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

91–100 of 260 posts

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

#91

Post by JumpCrisscross »

LimaBearz wrote: post #81
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> material choice and color If you’re buying a $70mm apartment and living in it, you’re renovating it before moving in.

You’d think right?! So why the hell is the same marble used to craft David already in the unit? Why spend so much on finishings if it’s just gonna be redone. That’s part of the 70 million. Feels like rentseeking and waste to me

> Why spend so much on finishings if it’s just gonna be redone. That’s part of the 70 million.

Sales.

> Feels like rentseeking and waste to me

It’s wasteful. But it’s not rent seeking [1]. If it makes you feel better, there is a healthy secondary market in New York for these materials.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

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

#92

Post by dgs_sgd »

natchy wrote: post #83
IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #78

this is a huge argument for a real estate tax on non-primary residential property. Then, triple the tax its not rented during the year. do we want to allow wealthy princes to have a pied a terre on park ave ? OK. Let them pay in blood for the privilege. Of course, neither "progressives" or "conservatives" will be willing to threaten upper classes, real estate lobby, and political donors, with such a tax.. despite tha…

> this is a huge argument What was the argument. I didn’t see an argument. That fact that expensive apartments exist? > let them pay in blood for the privilege Why? Follow this thread of envy and it ends at a guillotine for anyone with wealth.

I think the parent comment's argument is that expensive apartments exist _and_ the vast majority of them are not used for living, but rather a place for the uber rich to park their money.

From the article > “But these apartments are turnkey—the kind of person they’re trying to appeal to would never live there.”

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

#93

Post by wingerlang »

jimmyed wrote: post #75
juskrey wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I haven't researched much about this but India seems like a better fit for tech workers? There I'll find folks who share my interest and the culture is good too.

What makes you think you won’t find people with shared interests in Thailand? It has a large tech scene.

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

#94

Post by chrischen »

test1235 wrote: post #62
cheriot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Expecting a city skyline to never change is ridiculous "In Athens, buildings are not allowed to surpass 12 floors so as not to block the view toward the Parthenon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_A... I'd say this isn't typical of most of the world, but it's not unprecedented.

I guess they peaked in 447 BC.

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

#95

Post by bobthepanda »

tarsinge wrote: post #89
wolverine876 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also constrains supply of real estate, driving up the value for property owners.

12 floors is huge. Nearly every building in Paris is 6 floors and it is already at near the maximum density humanly acceptable in my opinion. There will never be enough supply in some place, especially with speculation and foreign investors. The situation in NYC and these cities is nothing like SF.

The average square footage of a Parisian studio would make NY’s tenements look downright palatial.

The average NYC studio is 50 m^2. The larger end for a Parisian studio is given to be 35 m^2.

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

#96

Post by 7952 »

koonsolo wrote: post #85
alpha_squared wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth is finite, despite how much some like to claim it's not zero-sum. Not everyone can be wealthy, so by definition there will be those who aren't. Inherited wealth allows the inheritors to start further along in wealth accumulation and widens the gap between the wealthy and those who aren't. That then locks up wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

I feel sad for you that you think people cannot create something from nothing. So if you gain something, does that means somebody else needs to lose? Is that how people justify stealing or scamming? Or is that how they cope with their envy that rich people must be stealing or scamming. I once knew a person that had this theory about happiness. If someone is happy, someone else needs to be sad. I feel sad for anyone w…

Not the parent, but I think that is a bit harsh. Their definitely is a practical limit to the amount of resources humanity has immediate access to. Be that time, raw materials, capital or whatever. There obviously are ways to make those resources go further. But that is beyond the ability and scope of most of us to achieve. And wealth gives you the spare time and money to go look for those opportunities. I agree that the mindset of zero sum game is bad for you and society. But there are still real constraints.

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

#98

Post by searchableguy »

test1235 wrote: post #62
cheriot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Expecting a city skyline to never change is ridiculous "In Athens, buildings are not allowed to surpass 12 floors so as not to block the view toward the Parthenon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_A... I'd say this isn't typical of most of the world, but it's not unprecedented.

China has done the same recently. They are moving away from skyscrapers. Strict regulation for buildings taller than 250m. No approval for buildings taller than 500m.

https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/article/3115225/...

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

#99

Post by bobthepanda »

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #58
mc32 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even. plenty of first-world cities expect skyline changes. This attitude toward change (anti-change) comes from SF and has migrated elsewhere. NYC was the antithesis to this attitude but apparently it's not immune to this line of thinking. It's like they think mountains do not move. Rivers always run the same course. It's comical and tragic.

> This attitude toward change (anti-change) comes from SF and has migrated elsewhere. NYC was the antithesis to this attitude but apparently it's not immune to this line of thinking. NYC created the world's first zoning laws in response to a building casting shadows: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/background.page

This was back from an era where the main contributors to disease were thought to be lack of air and light.

The zoning described was actually quite generous by modern standards; you could technically build as much as you wanted as long as it fit the prescribed cake tier shape, and you could build theoretically unlimited height on a certain portion, I believe the center quarter of the lot. There is no city in the US today where you could build something as tall as the Empire State Building as of right; and yet the older regulations allowed that.

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

#100

Post by Shacklz »

koonsolo wrote: post #85
alpha_squared wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth is finite, despite how much some like to claim it's not zero-sum. Not everyone can be wealthy, so by definition there will be those who aren't. Inherited wealth allows the inheritors to start further along in wealth accumulation and widens the gap between the wealthy and those who aren't. That then locks up wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

I feel sad for you that you think people cannot create something from nothing. So if you gain something, does that means somebody else needs to lose? Is that how people justify stealing or scamming? Or is that how they cope with their envy that rich people must be stealing or scamming. I once knew a person that had this theory about happiness. If someone is happy, someone else needs to be sad. I feel sad for anyone w…

> It's way nicer on our side, where we do win-win deals, and know to be happy, the people around us need to be happy.

If you would like this world-view to undergo some critical analysis, I strongly recommend Anand Giridharadas' take in "Winners take All" (condensed in this google-talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM).

He specifically addresses the negative points of the "win-win"-mentality, and in my opinion, makes a strong point that a society built on a "win-win" culture is bound to be doomed.

Post reply on HN