4 ms·

Not wrong at all. Previously owner-occupied single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporat

Not wrong at all. Previously owner-occupied single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course Source? Why of course?
- Supermancho 1y ago
  >> single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course > Source? Why of course? Maybe I'm talking past someone, but the concept that was being described is self-evident. So, I'll just say this isn't a controversial take, from an urban planning standpoint. It's been demonstrated for hundreds of years (albeit, slightly different wealth sources). The pattern of smaller, high density housing, is the most efficient way to build profit in a population center. As density increases, central hubs appear. Land (specifically residential land) skyrockets in value as it's most scarce, within and immediate^1 and surrounding areas. 1 family paying rent on the land is less efficient than 1xN. The investment necessary to risk and realize those N returns are out of the reach of any entity other than a conglomerate. Singular elite investors generally do not engage in that risk, although there have been historic outliers. Cities also find it more expedient to eminent domain aging single family homes, more than taking on the corporate owned high density housing, further entrenching their relative durability. Despite the highly variable timelines, American cities have followed the common pattern of density housing owned by corporations replacing single family homes, in population centers, for a very long time. ^1 For some value of immediate, based on available mass transit and other environmental factors
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > the concept that was being described is self-evident. So, I'll just say this isn't a controversial take, from an urban planning standpoint. It's been demonstrated for hundreds of years National corporate landlords haven't been buying up anything for hundreds of years.
    - Supermancho 1y ago
      I'll respectfully disagree and go with history here. "corporate" is the modern term for a conglomerate of merchant parties who capitalize on buying up real estate in urban centers. The mechanisms are similar between Roman Senators (google: Roman Senators and Merchants - land ownership), Feudal families, the Dutch/English merchants of the 1800s. Historically all the same pattern of wealth concentration by land aggregation. All modern cities evolve this way. I'm not sure how you've missed it.
- staringback 1y ago
  source: my eyes

Not wrong at all. Previously owner-occupied single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course Source? Why of course?

Supermancho 1y ago
>> single family homes will continue to be bulldozed and replaced with 8 story wooden boxes, owned by national corporate landlords of course > Source? Why of course? Maybe I'm talking past someone, but the concept that was being described is self-evident. So, I'll just say this isn't a controversial take, from an urban planning standpoint. It's been demonstrated for hundreds of years (albeit, slightly different wealth sources). The pattern of smaller, high density housing, is the most efficient way to build profit in a population center. As density increases, central hubs appear. Land (specifically residential land) skyrockets in value as it's most scarce, within and immediate^1 and surrounding areas. 1 family paying rent on the land is less efficient than 1xN. The investment necessary to risk and realize those N returns are out of the reach of any entity other than a conglomerate. Singular elite investors generally do not engage in that risk, although there have been historic outliers. Cities also find it more expedient to eminent domain aging single family homes, more than taking on the corporate owned high density housing, further entrenching their relative durability. Despite the highly variable timelines, American cities have followed the common pattern of density housing owned by corporations replacing single family homes, in population centers, for a very long time. ^1 For some value of immediate, based on available mass transit and other environmental factors
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > the concept that was being described is self-evident. So, I'll just say this isn't a controversial take, from an urban planning standpoint. It's been demonstrated for hundreds of years National corporate landlords haven't been buying up anything for hundreds of years.
  - Supermancho 1y ago
    I'll respectfully disagree and go with history here. "corporate" is the modern term for a conglomerate of merchant parties who capitalize on buying up real estate in urban centers. The mechanisms are similar between Roman Senators (google: Roman Senators and Merchants - land ownership), Feudal families, the Dutch/English merchants of the 1800s. Historically all the same pattern of wealth concentration by land aggregation. All modern cities evolve this way. I'm not sure how you've missed it.
staringback 1y ago
source: my eyes