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

41–50 of 260 posts

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

#41

Post by oh_sigh »

lanternfish wrote: post #35
oh_sigh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was her methodology? > To pass as a convincing buyer, Schmied enlisted an antiquarian friend in Budapest to serve as her “husband,” and invented a 21-month-old baby, a personal chef, and a personal assistant named "Coco." She also blew the entire allowance from her residency at Dumbo’s Triangle Arts Association on manicures, makeup and clothes. Oh, but right...literally none of that was necessary: >...Surprising…

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.

Why do you guarantee that? Have you ever tried? If she mortgaged her house and rented a $1M pearl necklace as part of her scheme, wouldn't you also be saying that that part of her plan worked? How do you determine what was necessary and what was just a waste of effort?

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

#42

Post by dionidium »

HWR_14 wrote: post #38
dionidium wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we decided over 100 years ago that wasn't the case. That was an enormous mistake. It's the source of our housing shortage in high-demand areas and it's probably costing us literally trillions of dollars. [0] > If you think that the buildings are ugly and damage the city, you'd be opposed to them. You like them so are not. This is what you believe, not what I believe. In fact, I think people should be free to build…

Interesting take, considering the article we are talking about discusses how billionaires are hiding assets overseas (well, from overseas relative to us) in our housing. Don't you think that's driving up pricing. Anyway, I disagree with your article's point of view. I don't think letting more people live in San Jose or NYC would unlock huge 10% improvements to GDP, and, even if it were, there's a value to being able…

> there's a value to being able to live in single family homes

Of course that's true. Again, my view is that people should be free to build whatever they want. Single-family zoning makes the alternatives illegal, not the other way around! Proponents of single-family zoning get a lot of mileage out of the implication that urbanists want to impose their way of living on everybody else, but the opposite is quite plainly the case. Only one side in this debate wants to encode their preferences in law.

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

#43

Post by rusticpenn »

oh_sigh wrote: post #20
HWR_14 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By your definition, I could say about Newton's Principa Mathematica "He put some words on paper, groundbreaking" Or Linus "He put some bits on disk, groundbreaking" If you don't think her book is interesting, that's fine. But treating the methodology of how she got access to take the pictures as her sole output is lazy.

What was her methodology? > To pass as a convincing buyer, Schmied enlisted an antiquarian friend in Budapest to serve as her “husband,” and invented a 21-month-old baby, a personal chef, and a personal assistant named "Coco." She also blew the entire allowance from her residency at Dumbo’s Triangle Arts Association on manicures, makeup and clothes. Oh, but right...literally none of that was necessary: >...Surprising…

Probably because of the prep. with the Chef and personal assistant.

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

#44

Post by mola »

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.

Who says there's an expectation for the skyline to never change? Maybe it's ok if it changes for good reasons that benefit a lot of people, and not for the whims of the few ultra rich.

It's nuts that huge buildings are built, and then stand empty almost year round. That obviously doesn't help with density.

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

#45

Post by zadler »

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.

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

#46

Post by Scene_Cast2 »

paxys wrote: post #22
Aunche wrote: post #15

> But despite the breathtaking views, Schmied says the multi-million-dollar condos were dishearteningly dull How many new apartments aren't dull? If you're spending $90 million on an apartment, the last thing you would want is for it to be in the style of some architect's avant-garde idea of beauty. If you want to add personality, you hire your own interior designers to find your own aesthetic.

Exactly. Staged apartments are supposed to be dull. Prospective buyers should see a blank canvas, something as neutral and inoffensive as possible. And this applies to all sales, not just new apartments. There's a reason your realtor wants you to move all your stuff out before starting showings, no matter how much you think looking "homely" will help.

A counterpoint - if having style increases the variance of liking the property, then with increased variance, there will be more people who really like the property (and thus be willing to pay more).

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

#47

Post by Aunche »

sp332 wrote: post #23
Aunche wrote: post #15

> But despite the breathtaking views, Schmied says the multi-million-dollar condos were dishearteningly dull How many new apartments aren't dull? If you're spending $90 million on an apartment, the last thing you would want is for it to be in the style of some architect's avant-garde idea of beauty. If you want to add personality, you hire your own interior designers to find your own aesthetic.

It's what happens when places are investments, meant to be inoffensive for a broad addressable market. If a house or apartment were made for a rich person to actually live in instead of flipping, it could be more personal. https://medium.com/message/the-american-room-3fce9b2b98c5 (discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8109595 )

If it's an investment anyways, then there's no harm in giving it some artistic flair to give investors something additional to speculate about. I find it far more likely that foreign CEOs are just using it for their the couple weeks a year they spend in NYC when they visit their NYC office.

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

#48

Post by juskrey »

peteretep wrote: post #29
jimmyed wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes me want to take my few hundred thousands in retirement savings and live like a literal king in the 3rd world.

So do? Plenty of companies hiring remote, and you will be far (far far far) from the first tech worker to move to South East Asia. Bangkok in particular has world class (and affordable) health care, food, and night life, and you’re only ever a couple of hours from the beach

Thailand is fine until you get into trouble which requires authorities of any kind. It is what "3rd world" is all about.

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

#49

Post by peteretep »

juskrey wrote: post #48
peteretep wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do? Plenty of companies hiring remote, and you will be far (far far far) from the first tech worker to move to South East Asia. Bangkok in particular has world class (and affordable) health care, food, and night life, and you’re only ever a couple of hours from the beach

Thailand is fine until you get into trouble which requires authorities of any kind. It is what "3rd world" is all about.

Unlike the US you can pay your way out of most infractions in Thailand for a fair price.

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

#50

Post by lesdeuxmagots »

Scene_Cast2 wrote: post #46
paxys wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Staged apartments are supposed to be dull. Prospective buyers should see a blank canvas, something as neutral and inoffensive as possible. And this applies to all sales, not just new apartments. There's a reason your realtor wants you to move all your stuff out before starting showings, no matter how much you think looking "homely" will help.

A counterpoint - if having style increases the variance of liking the property, then with increased variance, there will be more people who really like the property (and thus be willing to pay more).

in such a niche market, you're better off creating competition among a few bidders, rather than putting off a significant % of the demand and relying on a person really liking the property to bid up the price.

Put another way, 4 people moderately interested in the property will probably yield a higher price than 2 people that are very interested in the property.

This is especially true in luxury real estate, where buyers go in looking to substantially change the property. They expect to bring in their own architects and designers. The staging is just a canvas.

Post reply on HN