Quote:
Originally Posted by newflyer
I dislike the amount of surface lots in the downtown as much as anyone here, but that building is an eyesore. It needs to be torn down, as some buildings will need to be in order to improve the overall presence of the whole area. You can't keep the dives standing in the name of conservation and still say you care about downtown. The focus must be instead on finding developers to build on these lots.
As within the laws of economics; supply will follow demand. Lets create the conditions which will draw more interest in living and locating businesses (both retail and commercial) downtown. As more demand is created there will be more interest in building on these lots.
|
But what about when demand follows supply?
Say's law is given less credit than it deserves these days. While clearly not a law, there is something to it. It's pretty obvious that increasing the supply of parking has only ever lead to increased demand for parking. It's a vicious cycle of suck.
And that building isn't too bad, that picture is of the ass end of the building. I guess it's no Vida Guerra, but I'm not offended by its appearance.
Also, parking lots are hard to get rid of, thanks to their extreme profitability.
This picture of j.online's is exactly what I was talking about before.
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/4741/parkingis8.jpg
You can't tell me the developer actually sees that much value in making this lot. I'm pretty sure if we were to work some kind of Coasian negotiation, the developer would fold and develop the property without the extra parking. The developer wants to tear the building down in order to make x amount of money, the city wants to stop the buildings from being torn down because that would suck. If the amount the developer stands to lose from not tearing down the buildings is less than it's worth to the city to keep them, the city can pay him off. If it's actually worth more to him than the city, he can tear his building down if he pays the city. The thing is, it's probably worth all of five bucks to the developer to lose these buildings, so he can fuck off.
rgalston's last post really illustrates Diner's fallacy. Maybe if Winnipeg were on the beach on the edge of a metropolis of millions of car driving Texans, like Galveston is, his idea would work. Joe Diner is stupid.