Amazon HQ2 thread

[10023]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

This is so over the top American. Take a 2500 square foot plan and make it into a 7,500 square foot plan. What is the appeal of a 600 plus square foot great room for the times you aren't hosting 40 people?

BTW, this is possibly the greatest thread since the Chicago vs Toronto days 20 years ago. What will people compare next?

Hey, I'd be happy with this (in terms of space and proportions, at least). But the reception/living room is still over 400 sq ft:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-51013356.html

There's nothing unnecessary about that, if you can afford it. Look at the photos; it's still cluttered. They have to put the sofa against the wall (I hate that).

Here's another, with a living room that's about 560 sq ft. Now we're talking:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-50467854.html


Neither of those are American, by the way.

Every home I've ever lived in was short on space in the living room. As much as 600 square feet (30'x20') seems about right for entertaining.


Now, this one is 12,000 square feet. The floor plan is helpful for understanding how it gets there. Pardon the decor:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-58849967.html

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

This is so over the top American. Take a 2500 square foot plan and make it into a 7,500 square foot plan. What is the appeal of a 600 plus square foot great room for the times you aren't hosting 40 people?

Someone who has a 7,500 sq. ft. apartment in Gramercy Park will do lots of entertaining/fundraising/social registry BS. Not many hermits are buying such spreads.

In fact, many wealthy households purchase such units primarily for social purposes, and live somewhere else. It's not unusual to have some wealthy family living in, say Beverly Hills, or Palm Beach, and having a Manhattan apartment for philanthropic/social purposes.

If you live in Florida but are a member of the Met Opera board, you have to do heavy, frequent fundraising and will need someplace in Manhattan where your fellow .001 are willing to gather. No one is going to be lounging in this great room and watching Netflix.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Eh. I'd rather have a small apartment and use the money to play God. I'd rather singlehandedly build the next Dubai than live in luxury.

this all becomes rather gross when you realize you can literally cure diseases with that level of wealth. thats why i have a lot of respect for the path Gates has taken. hes putting his wealth towards a lot of unsexy problems that have the potential to radically change the lives of millions of people. and im not talking about 2 day shipping, im talking about singlehandedly eradicating polio. how much is "enough?" i dont know but i feel safe saying if youve got 136 billion the bank, you can comfortably find pressing global problems to solve with 135 of those and still live just fine off the remaining 1.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Someone who has a 7,500 sq. ft. apartment in Gramercy Park will do lots of entertaining/fundraising/social registry BS. Not many hermits are buying such spreads.

In fact, many wealthy households purchase such units primarily for social purposes, and live somewhere else. It's not unusual to have some wealthy family living in, say Beverly Hills, or Palm Beach, and having a Manhattan apartment for philanthropic/social purposes.

If you live in Florida but are a member of the Met Opera board, you have to do heavy, frequent fundraising and will need someplace in Manhattan where your fellow .001 are willing to gather. No one is going to be lounging in this great room and watching Netflix.

You never know. These folks aren't moving and shaking all the time and they may actually sit around that big ass room in their underwear and binge watch Orange is the New Black.

Originally Posted by PaleAle

If you are making 10 mil a month?

I'd still be a cheap skate.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

this all becomes rather gross when you realize you can literally cure diseases with that level of wealth. thats why i have a lot of respect for the path Gates has taken. hes putting his wealth towards a lot of unsexy problems that have the potential to radically change the lives of millions of people. and im not talking about 2 day shipping, im talking about singlehandedly eradicating polio. how much is "enough?" i dont know but i feel safe saying if youve got 136 billion the bank, you can comfortably find pressing global problems to solve with 135 of those and still live just fine off the remaining 1.

You can do both.

Someone who can "literally cure diseases" has what, tens of billions of dollars? A $50 million apartment or house is less than one half of 1% of their wealth. Even several of them is a small percentage of their wealth. If you have $1 billion, you should be earning twice that on it most years (and that's just with market returns).

Plus, diseases don't even really lack cures these days for lack of money. Incurable diseases like various forms of cancer are without cures despite enormous amounts of public research dollars, charitable giving and venture capital. They're just very difficult puzzles to solve.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by 10023

Because you can only use one at a time. That's even more frivolous.

If someone is buying a 30,000 sqft house, It is almost a guarantee that they own other properties around the world.

Bezos' latest home purchase in DC is 27,000 sqft for example.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

If someone is buying a 30,000 sqft house, It is almost a guarantee that they own other properties around the world.

Of course. But then it's not a choice to be made, is it?

My point was that having four 3,000 square foot homes is not like having one 12,000 square foot home.

[Kenneth]

Cancel

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by 10023

Hey, I'd be happy with this (in terms of space and proportions, at least). But the reception/living room is still over 400 sq ft:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-51013356.html

There's nothing unnecessary about that, if you can afford it. Look at the photos; it's still cluttered. They have to put the sofa against the wall (I hate that).

Here's another, with a living room that's about 560 sq ft. Now we're talking:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-50467854.html


Neither of those are American, by the way.

Every home I've ever lived in was short on space in the living room. As much as 600 square feet (30'x20') seems about right for entertaining.


Now, this one is 12,000 square feet. The floor plan is helpful for understanding how it gets there. Pardon the decor:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-58849967.html

I prefer to have more rooms and wall space to furnish. My comment doesn't just pertain to the super wealthy. I don't know how many times I've walked into a 3000 to 6000 square suburban home owned by an average American family with sprawling massive rooms with nothing in them (excluding tvs)

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Someone who has a 7,500 sq. ft. apartment in Gramercy Park will do lots of entertaining/fundraising/social registry BS. Not many hermits are buying such spreads.

In fact, many wealthy households purchase such units primarily for social purposes, and live somewhere else. It's not unusual to have some wealthy family living in, say Beverly Hills, or Palm Beach, and having a Manhattan apartment for philanthropic/social purposes.

If you live in Florida but are a member of the Met Opera board, you have to do heavy, frequent fundraising and will need someplace in Manhattan where your fellow .001 are willing to gather. No one is going to be lounging in this great room and watching Netflix.

The super rich are like everyone else. Some live to socialize. Some are hermits. Some are hoarders of everything nice. Some are really cheap. Most buy these homes because it's the thing to do among the super wealthy. They may live in them or spend hours if that every year in them.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by 10023

You can do both.

Someone who can "literally cure diseases" has what, tens of billions of dollars? A $50 million apartment or house is less than one half of 1% of their wealth. Even several of them is a small percentage of their wealth. If you have $1 billion, you should be earning twice that on it most years (and that's just with market returns).

Plus, diseases don't even really lack cures these days for lack of money. Incurable diseases like various forms of cancer are without cures despite enormous amounts of public research dollars, charitable giving and venture capital. They're just very difficult puzzles to solve.

well last i checked bezos is pretty lacking in the philanthropy department, period.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

this all becomes rather gross when you realize you can literally cure diseases with that level of wealth. thats why i have a lot of respect for the path Gates has taken. hes putting his wealth towards a lot of unsexy problems that have the potential to radically change the lives of millions of people. and im not talking about 2 day shipping, im talking about singlehandedly eradicating polio. how much is "enough?" i dont know but i feel safe saying if youve got 136 billion the bank, you can comfortably find pressing global problems to solve with 135 of those and still live just fine off the remaining 1.

I had a little less respect when I learned that Gates original philanthropic bent was to stop population growth, which he started out doing by heavily funding contraceptive programs, primarily in third-world countries. I do give him credit for accepting the data when a demographer demonstrated that improving the health of children did more to get people to have fewer children than cajoling them into using contraceptives. Some wealthy people, I'm quite sure, would have stuck with the contraceptives purely out of their own idiology. So, yeah, Gates is into improving the health of children so that there will be fewer of them.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by emathias

I had a little less respect when I learned that Gates original philanthropic bent was to stop population growth, which he started out doing by heavily funding contraceptive programs, primarily in third-world countries. I do give him credit for accepting the data when a demographer demonstrated that improving the health of children did more to get people to have fewer children than cajoling them into using contraceptives. Some wealthy people, I'm quite sure, would have stuck with the contraceptives purely out of their own idiology. So, yeah, Gates is into improving the health of children so that there will be fewer of them.

fewer people on a strained planet with limited resources experiencing unchecked population growth is an admirable goal IMO. its a big reason im not interested in having kids.

it took 200,000 years for our planet to get to 1 billion people, and took only an additional 200 years to reach 7 billion people. that growth is not sustainable for reasons that should be self evidently obvious, and we are beginning to deal with the real and potentially irreversible ramifications of that growth right now.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by 10023

Of course. But then it's not a choice to be made, is it?

My point was that having four 3,000 square foot homes is not like having one 12,000 square foot home.

OMG can we get back on topic and stop talking about Multi Billionaires

20,000 or 30 sq feet homes, mansions, Billion dollar yachts and what not.

or how many mansions or 30 million dollar apartments in NYC.


This has nothing to do with HQ2.


This thread is getting silly as a 20,000 dollar couch.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by emathias

I had a little less respect when I learned that Gates original philanthropic bent was to stop population growth, which he started out doing by heavily funding contraceptive programs, primarily in third-world countries. I do give him credit for accepting the data when a demographer demonstrated that improving the health of children did more to get people to have fewer children than cajoling them into using contraceptives. Some wealthy people, I'm quite sure, would have stuck with the contraceptives purely out of their own idiology. So, yeah, Gates is into improving the health of children so that there will be fewer of them.

Less respect? It's literally the best thing we can do for this world.. Too bad this movement didn't start 5 billion people ago

[Eightball]

^^^ yep. And giving people free or reduced cost contraceptives isn't forcing or coercing them to do anything ... it is empowering them to make their own choices.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by PaleAle

seems they dont like beef that much

Like most high end cooking, they like creative use of all parts of the animal, not just the best cuts: marrow, liver, tail. The chef is showing off, not just tossing the most expensive meat he can find on a grill. But that's kind of what characterizes top tier dining vs the usual "steakhouse" experience. But you do get one course of top grade steak: the A5 Wagyu.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by 10023

diseases don't even really lack cures these days for lack of money. Incurable diseases like various forms of cancer are without cures despite enormous amounts of public research dollars, charitable giving and venture capital. They're just very difficult puzzles to solve.

You are right from the research standpoint for the most part but there are implementation aspect of curing diseases that money can help enormously. I'm talking about massive immunization programs and buying expensive drugs in the developing world. Even putting aside the issue of patent protection, some modern drugs are expensive and difficult to produce even without covering the development costs and, for the most part, such drugs aren't available in the developing world unless some rich philanthropy steps to the plate.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by Eightball

^^^ yep. And giving people free or reduced cost contraceptives isn't forcing or coercing them to do anything ... it is empowering them to make their own choices.

so is giving people a gun.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by bnk

OMG can we get back on topic and stop talking about Multi Billionaires

20,000 or 30 sq feet homes, mansions, Billion dollar yachts and what not.

or how many mansions or 30 million dollar apartments in NYC.


This has nothing to do with HQ2.


This thread is getting silly as a 20,000 dollar couch.

You're right.

Amazon stock is up 20 right now, which means Bezos' net worth has increased by $1.6 billion today.