Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT
You do realize tall buildings aren't typically built in low income, low density areas, right?
|
They sometimes are, they sometimes aren't.
I mean, half the highrises in Hong Kong are housing projects (not low density, but low income), and, if you go to Europe, most of the highrises are on the suburban fringe. In Latin America, most are on the fringe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT
I didn't say the only two factors of tall construction were density and property values, but to deny that they aren't even factors at all is ludicrous.
|
I think they may be factors, all else equal, but not strong factors. Highrise construction has little to with density and property values, and more to do with regulatory environment and living preferences, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT
I think San Francisco and London were poor examples on your part as they each have quite a few tall buildings.
|
They do? SF has 2 buildings above 700 ft. Compare to Chicago, with almost 10 times as many, or Houston with 5 times as many. Yet SF is far, far more expensive than Chicago (or Houston).
And London has only 3 buildings above 700 ft. and 14 total above 500 ft. Why do cheap, low density cities like Houston have many times more highrises than high-cost London?