3 ms·
> You're acting like residential retrofits have never been done. They have. These are workable problems. I didn't say residential retrofitting can't be done. I
by chimeracoder 3y ago
> You're acting like residential retrofits have never been done. They have. These are workable problems.
I didn't say residential retrofitting can't be done. I said that they can't be done while still demanding the resale value (read: net profit) that the building owners are demanding.
> Most of New York City's CRE tax revenue comes from mid-sized offices. Not from skyscrapers.
This comment thread is on an article titled "NYC Skyscrapers Sit Vacant, Exposing Risk City Never Predicted". So we're talking about things that apply to skyscrapers.
> As others point out, the killer is plumbing. Not fire escape.
There are multiple issues. I addressed fire escape only because you brought it up, not because it's the only issue.
Again, this whole thread is in response to your claim that the limiting factor is "aesthetic requirements" in the building code that are not motivated by safety concerns. So far, you haven't pointed out any.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> "aesthetic requirements" in the building code that are not motivated by safety concerns. So far, you haven't pointed out any. Yes, I have [1]. Communal water, toilets and showers. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35989481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35989481
- chimeracoder 3y ago> Yes, I have [1]. Communal water, toilets and showers. No, because that's non-prohibitive under current building code. Contrary to popular misconception, it's permissible to have communal facilities; it's just not economically viable, in part because it's extremely undesirable to live in.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoAgain, because of the other fixed costs of development. When those units come on the market there is ample demand. That doesn’t work if you have to price in years of community board and planning meetings.