3 ms·
> This can be a VERY expensive fix. The question for this sort of thing isn't how expensive it is absolutely but weather or not it's more expensive than buildi
by swiley 5y ago
> This can be a VERY expensive fix.
The question for this sort of thing isn't how expensive it is absolutely but weather or not it's more expensive than building more housing in the area, and I doubt it's more expensive than that.
> The big spaces are then catered to rich people, who fund the massive Reno bills.
Ye Olde "luxury apartments are expensive" argument. If supply actually met demand then it would look more like the east coast where younger people with low salaries can afford these sorts of apartments with no roommates.
- vineyardmike 5y agoHey, never said it couldn't happen, but this is why its not the first choice of developers... its totally possible. The parent just asked why its not readily done. > but weather or not it's more expensive than building more housing in the area that's for the market to decide. This area has very expensive office space, and you'd have to factor in the loss in revenue in office rent. of course, in a world where the offices stayed vacant, that's 0 anyways. > look more like the east coast I lived on the east coast, the parts that people want to live often aren't cheap either (NYC, Bos, etc). They're also not increasing housing by much. > Ye Olde "luxury apartments are expensive" argument This wasn't an argument against, its more a "where does this money come from" point. Expensive things are expensive to produce. Thankfully they're expensive so they can cover construction expenses. SF needs more new luxury housing so people with lots of money stop living in existing housing, leaving room for poorer people. No one would build market rate housing when there are millionaires living in rundown walkups.