Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown
(Post 6830650)
It has EVERYTHING to do with show. The demand is driven by people who want a 1000ft high view so they can show off how rich they are!
|
No, it has nothing to do with show, as you then confirm in the same statement. The demand is strictly driven by consumers, not by any non-market factors. In anything, non-market actors (civics, govt. entities, zoning code, local tax structure) are very anti-development.
The buyers, BTW, are 90% LLCs. Almost no one is trying to "show off how rich they are". The snobbiest residences in NYC aren't these new towers; they're the super-elite prewar coops mostly along Park and Fifth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown
(Post 6830650)
That's a pretty odd way of defining "efficiency". If a billionaire wanted a solid gold toilet I'm sure someone would build one, but that wouldn't make it an efficient toilet.
|
Uh, I think you need to consult a dictionary. You listed a perfect illustration of efficiency. If the raw market demand were for solid gold toilets, then the most efficient toilet would be solid gold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown
(Post 6830650)
These building are the exact opposite of that. They are extremely wasteful of resources and that is a fact whether or not someone can afford it or not.
|
Again, totally wrong. They are about the most efficient use of resources possible for superluxury residences. There is basically no other place on the planet where the rich live in skyscraper towers integrated into the urban landscape. There's almost no parking, tiny consumption of land, massive redistributive tax benefits, and the towers are seamlessly inserted into the existing urban form.
Almost everywhere else they're either in giant suburban spreads, or in stand-alone, anti-urban, big city towers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown
(Post 6830650)
If you want to see tall buildings get built, that's great, but don't lie to yourself and pretend like they are anything other than giant phallic symbols for the ultra-wealthy.
|
Someone is envious. Are you envious of wealthy people, or are you envious of cities with market demand for luxury residential in tall buildings? Where does "Browntown" live where the wealthy apparently live in trailer parks or communes, trying to avoid any pretenses of prosperity?
Like any residential structure, the towers are residences and investment vehicles. If they didn't live or invest in these towers, they would live or invest somewhere else. It's pretty absurd to argue that the rich would live "more efficiently" if they were paying much lower taxes on a 100 acre spread in Greenwich, or if they offshored the wealth to a corrupt tax haven.