Live data from Hacker News

A fire sale has U.S. office buildings going for 90% off

wsj.com

71–75 of 75 posts

Re: A fire sale has U.S. office buildings going for 90% off

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't cheaper for any physical reason. It was cheaper because we regulated it that way on purpose. We've intentionally made it unconscionably expensive to bring anything not built to current standard back into service even in a limited capacity (e.g. sublet a factory into smaller space) because we have because this stuff is mostly the purview of local governments who seem to optimize for some middle-ish ground pa…

You don't even have to listen to the meeting, just take a look around. Here's one at Carson City[]. Notice something about the demographics? None of those people look like young family in need of their first home or condo. It's people old enough that already have a place, bought during the days while the getting was still good, and are looking to secure their property values. Maybe a few of them had bad luck or had a…

Depends on the meeting type. If you go to whichever one involves the relevant committee or board extracting expensive concessions from mundane businesses you're gonna see more younger people because first time business owners tend to be the ones who get screwed the most because they blunder right into all the traps the system has prepositioned for such people.

I watched two brothers in their 30s who'd bought a 12-unit (they lived in it) go rounds with the city over all manner of petty bullshit that can be construed as a legitimate concern on paper but really isn't if you look at the totality of the situation. Ultimately they hired the law firm which was owned by a lifelong developer who was the head of the equivalent board in the next town over (i.e. someone who knew people) and suddenly none of those things were problems anymore.

Re: A fire sale has U.S. office buildings going for 90% off

#72
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet there is still a widespread housing shortage.

Widespread affordable housing shortage. There is an abundance of unaffordable housing. he proposed solution, brand new housing, will never solve this.

This is not true. Building all types of housing increases the supply of affordable housing.

Build a new luxury apartment, and someone moves from a mid tier apartment into it, and someone moves from an affordable apartment into that, and so on.

Price is a function of constrained supply. The type of supply is not important to increase the numbers.

Re: A fire sale has U.S. office buildings going for 90% off

#73
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that is big one. Perhaps we need to rethink housing. Shared restrooms, bathrooms, and kitchens. Keep the same restrooms on every floor. A gym with individual showers and a food court on specific floors.

Genuine question, who would actually want to share an intimate space like a kitchen or bathroom with dozens of other strangers on a daily basis? This is obviously a common setup in college dorms or prison, but that is specifically because it’s a temporary (and extreme) cost saving measure, or because you’ve lost the right to participate in society (i.e. prison, which is viewed by some societies to be cruel and inhuma…

I honestly do not know hoping that someone smarter than me figures it out. I suppose it will depend on the execution. If it is comfortable, looks nice, if it creates community, amenities, price, location, etc.

Re: A fire sale has U.S. office buildings going for 90% off

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debt funded sprawl. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020-8-28-the-growth-pon... https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020-5-14-americas-growt... https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2025/4/14/cities-are...

Why did it fund sprawl? Why didn't anyone choose to develop density on existing sites? We built that stuff just fine from 1870 through the 1940s. What changed? Surely it wasn't the proliferation of government regulation of the development process (and the financials thereof) that caused developers to optimize for greenfield sprawl crap that could most cheaply check the boxes, get the cheap money, get the approvals, b…

> Why did it fund sprawl?

Road funding is a big reason. Federal, state, and local taxes are used for roads, and more driving. Parking minimums required land to be dedicated to parking, further encouraging car usage for transportation and spreading out development with parking lots in between developments.

> Why didn't anyone choose to develop density on existing sites?

Existing sites would have had to not be developed enough to trigger a rezoning. If a different use was being proposed for land, then a zoning hearing would be needed, and parking minimums would have to be enforced. Thus requiring adjacent lots to be bought and redeveloped into parking unless exceptions were made. You can see remnants of this in some cities where amongst historic buildings and skyscrapers there are large surface parking lots.

> We built that stuff just fine from 1870 through the 1940s. What changed?

Quite a few things. Parking minimums as mentioned, euclidian/single use zoning, etc. I think one of the core things that changed is something that Strong Towns mentioned. Up until the early 1900s, municipal planners would try to project how much tax revenue per acre of land was being generated and how much tax expenditures were made for those areas. Over time, tax per acre or per parcel was deprioritized, and level of service for roads was used as an economic metric. More vehicles in an area means more economic activity (in theory), so municipalities started optimizing for more vehicular movement.

In the end, it was a lot of government regulation that resulted in this. From the federal level, to states, counties, and municipalities. It worked for a large portion of the voting populace, so it was generally favored.

Re: A fire sale has U.S. office buildings going for 90% off

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understood you correctly, land that has no building on it is not eligible for a mortgage, and is therefore cheaper to buy? With the downside that you have to pay cash, because you can't get a mortgage either?

Yes the land value is so insanely cheaper on un-mortgagable properties in my state, it's off the charts. I have developed land in my county so I'm familiar with the costs to develop, buy land, place utilities etc. (I did not become a land developer on purpose, only because I realized this absolutely crazy arbitrage) It would cost you about $200-$250k to buy a rural small acreage land with a manufactured home on it. I…

Doesn't the cost of adding sewer / power / etc add up a ton ? Does that not require permits ?
Post reply on HN