Share your opinion about Fane TowerSubmitted by quinntronix t3_10aumg4 in RhodeIsland
karnim t1_j46j8lu wrote
More housing is good, even if it's luxury housing. Would it be better if it was for the average person? Sure, but it's still better than nothing at all. I live in one of those "luxury" mill apartments, and the place is packed full, not sitting with empty units. I tried to move to a cheaper unit in the building, and there was only one unit open, out of hundreds of units. We need more housing, especially if you want things to get cheaper. Literally anything that isn't more single-family housing.
If the rich-ass renters want to move into a $4k/mo apartment, let them. It means they are moving out of a $2k/mo apartment which could be filled by someone with a lower income.
dishwashersafe t1_j46niq3 wrote
Spot on. People don't seem to understand that any new housing is good for affordability.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j46uzpg wrote
"But I can't afford this housing"
kayakyakr t1_j46l1fz wrote
This guy urbanists.
This is good how it's supposed to work. If you claim to be a capitalist, then the market will take care of the pricing. Yes, we need more affordable units, but blocking housing projects is not going to make them appear suddenly
barsoapguy t1_j47c1jf wrote
Less housing just means that anyone who already owns a home is sitting pretty.
The less supply that gets filled the higher remaining property prices will be.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j46uwmh wrote
Exactly. People skip past this because 1 single building doesn't magically solve all of the problems or something. It's so short-sighted cause this problem is going to continue to get worse.
whatsaphoto t1_j47jk4c wrote
> If the rich-ass renters want to move into a $4k/mo apartment, let them. It means they are moving out of a $2k/mo apartment which could be filled by someone with a lower income.
The sooner we all get past the initial sting of "Luxury condo coming soon!" and realize that this is exactly what's going to happen I think we'll all come to an agreement that this is eventually going to be a good thing.
closerocks t1_j486asw wrote
If someone moves into a $4K apartment, it doesn't make the $2K apartment more affordable. It only makes it available which means someone living with roommates in a $4K apartment will probably move into the $2K apartment by themselves.
What's also likely to happen is a landlord will see that somebody moved to a higher price department, do a spiff and spit job to fancy up their apartment then charge $3.5 K.
Building more expensive condos will not do anything to drop the cost of an apartment. It only free up lower-priced properties which are still too expensive.
fishythepete t1_j48h3qs wrote
You or literally any competent economist, who to believe…?
Beezlegrunk t1_j4a91hl wrote
TLDon’tR: “When rich people move into even more expensive apartments than they live in now, people who couldn’t afford their old apartments somehow immediately become richer and are magically able to replace those rich people in their old apartments”
Otherwise known as “high-school economics theory masquerading as actual analysis, while ignoring cities in which lots of luxury housing was built but where housing never got any cheaper” …
sailri t1_j4bd2ib wrote
As opposed to the "let's prevent housing developers from building any housing at all?" regardless of the eventual clientele? Yeah that's a great theory.
How much money does a developer have to spend to have to build new places in RI renting for $500-1200? Figure that out and then ask "well if it costs that much why would they do it?
In this case the answer is this guy is ready to spend money to build a building. There are no/few others that are willing.
Beezlegrunk t1_j4bxgqm wrote
Please point to all of the comments (or even one) in which people said, "let's prevent housing developers from building any housing at all" — we’ll wait.
>How much money does a developer have to spend to have to build new places in RI renting for $500-1200? Figure that out and then ask "well if it costs that much why would they do it?”
You mean you don’t actually know, but you’re sure it’s too much to do. Why haven’t you figured it out? It would make your argument more compelling if it were actually substantiated, instead of just being whatever Tucker Carlson says.
>this guy is ready to spend money to build a building. There are no/few others that are willing.
We don’t need the building he wants to build for his own personal profit — does that part matter at all?
What if he wanted to build a 300-story building, do we have to allow that because he’s “ready to spend money”?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments