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

221–230 of 260 posts

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

#221

Post by bobthepanda »

allturtles wrote: post #217
bobthepanda wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Yeah planning and property jargon could afford to be more inclusive.

But these days in most American cities there is surprisingly little you can actually do with your property without subjecting yourself to additional review or exceptions.

Some amount of community review is good at a base level, but the gone wrong example YIMBY activists likes to trot out is the ridiculous example of San Francisco's "historic laundromat" saga. https://missionlocal.org/2018/06/the-strange-and-terrible-sa...

Even once a building is built, zoning legally constricts what you can do inside it. Most residential developments do not allow operating small businesses from the home (you can't be a hairdresser in your own house). I'm not sure how exactly this will play out once the pandemic is over and nosy neighbors start poking around at who's WFH. In fact this already happened to a Seattle cidery: https://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/food/article/yonder-cide...

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

#222

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#223

Post by yeetman21 »

vanderZwan wrote: post #117
himinlomax wrote: post #111

> “They all talked about having a golf simulator room—I’ve never heard of this thing before, but they all had it,” Why are wealthy people so much into golf? It seems like the dullest of activities. Is it just because other rich people say they like golf, and they're all such conformists?

"No, I won't play golf, it's playing marbles for people who don't want to bend down." - Youp van het Hek Jokes aside, it's because it is a way to signal that you are part of the in-group by sharing in a particular activity. And what better way than to make that the kind of activity that implicitly shows off your privilege? Golf involves a large amount of grass fields set aside and maintained just for you and your fri…

What other sport can old people play? If they want to stay semi-active they can't really play badminton or basketball or anything else. Some of it can about about privilege or whatever, but there are other ways to show that like have boats and what not. I play golf and all the people I know genuinely enjoy it

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

#224

Post by tarsinge »

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…

> 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.

Because there is no way we can make infrastructure follow in the short term. Public transports are already saturated here, we could remove cars, but there is still a limit in how many people can be on the ground in streets, parcs, shops...

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

#225

Post by slantaclaus »

leokennis wrote: post #126
himinlomax wrote: post #111

> “They all talked about having a golf simulator room—I’ve never heard of this thing before, but they all had it,” Why are wealthy people so much into golf? It seems like the dullest of activities. Is it just because other rich people say they like golf, and they're all such conformists?

* You walk in "nature", which almost everyone likes * You can talk with your rich buddies while doing it * You don't get sweaty or tired from doing it * However you can still claim that you exercised * You don't meet filthy poor people * At the end you can replenish the 250 kilocalories you burned playing 9 holes by eating a big 400 kcal tenderloin steak and washing it away with 5 glasses of wine (also 400 kcal)

Golf is not a political act.

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

#226

Post by pllbnk »

zadler wrote: post #45
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…

> NFTs are insane With any luck, NFTs and crypto in general might reduce this kind of investment in property. They might turn out to be a better place to park excess cash.

I really doubt that. The value of premium real estate is that it's limited and it takes a lot of wealth and time to build - it's the real proof of work so to speak. NFTs are infinite, similar to grains of sand, where each one is unique.

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

#227

Post by Tangokat »

bonzini wrote: post #187
Tangokat wrote: post #186

In Copenhagen most apartments require people to live there. "Bopælspligt", residency requirement. As the owner of an apartment you are required to make sure someone lives there at least 180 days a year. The best places to live in a city should have people living there. It's really that simple.

Serious question: what do you do if you simply cannot find anyone who wants to live there? For example if you inherited a flat when the owners died, and you already have a place to live in?

In the extreme case the municipality will rent it out for you. This almost never happens. It's really not hard to find people in the city who want to rent apartments.

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

#228

Post by leokennis »

slantaclaus wrote: post #225
leokennis wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* You walk in "nature", which almost everyone likes * You can talk with your rich buddies while doing it * You don't get sweaty or tired from doing it * However you can still claim that you exercised * You don't meet filthy poor people * At the end you can replenish the 250 kilocalories you burned playing 9 holes by eating a big 400 kcal tenderloin steak and washing it away with 5 glasses of wine (also 400 kcal)

Golf is not a political act.

As a sport I have no opinion on golf. But the entire setup of the sport is of course to make it accessible only to people above a certain income.

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

#229

Post by vanderZwan »

yeetman21 wrote: post #223
vanderZwan wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No, I won't play golf, it's playing marbles for people who don't want to bend down." - Youp van het Hek Jokes aside, it's because it is a way to signal that you are part of the in-group by sharing in a particular activity. And what better way than to make that the kind of activity that implicitly shows off your privilege? Golf involves a large amount of grass fields set aside and maintained just for you and your fri…

What other sport can old people play? If they want to stay semi-active they can't really play badminton or basketball or anything else. Some of it can about about privilege or whatever, but there are other ways to show that like have boats and what not. I play golf and all the people I know genuinely enjoy it

First, you appear to be reacting to something I did not actually say or mean to imply. I was answering a specific question about the connection between "rich" people and golf. So the question was implicitly focused on class, and therefore my answer was looking at golf from that perspective too. Please note that this is not the same as casting judgement on the qualities of golf as a sport in and of itself.

I'm not trying to tell anyone that golf is inherently bad and that they should feel bad for enjoying it (although I do stand by my earlier comment on it being a display of having excess land to waste, at least if we're talking about golf courses in areas where it does not fit into the natural landscape and where available land is scarce).

Similarly, whether or not the class comments apply to you specifically is not up to me to decide. I don't know you or your context.

Now, to answer your question: I would say that the entire category of Lawn Games would be available here. I already linked the wiki page before but I'll do so again in case that comment gets lost:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_game

There's also Tai Chi, or yoga, or just going for a walk, and we can keep going. Also, looking at my own parents, badminton and tennis are perfectly fine sports to play for retired people if your opponents are of the same age and you both take it easy. My mom plays badminton and tennis with her friends, and my father still likes to shoot hoops in his backyard. So basically, there are plenty of ways to get mild exercise out there, that is not an argument favoring golf over anything else.

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

#230

Post by skybrian »

twelvechairs wrote: post #158
skybrian wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that’s explicitly discouraging vacant lots and encouraging tall buildings. These owners can afford the tax better than anyone.

Not sure why you want to encourage empty lots? Yes these owners 'can afford' more but it will definitely discourage what OP was talking about that it's just land banking for future asset appreciation. The land value on this kind of property is extremely high so tax is not low even if it's a tall building

I think it’s fine to discourage vacant lots, but the skyscrapers we are talking about are the opposite of a vacant lot.

Whatever the tax on these buildings is under LVT, it will be more unaffordable by their neighbors that are shorter and use more land. There is a higher incentive for neighboring buildings to get torn down and get replaced by taller skyscrapers like these.

It’s just odd to point to the buildings least affected by the tax as the sort of development that would be discouraged.

Post reply on HN