San Francisco Is Suffering From The Excesses Of Its Own Liberalism

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

It's odd to see so much overt leftism (or worse) on a web site supposedly dedicated to the uniquely capitalistic practice of building skyscrapers. (Skyscraperpage.com, right???)
One can only hold out hope that some of the sicker people that post here have no real ability to impact the world beyond their bubble.

Cognitive dissonance that baffles the mind

[dubu]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i DEFINITELY put my Chicagoness way above being american.

i am a chicagoan first and foremost. i am american against my will.

— america. that place — —.

pizza state > steak and potato states? racist

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There is nothing "uniquely capitalistic" about skscrapers, BTW. More often than not, signature skyscrapers are built for reasons other than demand, while run-of-the-mill residential highrises are rarely purely market rate in top-tier cities.

^ An utterly meaningless post.

Building skyscrapers is a capitalist enterprise. Period.

Too many people on this forum are in denial of that. On one hand they cheer on skyscraper construction, post new threads comparing "which city has the most GDP per capita" every few months, or bickering and debating "my city is richer and more important than yours" posting endless figures and tables to support their claims.

Then on the other side of their mouth, foolish Socialist and Left Wing talking points, as if they even understand how ridiculous it all is...

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by JoeMusashi

I don't know how many Irish-Americans actually take their ethnic heritage that seriously outside St. Patrick's Day, liking Notre Dame, visiting the country and things like that. It is a fun little thing to separate yourself from your white peers ethnic heritage but I don't think many would put their Irishness above being an American. In the past maybe but today?

The vast majority of white people are Americans and Americans only. Most of us are too disconnected and bred out from the old country. We have nothing else to be but Americans and the same applies to black people.

You've never been to Chicago then.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i DEFINITELY put my Chicagoness way above being american.

i am a chicagoan first and foremost. i am american against my will.

— america. that place — —.

I just don't like the laws that control my life being dictated to me by people like Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz. States rights are way too weak.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

I just don't like the laws that control my life being dictated to me by people like Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz. States rights are way too weak.

Except that whole slavery thing.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

It's odd to see so much overt leftism (or worse) on a web site supposedly dedicated to the uniquely capitalistic practice of building skyscrapers. (Skyscraperpage.com, right???)
One can only hold out hope that some of the sicker people that post here have no real ability to impact the world beyond their bubble.

You’re kidding yourself if you think this forum is dedicated to skyscrapers and not to urban areas.

[Leveled]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

It's odd to see so much overt leftism (or worse) on a web site supposedly dedicated to the uniquely capitalistic practice of building skyscrapers. (Skyscraperpage.com, right???)
One can only hold out hope that some of the sicker people that post here have no real ability to impact the world beyond their bubble.

Well i think the education level is higher here.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by JoeMusashi

I don't know how many Irish-Americans actually take their ethnic heritage that seriously outside St. Patrick's Day, liking Notre Dame, visiting the country and things like that. It is a fun little thing to separate yourself from your white peers ethnic heritage but I don't think many would put their Irishness above being an American. In the past maybe but today?

The vast majority of white people are Americans and Americans only. Most of us are too disconnected and bred out from the old country. We have nothing else to be but Americans and the same applies to black people.

Because Irish, Italian, and other folks from the old country have long been diluted. Go back 50 years and more and youll understand why an Irish Catholic becoming president was such a big deal.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

It's odd to see so much overt leftism (or worse) on a web site supposedly dedicated to the uniquely capitalistic practice of building skyscrapers. (Skyscraperpage.com, right???)
One can only hold out hope that some of the sicker people that post here have no real ability to impact the world beyond their bubble.

cool story brah!

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Except that whole slavery thing.

Seriously? 150+ years after slavery people are still using that as an example on why a state shouldn't have more power?

And since you bring it up, state rights allowed states to outlaw slavery before the Federal government did so, so that's a bad thing, right? Based on your assessment that state rights=bad because it once allowed slavery than any good from it must also be bad in some weird way.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ An utterly meaningless post.

Building skyscrapers is a capitalist enterprise. Period.

Except this is untrue. Period.

Very few of the most prominent skyscrapers on the planet came about due to raw capitalism. Certainly none of the Top 10.

In the U.S., the WTC was a govt. project. Had nothing to do with the market. The new supertalls in NYC are all subject to mandatory inclusionary housing requirements, so will have a strong "socialist" component. Most HK highrises are govt. housing. Everything built in China and Dubai is really state-directed.

Fully half of HK residents live in projects, almost all in highrises.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

You’re kidding yourself if you think this forum is dedicated to skyscrapers and not to urban areas.

But urbanism also relies extremely heavily on capitalism and wealth. A skyscraper is just a more 'in your face' example of urbanism.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Except this is untrue. Period.

Very few of the most prominent skyscrapers on the planet came about due to raw capitalism. Certainly none of the Top 10.

In the U.S., the WTC was a govt. project. Had nothing to do with the market. The new supertalls in NYC are all subject to mandatory inclusionary housing requirements, so will have a strong "socialist" component. Most HK highrises are govt. housing. Everything built in China and Dubai is really state-directed.

Give me a break with your nonsense, you are nitpicking for the sake of saving face. Sure there may be some Govt subsidization here or there, regulations here or there. What Capitalist endeavor doesn't have those?

But nobody, at least in the Western world, is building skyscrapers so that they can break even. Dumbest thing you've ever said, and that's saying a lot

[Tom In Chicago]

Did somebody say something about pizza?

. . .

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Except this is untrue. Period.

Very few of the most prominent skyscrapers on the planet came about due to raw capitalism. Certainly none of the Top 10.

In the U.S., the WTC was a govt. project. Had nothing to do with the market. The new supertalls in NYC are all subject to mandatory inclusionary housing requirements, so will have a strong "socialist" component. Most HK highrises are govt. housing. Everything built in China and Dubai is really state-directed.

Fully half of HK residents live in projects, almost all in highrises.

So what youre saying, at least about those new NYC supertalls is that capitalism is so strong that they can build these beautiful expensive buildings and still afford to deal with government mandates?

That merely points to the power of capitalism. Its so strong it can pay for all your socialist wants, which cannot be produced without capitalism.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Seriously? 150+ years after slavery people are still using that as an example on why a state shouldn't have more power?

And since you bring it up, state rights allowed states to outlaw slavery before the Federal government did so, so that's a bad thing, right? Based on your assessment that state rights=bad because it once allowed slavery than any good from it must also be bad in some weird way.

Yes, slavery will always be a huge strike against America in my eyes. And honestly, I have never liked the state system. In modern America, it seems very antiquated. I would abolish the Senate and make the House much larger if it were up to me. I would also have proportional representation elections.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Give me a break with your nonsense, you are nitpicking for the sake of saving face. Sure there may be some Govt subsidization here or there, regulations here or there. What Capitalist endeavor doesn't have those?

You claimed that skyscrapers are "purely capitalist" yet most exist due to the heavy hand of govt. So, which is it?

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But nobody, at least in the Western world, is building skyscrapers so that they can break even.

This is obviously all nonsense. Built skyscrapers rarely provide the most efficient/profitable building envelope, and most first-tier cities have massive regulation of such buildings.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Yes, slavery will always be a huge strike against America in my eyes. And honestly, I have never liked the state system. In modern America, it seems very antiquated. I would abolish the Senate and make the House much larger if it were up to me. I would also have proportional representation elections.

Fair enough. You must see a strike against every country on Earth then since slavery has been everywhere. So would that even count as a strike anymore?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

So what youre saying, at least about those new NYC supertalls is that capitalism is so strong that they can build these beautiful expensive buildings and still afford to deal with government mandates?

Not really. Site specific demand is great, and that demand is a function of govt. oversight.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

That merely points to the power of capitalism. Its so strong it can pay for all your socialist wants, which cannot be produced without capitalism.

No, it points to the power of the state, and regulatory authority. There would be no Billionaires Row absent Central Park, strict zoning and redistributive housing requirements.

Places with something approaching pure capitalism rarely have the environments to facilitate towers.