currently many people are using the limited housing as investments and retirement plans. Life expectancies are increasing, and births are still happening. Where do you propose people live if there isn't housing available?

    Rural forests in uninhabited areas also aren't a legitimate option for most people. No running water, no heat, no medical care available, no pharmacies, no stores, no places to work, and nowhere to buy tools to build shelter. That sounds like a very bad time for most people.

  • source
  • parent
  • Retrofitting commercial buildings is often impossible or more expensive than just demolishing

    That sounds like a "them" problem.

    They can watch their investments dry up and lose billions, or pivot to the new market. Not our fault they're stuck in the 80s.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago

    I live on the North end of the SF Bay Area and literally every empty lot and a shit load of pasture land and open space is currently being developed into either low income apartments, high end apartments, town houses or track homes. It's honestly kind of shocking. Everywhere you go, new residential development.

    Sonoma County supervisors were supposed to vote on a housing development plan in January, but failed to do so until August, and in the meantime there was a special rule that allowed builders to go ahead without most of the red tape they usually face. They took the opportunity and ran with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What I hear is mostly water pipes. Commercial buildings have them concentrated in bathrooms and hard to split for each residence.

    I know there are bathroom less really cheap places but that attract type of people which property management/urban development corps dont want so they may also be reluctant for that change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    This is such bullshit. It doesn't cost millions of dollars to add new plumbing, HVAC, and interior walls.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Say you have an average size house, with a 2-car garage on the side. You decide to change that garage into a small apartment for renting. You need to add a wall or two, add insulation, build up a kitchen area (with proper water and power) and a bathroom.

    Imagine how much that would cost you for that single apartment. Now multiply that by, say, 50, to convert a large office building into 50 residential rental units. Even with economies of scale, that's still going to cost millions...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Dude... you're arguing that it's better to tear down, and build from scratch then it is to retro fit. This is obvious bullshit. In your example it would be more practical to retro fit the garage then to tear it down, and build a new building. Like fuck man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Actually it’s not bullshit. Most office buildings are designed with large core space where the elevators and stairs etc go. That’s not at all how apartment buildings are designed. Changing that is extremely expensive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -30 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)
  • [+] 33 points 2 years ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)
  • [+] -19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Because most non-US cultures didn't decide to build their cities in the stupidest way possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    America is supposed to be a melting pot of different cultures, I think we can make it work and I'm sure those who are unhoused would much rather be able to live in a communal space with a roof and shower than nothing. Fuck corporate real estate profits and let the people live ffs

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I’ll take an entire floor for the cost of one bachelor unit.

    If you think that’s not fair to the building owner, I agree, they made a bad investment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    This might come as a shock to you but, human dignity doesn't give a fuck about commercial real state value. Because commercial real estate owners don't give a fuck about human dignity. So reciprocating the same level of care is fine for most.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments