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

231–240 of 260 posts

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

#231

Post by skybrian »

pydry wrote: post #132
skybrian wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know they would pay more property tax than now? These skyscrapers are very tall and thin. They use very little land and the tax would be divided up among many floors. If you wanted to design a building to pay as little land tax as possible, this is what it would look like.

They use a small amount of some of the most valuable land in the United States. They also purchased "air rights" from neighboring buildings. Their LVT bill (assuming air rights were also taken into account) would not be small. It seems that people also don't actually like living in them. It's particularly noteworthy that they're speaking out about it because they're risking doing real damage to their investment by do…

Whatever the land value tax is, neighboring buildings will pay far more, because they use more land and there are fewer floors to spread the tax over.

A LVT increases the cost per square foot more for shorter buildings. A 10 story building pays about twice as much on a square foot basis as a 20 story building. The whole point is to encourage taller buildings.

(It’s not quite that simple since taller buildings probably have less usable square footage per floor, but that’s basically how it works.)

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

#232

Post by bluefirebrand »

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…

I find appropriately planned urban sprawl a whole lot less depressing than living in a cube 40 stories up.

Different strokes I guess.

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

#233

Post by otoburb »

cheriot wrote: post #27
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…

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. The only problem is that so few people use these buildings. The best kind of density regulation requires _more_ density.

You're right, yet there are many cities that still restrict building development in the name of protecting certain views.

One example is the City of Vancouver that has a page dedicated to explaining the views they are trying to protect for real estate zoning.[1]

[1] https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/protecting-va...

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

#234

Post by renewiltord »

tovej wrote: post #137
renewiltord wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we know what the alternative is. People have less tomato planting time because they spend longer commuting. So we optimize to put people close to their jobs so they get lots of leisure time with their family. If they don't want that they can always live farther out. That way everyone is happy.

That's not the alternative at all. The alternative is sensible city planning with mixed zoning neighborhoods that create comfortable centers all around the city. Add metros, bike lanes, and parks and you have a pleasant city instead of a concrete jungle or a suburban sprawl.

I'll believe it when I see it. Every American development like this is a massive money hole.

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

#235

Post by stjohnswarts »

otoburb wrote: post #233
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. The only problem is that so few people use these buildings. The best kind of density regulation requires _more_ density. You're right, yet there are many cities that still restrict building development in the name of protecting certain views. One example is the City of Vancouver that has a page dedicated to explaining the views they are trying to protect for…

Austin, TX has laws dictating certain views of the state capitol building are not to be blocked. Personally I don't have an issue with it, there's still plenty of other views to block so the real estate people should be happy, but probably not land owners who would earn a lot more for their land if the laws didn't exist.

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

#236

Post by stjohnswarts »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #232
BelenusMordred wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I find appropriately planned urban sprawl a whole lot less depressing than living in a cube 40 stories up. Different strokes I guess.

I think some people won't be happy until we're all constrained to 10x10x8' rooms in 80 story buildings to satiate their desire for density and efficiency. Maybe we should just kind of be happy with 7 billion people.

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

#237

Post by tinalumfoil »

leokennis wrote: post #228
slantaclaus wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think people in this thread are exaggerating the cost of golf - you can get a used club set for a few hundred and if you already live in a cheap area an executive tee time is maybe $20-$40. If you're struggling to pay your bills and work 16/7 then sure that's inaccessible, but then so would be most hobbies.

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

#238

Post by wolverine876 »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #236
bluefirebrand wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find appropriately planned urban sprawl a whole lot less depressing than living in a cube 40 stories up. Different strokes I guess.

I think some people won't be happy until we're all constrained to 10x10x8' rooms in 80 story buildings to satiate their desire for density and efficiency. Maybe we should just kind of be happy with 7 billion people.

Perhaps people like living in smaller quarters in cities - the market seems to indicate that, based on the price per square foot people are willing to pay for urban apartments compared with ... anyplace else in the world.

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

#239

Post by stjohnswarts »

heterodoxxed wrote: post #34
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.

The insane height of these building is far beyond the argument for vertical density, though.

Yeah I think 10-12 floors is plenty and still "climbable"

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

#240

Post by benmller313 »

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?

There are more solidly middle class golfers than rich ones.
Post reply on HN