3 ms·

As someone from Barcelona, I really wanna see it finished completely. Those apartments had an expiration date the moment they were built in the 60s. Everyone wh

As someone from Barcelona, I really wanna see it finished completely. Those apartments had an expiration date the moment they were built in the 60s. Everyone who bought them at a discount knew that they were going to be torn down when the temple itself was finished. I feel it's like those people that buy a house near an airport, they pay pennies for it, and then start lobbying the government for a change in air traffic routes.

unglaublich 3y ago
Exactly. Nimbyism at its finest: all gains are mine; all losses should be covered. It's bizarre that at the same time, real estate investors think all value increases are rightfully theirs, but they should be protected from any decrease in value. You can hardly call it 'investing' if you're protected from the downsides.
- pastacacioepepe 3y ago
  [dead]
- bjackman 3y ago
  I don't oppose destruction of housing because of people losing their investment - expropriate it for all I care. But reducing the housing supply is bad for everyone. That's the important problem with nimbyism: it's not that it demands unfair advantages for homeowners as investors, it's that it prevents development that is needed for a better world. There's definitely an argument to be made that globally iconic feats of architecture have intrinsic value that's more important than a bit of housing. But you do need to account for the social impact of aggravating housing scarcity to make that argument.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    We need to build more housing, but that doesn't mean we need to keep existing housing. Most old buildings should be replaced - they were not built with modern codes in mind and so are expensive to heat, dangerous in fire, have not accessible bathrooms, or other such things wrong that are difficult to correct.
- ossobuco 3y ago
  > Nimbyism at its finest: all gains are mine; all losses should be covered Nimbyims? This is corporate capitalism at its finest. Private profits, socialized and externalized losses.
seanalltogether 3y ago
Yeah, the Glory facade needs an approach. It can't simply dump out onto the street.

unglaublich 3y ago

Exactly. Nimbyism at its finest: all gains are mine; all losses should be covered. It's bizarre that at the same time, real estate investors think all value increases are rightfully theirs, but they should be protected from any decrease in value. You can hardly call it 'investing' if you're protected from the downsides.

pastacacioepepe 3y ago
[dead]
bjackman 3y ago
I don't oppose destruction of housing because of people losing their investment - expropriate it for all I care. But reducing the housing supply is bad for everyone. That's the important problem with nimbyism: it's not that it demands unfair advantages for homeowners as investors, it's that it prevents development that is needed for a better world. There's definitely an argument to be made that globally iconic feats of architecture have intrinsic value that's more important than a bit of housing. But you do need to account for the social impact of aggravating housing scarcity to make that argument.
- bluGill 3y ago
  We need to build more housing, but that doesn't mean we need to keep existing housing. Most old buildings should be replaced - they were not built with modern codes in mind and so are expensive to heat, dangerous in fire, have not accessible bathrooms, or other such things wrong that are difficult to correct.
ossobuco 3y ago
> Nimbyism at its finest: all gains are mine; all losses should be covered Nimbyims? This is corporate capitalism at its finest. Private profits, socialized and externalized losses.

seanalltogether 3y ago

Yeah, the Glory facade needs an approach. It can't simply dump out onto the street.