3 ms·
> converting them into dormitories cannot possibly recoup the cost Once we start talking easing housing code requirements, especially if it's done in the name
by mortenjorck 4y ago
> converting them into dormitories cannot possibly recoup the cost
Once we start talking easing housing code requirements, especially if it's done in the name of increasing access to housing, the conversation becomes about just how much conversion is really necessary, and how little can be done to break even. And there's a big continuum.
If one end of this continuum is a standard college dorm setup, the other is literally just letting people camp out in an otherwise-unmodified office floor. In between are probably SRO-level accommodations, building four-wall cubicles with open ceilings for sunlight and ventilation (sometimes traditionally covered in chickenwire).
As grim as this sounds, it might actually be preferable to the current practice of allowing tent cities to proliferate downtown. The idea of an office tower slum is incredibly dystopian, but if the alternative is the properties becoming write-offs, it may be the most likely outcome.
- cycomanic 4y agoWhy should anyone care about the rich owners of the office buildings having to write off their losses and instead make it easier to accommodate people like cattle. The only way they are going to recoup some of their costs is by charging significantly for the right to live in a windowless box. So it seems this scheme is much less about helping some poor homeless person and much more about some rich investor keeping some money.
- ethbr0 4y agoIn the event regulations are relaxed, I have absolutely zero problem haircutting the hell out of the formerly-commercial owners.
- ethbr0 4y ago> The idea of an office tower slum is incredibly dystopian It's hard to get more contemporary cyberpunk than an organic community nesting in an ex-Facebook office building.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]