3 ms·
This is just empirically false. High rise construction is massively cheaper than the current property values. Per square foot, suburban Palo Alto is $1409 per s
by 1053r 12y ago
This is just empirically false. High rise construction is massively cheaper than the current property values. Per square foot, suburban Palo Alto is $1409 per square foot at the median [1]. Heck, even the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world, and hardly a bastion of affordable housing, cost only 1.5B / 3,595,146 = $417 per square foot. [2]
More reasonable construction of 10 - 20 stories could easily be put up for that cost, even once you factor in the high cost of labor in CA.
1 - http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Palo_Alto-California/ http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Palo_Alto-California/
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa
- muzz 12y agoMost of the value in the "per square foot suburban Palo Alto" number comes from the land, not the structure. If all those single-family houses were torn down and rebuilt as high-density, then surely the price per square foot would be cheaper. Property rights are pesky though.
- ForHackernews 12y ago> Property rights are pesky though. Let developers buy them out. Or theoretically, they could just eminent-domain a bunch of houses.[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London