2 ms·

> If redevelopment were generally allowed in cities like Paris and New York some of ugliest, least unique buildings would tend to get replaced with something ne

> If redevelopment were generally allowed in cities like Paris and New York some of ugliest, least unique buildings would tend to get replaced with something newer and possibly better. And fifty or a hundred years later some of those new buildings would themselves also be prized by preservationists. This is completely unfounded. There is no guarantee that new construction would be more aesthetically pleasing and we've seen that new development has not brought down prices in New York City and that gentrification continues to get worse.

glenra 13y ago
THere's no guarantee, no. But it's a pretty safe bet. Yes, buildings built in the 1880s have a certain style to them, but so do buildings built in the 1970s, 1990s, and today. By the end of the century people will undoubtedly have some nostalgia for the old-fashioned building style of 2013. Not all buildings built today will stand the test of time, but some will. More will if there are more to choose from. Think about the original Twin Towers. By objective measure they were boring and hideous, but people liked them anyway - it grew on the populace. Like the Eiffel Tower did on Parisiens. As for gentrification, the newest buildings will tend to have high prices, but if enough of them are allowed to come on the market eventually there will be a glut and prices will collapse. Maybe the price collapse will be more in the older buildings as upscale tenants move to the new ones. (Getting rid of rent control would help a lot too, of course. Right now new buildings specialize in high-end in part because anyone who chose to specialize in low-end would quickly lose the flexibility to set their own rent and choose their own tenants.)