Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boston mayor announces residential conversion program for office buildings

bostonplans.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 413 posts

Re: Boston mayor announces residential conversion program for office buildings

#341

Post by pitt1980 »

fwiw, there's a building my sister lived in in Pittsburgh, the Penn Garrison, it's downtown, not totally sure what the history behind its development is, or what the window related zoning issues are in Pittsburgh, but it has one-bedroom apartments where the bedroom doesn't have any windows.

If you're interested in what it looks like, at least the promotional version of it, https://www.pmcpropertygroup.com/properties/penn-garrison-lo...

If you put enough soft lighting up, it was perfectly fine

Re: Boston mayor announces residential conversion program for office buildings

#342

Post by zeroonetwothree »

midoridensha wrote: post #248
CameronNemo wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Life is possible in America. Just not particularly pleasant.

"Unlivable" isn't normally used in the literal sense. A nasty, unheated, rat-infested apartment, for instance, can be said to be "unlivable", though it really is possible to live there if you're desperate enough.

Do you think that’s what the majority of Americans experience?

Re: Boston mayor announces residential conversion program for office buildings

#343

Post by zeroonetwothree »

Arete314159 wrote: post #233
RC_ITR wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's against narrative, but this is one of the ways SF's downtown is actually extremely well positioned, assuming the trend of office conversions actually takes off. SF floorplates are usually tiny due to historic biases of our Planning Commission (the dog whistle used to be 'we don't want a skyline of cereal boxes'). In fact, looking at the data [0] most of SF's residential tower floorplates are bigger than SF's off…

In addition, as climate change affects more and more places, I think SF will be the winner. It maintains a naturally air conditioned 65 degrees all summer long during a decade that has seen even Portland Oregon go into the high triple digits. Don't sleep on San Francisco.

I don’t think you are using “high triple digits” correctly.

Re: Boston mayor announces residential conversion program for office buildings

#344

Post by zeroonetwothree »

HWR_14 wrote: post #75
ethanbond wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they’re suggesting just having dead space in the middle.

Because that would convert space really badly. If you're making 10'x10' rooms out of a 100'x100' space, it's 74% dead space. If a floor is more than 10,000 sq feet, maybe 40,000 sq feet, it goes up to to 90%. I mean, numbers are made up, but the point holds.

You could make the rooms bigger. Also surely they aren’t always squares which is the worst case.

Re: Boston mayor announces residential conversion program for office buildings

#345

Post by lokar »

DropInIn wrote: post #197
lokar wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two different rules Bedrooms have egress requirements Apartments have window requirements (eg natural light)

Nah a whole bunch of jurisdictions made it so that with appropriate firewalls and other features there need be zero egress aside from the singular entrance/exit door. Windows can be unopenable etc., It's literally because of hi rises and the issues with it being pointless to jump from 10+ stories (you'll also suffer less, as the smoke will make you pass out long before you're actually being burned).

Yes, both rules vary by jurisdiction. I was just saying many places have both.

Re: Boston mayor announces residential conversion program for office buildings

#346

Post by steveBK123 »

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #335
steveBK123 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are things made better or worse by building the 11th & 12th houses when there are 12 families in need of houses?

Made better, in that case with those numbers. Given rental vacancy rates of ~5.8% in the USA in 2022 it is more akin to a hypothetical of building a 12th and 13th house, while an 11th already lies unoccupied. I am not sure in this more realistic case that building improves matters, unless an unhoused family can gain access to one.

1) You can't take national vacancy rates, RE is extremely local, as is homelessness.

2) Is it easier for unhoused to gain housing when vacancy is 1%/5%/10%/20% ?

For example, Manhattan has 2% vacancy. Even in peak covid dread it never got much above 4%. And you know what - pricing updated very quickly to get those units filled. Lots of tales of people getting crazy deals, including people I know. Of course when the world was no longer ending & everyone moved back.. prices snapped back.

So even a 2% to 4% move can have huge pricing impacts. Imagine building enough in HCOL areas to move the needle.

Re: Boston mayor announces residential conversion program for office buildings

#347

Post by eliasmacpherson »

steveBK123 wrote: post #346
eliasmacpherson wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Made better, in that case with those numbers. Given rental vacancy rates of ~5.8% in the USA in 2022 it is more akin to a hypothetical of building a 12th and 13th house, while an 11th already lies unoccupied. I am not sure in this more realistic case that building improves matters, unless an unhoused family can gain access to one.

1) You can't take national vacancy rates, RE is extremely local, as is homelessness. 2) Is it easier for unhoused to gain housing when vacancy is 1%/5%/10%/20% ? For example, Manhattan has 2% vacancy. Even in peak covid dread it never got much above 4%. And you know what - pricing updated very quickly to get those units filled. Lots of tales of people getting crazy deals, including people I know. Of course when the w…

1) can you explain why I can't take national vacancy rates, as it was a hypothetical in response to an unrealistic hypothetical? Surely national averages are better than looking at Manhattan of all places? I don't know how to have a reasonable conversation about this global problem using Manhattan as the point of interest.

2) at a certain point squatting sets in. I believe the answer to your question depends on how much capital is held by the rich/poor, and how well property is protected by law enforcement and private security. If you look at the parent comment I was responding to, it mentioned not building so much that it flooded the market.

Re: Boston mayor announces residential conversion program for office buildings

#348

Post by unethical_ban »

nradov wrote: post #339
FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't you seen all those hip buildings with high ceilings and exposed brick? They used to be factories and warehouses. Many of them are from a time of much sturdier construction. If the alternative is balloon-frame Mc-residential, then you want to renovate the old brick mill.

Those buildings look like crap. Hardly the kind of place where I would want to live or work if I had any choice.

Many people have different opinions about it. If sheetrock or a log cabin is your thing, great.

Re: Boston mayor announces residential conversion program for office buildings

#349

Post by eli_gottlieb »

lovich wrote: post #264
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Due to fire code, to divide a high-rise into 4 corner units, you need to take up almost ~50% of the space for elevators, stairs and hallways. So you'd probably end up with close to 5k square foot condos - which isn't too ridiculous. You'd probably do 4 corner units and 4 non-corner units for a total of eight, and end up with each being between 2000 and 2500. The problem is, they'd be ridiculously expensive for a numb…

Given the Boston market this will still help everyone. My household is making north of 300k and was still having trouble bidding on home where there were dead cockroaches visible during the showing. It feels wrong to build luxury housing when regular folk are suffering but if you build luxury housing to the point that the rich stop bidding on regular housing, or even better there’s so much luxury housing that everyon…

>My household is making north of 300k and was still having trouble bidding on home where there were dead cockroaches visible during the showing.

What size of place are you looking for? My partner and I bought in Boston in 2019 while making a fraction of that income.

Re: Boston mayor announces residential conversion program for office buildings

#350

Post by RC_ITR »

bregma wrote: post #310
RC_ITR wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it would be easier to knock the building down and start anew. Idk where this meme started but it’s very far from reality. We as a species have only ever voluntarily demolished like 30 or so building above 35 stories because it’s insanely expensive to do so (most buildings were knocked down to make significantly larger ones in their place). In no world is it ever cheaper to tear down a high rise and start over. http…

> We as a species have only ever voluntarily demolished like 30 or so building above 35 stories because it’s insanely expensive to do so The designed lifetime of yer typical neopostmodernist glass box office tower is about 25 years. Many of them are 50 years old at this point. They get torn down and replaced all the time.

> The designed lifetime of yer typical neopostmodernist glass box office tower is about 25 years. Many of them are 50 years old at this point. They get torn down and replaced all the time.

I mean, can you provide a list of all these 1973 high rises that are being torn down (and the commentary that they were built to be torn down in 1998)?

I’d be really interested to see that, because any steel building frame should be more durable than that, so I’m curious what these buildings are made out of.

Post reply on HN