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

251–260 of 260 posts

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

#251

Post by keefe8 »

Ichthypresbyter wrote: post #144
lanternfish wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't formally initiate a credit check or validate net worth, but I guarantee none of those brokers would give me the time of day if I called in right now. The theater is there to avoid the credit checks; the fact that they didn't check just means her plan worked.

Slightly reminded of the story about the guy who went into his local VW dealer and asked to test-drive a Golf GTI (which he could afford to buy). They did whatever (formal or informal) checks they normally do, and gave him the keys. He drove it across town to the BMW dealer, and told them that his new GTI wasn't fast enough for him and he was interested in trading it in for an M3. Repeat at higher- and higher-end car…

The full story is an entertaining read: https://www.reddit.com/r/ActLikeYouBelong/comments/6zd39b/we...

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

#252

Post by pkphilip »

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.

It is actually a pretty smart way to ensure that there is some occupancy in all building blocks (which could reduce crime) and also it brings down the overall rental costs.

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

#253

Post by Ichthypresbyter »

keefe8 wrote: post #251
Ichthypresbyter wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly reminded of the story about the guy who went into his local VW dealer and asked to test-drive a Golf GTI (which he could afford to buy). They did whatever (formal or informal) checks they normally do, and gave him the keys. He drove it across town to the BMW dealer, and told them that his new GTI wasn't fast enough for him and he was interested in trading it in for an M3. Repeat at higher- and higher-end car…

The full story is an entertaining read: https://www.reddit.com/r/ActLikeYouBelong/comments/6zd39b/we...

Thanks, I'd forgotten some of the details (like the guy getting into the GTI by being an employee of the VW dealership).

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

#254

Post by biztos »

leejo wrote: post #208
biztos wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Veering off topic but: there is a photography vlogger named Jared Polin who is producing a crowdfunded photo book and vlogging the process. It’s pretty fascinating if you’re casually interested in niche photo books. https://youtu.be/NloBEbN7qo8

That video gives a good general idea of the costs involved in creating high quality niche photobooks. TL;DW way more expensive than most people realise. Very few photographers make any profit from books however, unless they are very well established. So the emphasis on profit in this video is rather misleading. There's also a big error/assumption from Jared when he covers why he is self-publishing rather than going t…

Thanks, that's an interesting take.

I agree Polin seems to undervalue (or just not understand?) what a publisher brings to the table, but I did get the impression he is trying to do this as an offshoot of his vlogging business more than "as a photographer" and for that, flying solo might have advantages outside the actual sales and publicity of the book.

Funny that you say people don't really buy art: the primary complaint from artists about the art world is that there's too much money in it. Lots of people buy art, and lots of people make art, and lots of people sell art: for at least these three measures, more people than ever have at any previous time in recorded history. But sure, more people don't than do.

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

#255

Post by bluefirebrand »

carpedimebagjoe wrote: post #243
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.

Urban sprawl is awful if there's only single-occupant vehicles, bad roads, and no reliable public transport anyone wants to use ... basically, you get Los Angeles. Terrible, crime-ridden, and horizontally dystopian.

As opposed to urban densification where everyone lives in the sky and the city is crowded, polluted, noisy, crime ridden and dystopian?

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

#256

Post by bobthepanda »

carpedimebagjoe wrote: post #249
bobthepanda wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, most American jurisdictions will not let one legally subdivide a living area into chunks as small as a Parisian studio. NYC regulations on how small you can subdivide are probably as generous as they get. In the Parisian example, it is legal to have an apartment without an in-unit bathroom, and this is straight up illegal in virtually every American city. A list of requirements for NYC (not exhaustive):…

/s woosh. LOL. ;-) It's called tenement housing, in any case. Split the living room in half and rent the large walk-in closet, now a 2 bedroom is magically a 5 bedroom like an airline employee crashpad. :) Some friends of mine were thinking about renting out an entire warehouse and constructing illegal residential tenement "apartments" in them.

All fun and games till 36 people die in a fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Ship_warehouse_fire

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

#257

Post by richardfey »

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…

If you like this topic I recommend this talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em7nqDqQ8oM

It has a great explanation of the difference between complex and complicated, and the fragility of our systems compared to nature's ones.

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

#258

Post by tovej »

renewiltord wrote: post #234
tovej wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look around Europe and you can see it. The reason US city development is a money hole is because you do city-level urban services in sprawling communities. The tax-payer density is just not high enough to economically support the cost of that infrastructure.

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

#259

Post by zapdrive »

dbt00 wrote: post #77
zapdrive wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, like California DMV?

When's the last time you went to one? I had three different reasons to go to one in the last 3 years and each time I was in and out in under 30 minutes with almost no wait time. This meme is garbage.

2012.

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

#260

Post by renewiltord »

tovej wrote: post #258
renewiltord wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Look around Europe and you can see it. The reason US city development is a money hole is because you do city-level urban services in sprawling communities. The tax-payer density is just not high enough to economically support the cost of that infrastructure.

Sure, I used to live there. But that's no model for US cities. It's like transplanting a cow's stomach into me to help me digest grass.

The political situation and the relative expectations of the local communities are sufficiently different so as to cause European style urban planning to fail here. You have to engineer to the human and political constraints as well.

US towns and cities are drunk on debt and bailouts and that is a competitive constraint on growth.

Post reply on HN