241–250 of 257 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plus you can get around all day just taking the stairs, which frequently saves time.
There are not enough elevators in that building, especially on the 9th avenue side.
The building was originally not built as an office space, which is painfully obvious when you consider that it had more freight and truck elevators than people elevators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe better for employee's health. >95% of people shouldn't require an elevator working in that building. Being forced to walk 5 floors instead of taking the elevator can have positive effects
The number of people in that building is too high for the stairs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, if that's your sentiment, then you will LOVE this article from 2012: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-09-30/presenting-worlds-...
Not entirely sure how that relates to OP but interesting read anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that I don't think there's a compelling case to be made that the people who happen to live in Boulder at this exact moment in time are more deserving of the right to live there than anybody else in the United States. Other people want to live in Boulder for the same reasons you do. If enough other people want that, then it's going to grow. Interestingly, the modern liberal position seems to be that eve…
> my experience is that, in actual practice, people don't even want Ohioans to move to their town. Hm, most of the people I know who live in the "coastal elite" cities did not grow up in those same cities; they grew up in places like Ohio. (Which, again, is fine if Boulder wants to be a steady size forever - make sure enough people are moving out to bigger towns to cancel out population growth, by making sure they do…
Yes, and generally speaking, if they liked Ohio, they would've stayed there, because you can still make a very nice living as a coder in middle America. That means they're going to be even more upset about Ohioans closing in, because they'll feel like the culture they left behind is sneaking back up on them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh stop the gatekeeping. I don't think anyone really believes Chelsea Market is a culinary wonder, or that it's catering to the True(tm) New Yorker. It's pretty, it's in a fairly nice area, there's no entry fee, and it's easy to have fun there if you take it for what it is.
Fishmarket at the lobster place is mindblowingly good. Otherwise one needs to go to hunts point to get stuff this good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That absolutely does not work. The prices of all of the homes anywhere near the high density area would sky rocket. Do you realize how much a single story house with a yard within a block of Chelsea Market in NYC would be worth? High rise costs to build are several hundred per square foot, so the cost to the tenants would be higher. Why would anyone pay several times the cost of a house a block away for a spot in the…
> The prices of all of the homes anywhere near the high density area would sky rocket. Why? I want you to genuinely think about this question. Why is it that, non-high density areas, that are near high density areas, increase in price? Is it perhaps because, high density areas, with tall buildings, are so amazing, so wonderful, so in demand, so useful, and so great to live in, that people WANT to live near them? The…
You're not offering anything profound here. You are just admitting that a high density area can't just be built in the middle of a small city without affecting the prices.
>and so great to live in, that people WANT to live near them?
Of course people that love dense cities want to live in or near dense cities. People who like that will buy up the surrounding houses and keep pushing the prices up until they are on parity with the cost of the city itself. However, you know who doesn't want to live there? People who deliberately chose not to live in a dense city in the first place.
>increase in price because EVERYONE WANTS TO LIVE THERE!
That's not how supply and demand works. They increase in price because of limited supply and a large enough pool of people who like cities to outstrip supply. Expensive != everyone wants.
>and people are willing to pay a premium amount of money to live there.
Some people are. Some people are also willing to pay a premium amount of money to have a helicopter. It doesn't mean everyone wants or can afford a helicopter.
>Your argument is literally that we shouldn't make cities and place to live better, because if the places to live are better, then more people will want to live there.
No it's not. You're either being deliberately obtuse or you have never interacted with people that choose to live in small cities. Adding more density, increasing the cost of housing per square foot, increasing traffic, etc are all awful turnoffs for people who seek small cities.
>and we should make everywhere in the world better to live in.
And there is a good chunk of the population in smaller cities that would be happy for you to go ruin someone else's area with your idea of "better".
>But even so, the people who want to live in places that suck
Don't be vacuous, you have to fathom that that people like different lifestyles.
>should get at least 1% of the land to do with as we please.
There is plenty of empty land in the US for you to build your dream cities. You don't need to wreck a small city to build more dense cities. If everyone wanted to live in density like you claim, you could make billions building out cities wherever you want. Just stop screwing up existing communities.
>Why can't they give the same freedom of choice to those who disagree with them?
You have the choice, just build the density somewhere else. If you displace an entire community that likes small cities don't expect them to thank you for fundamentally altering their way of life for the worse (in their eyes).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If adding 1.5k employees and a new building is "largely ruining Boulder" in your eyes you should see a doctor. Put some effort into understanding perspectives before resorting to derision. Bringing thousands of highly paid employees into a smaller city is often not good for many who already lives there unless they own property. The majority of the new jobs will not go to existing residents, rents will increase, rest…
Note 1: This is interestingly isomorphic to the immigration debate. I'm not taking sides on this point, I just find the parallels interesting. Note 2: Thousands of highly paid employees will cause real estate prices to rise, certainly. But they'll spend on more than just real estate, so the economy as a whole will grow with a lot of incoming money to be spent. As these incoming people are already working for 1 compan…
A bunch of googlers will not support the local coop grocery store, but instead continue using amazon fresh/blue apron, etc. Not to mention the boutique stores they want to shop at probably don't exist yet (depending on the city).
The elevator just opens and there it is. It was Google´s offices with a big green Android figure. I took a picture and just went back to the market using the elevator.
As it was a weekend, I was on vacation, there was no one.
So "suddenly Google" is one of my memories to my travel to New York.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> my experience is that, in actual practice, people don't even want Ohioans to move to their town. Hm, most of the people I know who live in the "coastal elite" cities did not grow up in those same cities; they grew up in places like Ohio. (Which, again, is fine if Boulder wants to be a steady size forever - make sure enough people are moving out to bigger towns to cancel out population growth, by making sure they do…
> Hm, most of the people I know who live in the "coastal elite" cities did not grow up in those same cities; they grew up in places like Ohio. Yes, and generally speaking, if they liked Ohio, they would've stayed there, because you can still make a very nice living as a coder in middle America. That means they're going to be even more upset about Ohioans closing in, because they'll feel like the culture they left beh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real estate fire sale started in 1992 along with the spin–outs of various divisions (some of which completed, like IBM Federal Systems and Lexmark, others were halted by Gerstner like AdStar (storage systems) and Pennant (big printers).
Interesting. I'm reading that book (again) from the Archive, should be worth it.
This is a good part: The Click Heard Round the World.
It's in Chapter 4: Out to the Field (of the PDF of the book).