20 ms·
It’s rarely that easy or financially viable. Major changes to the building’s core systems are required.
by nxm 4y ago
It’s rarely that easy or financially viable. Major changes to the building’s core systems are required.
- carlosjobim 4y agoAt this point it doesn't matter anymore. We have whole generations of young professionals who are forced into life long debt to have a shack to live in. Your argument is like arguing against letting people have bicycles and continue walking, because cars are better. People need to escape rent feudalism first, then we can talk about other stuff.
- Kalium 4y agoI believe the point being made is that converting office buildings into affordable housing is more difficult and expensive than building that housing from scratch. If we want to help people escape rent feudalism first, we might consider what the most effective way to go about it could be instead. Which, perhaps coincidentally, gets at what's been a major question in American cities for quite a while now: what are we going to do about how hard it's become to build affordable housing to help people escape rent feudalism? We're talking about California in this particular case. That's a place where one of the organizing principles of politics for generations has been preventing new housing. If you want to enable people to escape from being serfs on rent farms, you'll need to grapple with that.
- carlosjobim 4y ago> Which, perhaps coincidentally, gets at what's been a major question in American cities for quite a while now: what are we going to do about how hard it's become to build affordable housing to help people escape rent feudalism? As I see it, there is not any lack of housing in Western society. There are a ton of unused or underutilized housing and a on the other side a ton of employed people who are denied access because of hyper inflation in real estate prices. In the past the elder generation would pass on their real estate to their offspring when they were making families. Then there was a period in the 20th century with high wages, were people could buy property with their wages, so that tradition stopped. Today it is not realistic for a working person to buy property without the life long debt, and that is according to plan.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- liketochill 4y agoI randomly chose Kansas City Kansas and there are houses there for less than 200k that looked ok. Living in San Francisco is not necessary. Live somewhere cheaper and stop complaining that desireable places to live are more expensive.
- pm90 4y agoLiving in Kansas City is not a viable option unless you belong to certain demographics. Stop promoting it as such.
- jessaustin 4y agoPlease be more specific in your criticism of Kansas City. Many of its residents will be enlightened by the wisdom you can confer.
- flangola7 4y agoThere are not enough homes in all the Kansas Cities in the country to make that a universal solution. Instead of $1M homes in SF and $200k in KC, you end up with $800k homes everywhere. On top of that, what you save financially you frequently pay for in other ways. Communities and services that can be found in large cities simply don't exist in smaller and midwest areas.
- liketochill 4y agoThere are probably 100 cities in the fly over states just like KC. I live in a small town because I could not afford the big city near by. Life is full of compromises, not living in the most expensive city in the country shouldn’t be considered a hardship.
- flangola7 4y ago> Life is full of compromises, not living in the most expensive city in the country shouldn’t be considered a hardship. For many of us, the culture of smaller cities and increasingly even the laws of entire states represent an existential threat, or an existential threat to our loved ones. That is much more than a "hardship."
- fundad 4y agoRebuilding in flood zones isn’t financially viable either but government pays for that.
- disgruntledphd2 4y agoOnly in swing states.