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

211–220 of 260 posts

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

#211

Post by bobthepanda »

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.

I don't know that sprawling density taking up land that could be used for nature is somehow supposed to be better than tall buildings.

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

#212

Post by ryandrake »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #169
pharmakom wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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.

> It certainly won't visit many small towns.

Some people who constantly advocate for dense urban often would also rather small towns just didn't exist. Dense urban for everybody! They imagine utopia to be a hand full of dense cities, surrounded by wilderness untouched by human habitation, with high speed train tracks crisscrossing that wilderness to get people from one dense city to another. No roads, no cars, no suburbs, no towns or rural villages. Just pack everyone into these urban islands. Things like bus service, and "last mile" are not needed in this utopia.

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

#213

Post by dionidium »

wayanon wrote: post #113
cm2187 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

London isn't exactly a model of urban planning. There is a massive shortage of housing. And you end up with all new developments concentrated in a handful of areas.

I agree but if 100,000 homes became available tomorrow in London they’d sell in an instant. I don’t think any number will solve it - the problem is existing homes not being lived in and being used as income.

There is no evidence that this is a significant issue affecting housing prices in high-demand metros. Lack of supply is a much more straightforward and verifiable explanation. The spooky-outside-investor meme is conspiratorial nonsense and it’s beneath this forum.

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

#214

Post by dionidium »

choeger wrote: post #102
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.

Yeah, more density, because all that matters is the size of cities and their economy. 90% of children never waking up to the sounds of birds around their house? Who cares? 90% of grownups never plant even a tomatoes? What does it matter! Families of four or more confined to single-bathroom, two-bedroom apartments? The cosier, the better! The most important bit is that the cheap workforce reaches their dull jobs in ti…

Notice the sleight of hand in this comment. Those who oppose development posture as if it’s urbanists who are interested in enforcing their way of life on everyone else, but it’s quite plainly the other way around.

Only one side in this debate wants to make laws that encode their particular housing preferences in law. It’s the side that wants to prevent new construction, not the side that wants to allow people to make free choices in an open market.

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

#215

Post by bobthepanda »

BelenusMordred wrote: post #165
tarsinge wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ca…

The main constraint on taller buildings is elevators. The taller a building is, the more elevators it needs, and the more elevator shafts there are the lower the percentage of square footage available for other, paying uses.

The sweet spot for residential in Hong Kong is about 30-40 stories.

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

#216

Post by bobthepanda »

searchableguy wrote: post #98
test1235 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

China has done the same recently. They are moving away from skyscrapers. Strict regulation for buildings taller than 250m. No approval for buildings taller than 500m. https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/article/3115225/...

The article is paywalled for me.

I would imagine that has more to do with curbing local officials’ habits of encouraging land speculation to plump up their budgets. The central government is trying to have its cake and eat it too when it comes to property that needs to rise in value to boost wealth but also not become totally unaffordable for first time buyers, and overheating the market doesn’t help with the latter.

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

#217

Post by allturtles »

bobthepanda wrote: post #210
allturtles wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no city in the US today where you could build something as tall as the Empire State Building as of right I'm not sure what you mean by that. 6 buildings taller than the ESB have been completed in NYC since 2014, mostly residential towers of the sort described in the OP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_N...

When I say "as of right" I mean that all you need is ownership of the lot in question. The Empire State Building was built only with ownership of the lot it was built on and the owner was legally allowed to build as tall as they want. Nearly all tall buildings in New York these days are legally built through assembling "air rights." Zoning has predetermined height/FAR limits for all lots, but in certain areas it is p…

I see, thanks. The term "as of right" was not familiar to me. It looked like a typo for an intended "as of right now".

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

#218

Post by bobthepanda »

ryandrake wrote: post #212
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It certainly won't visit many small towns. Some people who constantly advocate for dense urban often would also rather small towns just didn't exist. Dense urban for everybody! They imagine utopia to be a hand full of dense cities, surrounded by wilderness untouched by human habitation, with high speed train tracks crisscrossing that wilderness to get people from one dense city to another. No roads, no cars, no sub…

A lot of Americans (including some density advocates) also do not realize that you can have very small scale density.

Three narrowish three-story houses replacing one McMansion is still a tripling of density on a single lot. Take this Dutch village for instance: https://www.melbtravel.com/edam-netherlands-village-preserve...

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

#219

Post by bobthepanda »

maxerickson wrote: post #194
pharmakom wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rail networks in the UK once visited even small villages. It can be done but requires political will. If the settlements are very small then the number of people driving to the nearest station will be low anyway. I’m optimistic for services that are halfway between bus and taxi.

The US is considerably less dense than the UK. We could afford lots more rail in higher density areas, rail to everywhere doesn't make any sense (we have freight tracks, the part that wouldn't make sense is frequent passenger service). My county is rural but not that rural and has a density of 12 per km². It's a 2 hour drive to a small city.

When we talk about where would rail work there are really only two or three places worth talking about; California and everything east of I-35.

As an example, the Midwest has roughly the same population as France, and the TGV network overlaid kind of lines up with major population centers. https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/04/04/european-urban...

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

#220

Post by thro-a-wei »

LimaBearz wrote: post #161
fighterpilot wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm conflicted on this one, as I have a non-nuerotypical child who may (or may not) be able to enter the workforce when they grow up. If the US had an acceptable social safety net, I'd be all for 100% inheritance tax. Since the social safety net is threadbare, part of my motivation for gathering wealth is so that my child will have a decent life, even if they may not be able to work a single day of their life.

I guess the impersonal, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps "rugged individualism" aspect of Americanness clashes with family I'll-help-in-every-way-I-can collectivism - how do you square that circle?

Post reply on HN