Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Artist faked being a billionaire to photograph New York City’s best views

architecturaldigest.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 260 posts

Re: Artist faked being a billionaire to photograph New York City’s best views

#161

Post by LimaBearz »

fighterpilot wrote: post #159
LimaBearz wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t care what they spend it on, I never claimed to care. I agree ideologically with Adam’s premise though. It is in the best interest of the nation and the individuals living at that time that the assets and wealth of that nation be accessible to anyone living in it. The accumulation of wealth across multiple generations has an extremely long history spanning back centuries of corruption, self dealing, preferenti…

> the heirs did not earn or work for. > heirs have an advantage they themselves did not earn, own things they did not work for. The heirs did earn it, in the same way that anyone earns anything. Agent X voluntarily gave something to agent Y in exchange for something of equal or greater subjective value. In this case, the parent (X) gave their wealth to their child (Y), and in return they get to satisfy their "empire"…

It’s hella late so I’ll keep it short. I’ll just say I love the land tax idea. I’ve been toying with that idea in my head. It does seem like it would solve a lot of issues we’ve been facing.

And honestly I’d rather them buy 1000 Ferarris and crash every single one. I don’t even care if it doesn’t go to the government, on a more serious note it could all go to the American Cancer Society or a charity of their choosing, or local municipality…

I’ve personally committed to dying poor. I’ve met trust fund kids (not that I’m anywhere near that level) but money breeds entitlement, especially at a young age where they may not be emotionally ready. That’s not something I want for my kids. We’re all in tech here, we do well enough to corrupt at least a little

And it’s still unamerican.

Re: Artist faked being a billionaire to photograph New York City’s best views

#162

Post by mysterydip »

test1235 wrote: post #62
cheriot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you want to ruin their investment then issue building permits for more of them. > They cast these huge shadows and block views Talk about first world problems. Expecting a city skyline to never change is ridiculous. The only problem is that so few people use these buildings. The best kind of density regulation requires _more_ density.

>Expecting a city skyline to never change is ridiculous "In Athens, buildings are not allowed to surpass 12 floors so as not to block the view toward the Parthenon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_A... I'd say this isn't typical of most of the world, but it's not unprecedented.

The city of Charleston, SC has a set of height regulations: https://www.charleston-sc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/14414/Heig...

Re: Artist faked being a billionaire to photograph New York City’s best views

#163

Post by ryder9 »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #127
bobthepanda wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average square footage of a Parisian studio would make NY’s tenements look downright palatial. The average NYC studio is 50 m^2. The larger end for a Parisian studio is given to be 35 m^2.

On the other hand, there's nothing forcing you to live in intra-muros Paris. I live in Nanterre, 5min away from the RER station, and my rent is 1200€/month for a 2-bedrooms apartment (50 m²). I have a Point is, you can have affordable-ish rents in a business center without building humongous high-rises everywhere, as long as your public transport network can support it.

the transport infrastructure in paris is really great and something american cities lack in droves which drives up the cost of living and commute times due to increasing traffic and low density sprawl

Re: Artist faked being a billionaire to photograph New York City’s best views

#164

Post by scatters »

fighterpilot wrote: post #150
LimaBearz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t tell if that’s sarcasm or not so I’ll just remind everyone of Adam Smith: "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." In this country there was a time yes where inheriting it is shady and it’s something I fear our c…

It's quite to me natural to me, and I think Adam Smith is off base here. If the parents earned that wealth through voluntary exchange, and they didn't do so by exploiting negative externalities, then it's theirs to do with as they wish. If they want to pay 1000 people to fan them, start a charity, or give it all to their kids, that's their prerogative. It follows from the concept of private property. The parents earn…

> If they want to pay 1000 people to fan them

Then the transaction will be taxed as income for those 1000 people. Gifts to children, particularly adult children, should be similarly taxed as income whether they are passed while the parents are alive or when they die.

Re: Artist faked being a billionaire to photograph New York City’s best views

#165

Post by BelenusMordred »

tarsinge wrote: post #89
wolverine876 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also constrains supply of real estate, driving up the value for property owners.

12 floors is huge. Nearly every building in Paris is 6 floors and it is already at near the maximum density humanly acceptable in my opinion. There will never be enough supply in some place, especially with speculation and foreign investors. The situation in NYC and these cities is nothing like SF.

> 12 floors is huge.

I live 40 stories up, surrounded by a lot of green spaces because the city doesn't need to mow down natural habitats for population growth. 6 floors seems quaint and archaic, all it's going to cause is endless depressing urban sprawl.

> There will never be enough supply in some place

We can always build higher, construction techniques are only getting better. I don't see why 60 floor buildings can't be a norm in most supply constrained cities.

Re: Artist faked being a billionaire to photograph New York City’s best views

#166

Post by [deleted] »

nindalf wrote: post #134
PoignardAzur wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... I don't think I've ever planted a tomato in my life, and I don't feel like a hollow shell performing a simulacrum of life? (I have planted potatoes though)

Nah mate, tomatoes are completely different from potatoes. Truly life changing. I pity the 90% who hasn’t planted one. /s

[deleted]

Re: Artist faked being a billionaire to photograph New York City’s best views

#168

Post by 271828182846 »

jimmyed wrote: post #146
271828182846 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thailand and especially Bangkok are not third world ... but let me guess - YOU are an "American", right?

Nothing wrong with being third world mate. Thailand is very much third world though.

Well, Thailand isn't more of a third world country than the US ...

http://hdr.undp.org/en/dashboard-human-development-anthropoc...

Highlight Thailand and US and you'll find both in the same section above or below the median.

Re: Artist faked being a billionaire to photograph New York City’s best views

#169

Post by Broken_Hippo »

pharmakom wrote: post #149
nindalf wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> God forbid they don't behave "ecologically efficient" when doing so I like how you casually take a dump on being environmentally friendly. Yes, city dwellers do have less of an impact on the environment. Like all animals we like as much space as possible. But unlike other animals we don’t need it to survive. If more of us fit in cities, there would be more space that could be left for wild animals. Maybe that equil…

- high density cities - rewilding - fast and expansive rail network - right to roam Get these things right and we can lower our environmental footprint whilst maintaining - or even improving - quality of life for the average individual.

A rail network is only part of the solution: It certainly won't visit many small towns. A robust bus service truly needs to be in place as well so that folks can travel from town to town to train.

Heck, trains don't even have to be fast for much of it: Simply making passenger trains a priority would be a huge improvement - right now, passenger trains have to wait for freight trains.

Re: Artist faked being a billionaire to photograph New York City’s best views

#170

Post by dmurray »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #8

> They’re investments, not really meant for living in. They cast these huge shadows and block views—really change the skyline—just so they can stand empty. That is definitely one of the saddest parts for me. These billionaires (many of whom got their wealth in shady circumstances) are just using these condos to park their money. I may think NFTs are insane but at least when people with too much money park their wealt…

I don't get the "billionaires buy property and leave it vacant, because it's more valuable as an investment" trope. Billionaires like to make money with their money. Sure, property prices increase, but rents are significant. If you can make 5% a year from your real estate appreciating, you can make 10% by renting it out. That's the difference between a mediocre yearly return and a fantastic one.

Maybe at the absolute top end, there isn't enough rental demand, eg the $90m apartment mentioned may not fetch $400k/month in rent. But I hear the same argument for middle-class apartments in moderately expensive cities: rich people buy $600k apartments in Dublin, Vancouver, Sydney, but turn down $2500/month in rental income even in red hot rental markets.

I don't buy it, though I don't have a clear alternative explanation.

Post reply on HN