HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #281  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2021, 7:47 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Most of these 1950s-70s era buildings are irredeemable. The ceilings are low, the layouts aren’t what people want, the buildings lack resident amenities, and construction quality isn’t great. One just needs to recognise them as the mistakes they always were and start over.

The ceilings are low, yes, but the unit sizes & layouts are generally larger and more functional than newer buildings. Construction quality isn't any worse than modern buildings. They're not glamorous, and aren't as desirable as newer buildings - but that's exactly why they're important in providing affordable market-rate housing.

Replacing them would necessitate that the replacements be more expensive. And in Toronto at least, buildings like these are where the plurality of the population lives. It's modest, but livable and affordable housing.
__________________

Last edited by MonkeyRonin; Feb 23, 2021 at 8:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #282  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2021, 9:53 PM
Silewe Silewe is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 37
Dont a lot of them do the one bathroom for a floor thing?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #283  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2021, 10:29 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
The ceilings are low, yes, but the unit sizes & layouts are generally larger and more functional than newer buildings. Construction quality isn't any worse than modern buildings. They're not glamorous, and aren't as desirable as newer buildings - but that's exactly why they're important in providing affordable market-rate housing.

Replacing them would necessitate that the replacements be more expensive. And in Toronto at least, buildings like these are where the plurality of the population lives. It's modest, but livable and affordable housing.
That doesn’t mean they’re desirable. In fact just the opposite - they are cheap housing for people with few options. That not only creates all the concentration-of-poverty issues that others have mentioned, but if you have too many in the city centre you get the “donut effect” with respect to wealth patterns, which leads to a failed city.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #284  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 12:05 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
The ceilings are low, yes, but the unit sizes & layouts are generally larger and more functional than newer buildings. Construction quality isn't any worse than modern buildings. They're not glamorous, and aren't as desirable as newer buildings - but that's exactly why they're important in providing affordable market-rate housing.

Replacing them would necessitate that the replacements be more expensive. And in Toronto at least, buildings like these are where the plurality of the population lives. It's modest, but livable and affordable housing.
London's real estate is probably so lucrative that it makes financial sense to replace one high rise with another even if it does seem wasteful. I don't think developers would get the same rate of return on affordable housing as they would brand new class A office space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #285  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 12:25 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
London's real estate is probably so lucrative that it makes financial sense to replace one high rise with another even if it does seem wasteful. I don't think developers would get the same rate of return on affordable housing as they would brand new class A office space.
I think that is his point (that rental rates would go up). I’m just questioning the view that this is a problem.

We need affordable housing but we don’t need to reserve the city centre for it.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #286  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 12:26 AM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,106
If the UK really wanted to fix London house prices they'd ban Russian oligarchs and minor Mideast potentates from buying any of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #287  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 12:29 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
If the UK really wanted to fix London house prices they'd ban Russian oligarchs and minor Mideast potentates from buying any of it.
I really don’t think there’s enough of them to affect prices for the majority. The oil and oligarch money just means that humble investment bankers can no longer afford Mayfair or Belgravia, and have to settle for Hampstead or St John’s Wood. But the latter would never have been anything resembling “affordable” regardless.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #288  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 3:28 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
I really don’t think there’s enough of them to affect prices for the majority.
Actually it doesn't take many external bidders with completely out-of-local-scale money in order to grossly distort prices for everyone (and then everyone starts to think of those prices as normal, which perpetuates the problem). There's a real "trickle down" effect there.

Vancouver is a good example.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #289  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 3:35 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
It just seems so wasteful to tear down a high-rise ...
Yeah. To me, my natural way of thinking (shaped by living in a "normal" real estate market) is that once a high-rise is there, it's there for the rest of time, like it or not, because it will never ever make any financial sense for anyone at any point in the future to deliberately tear it down at great cost rather than just continue to operate it as a profitable dated high-rise.

I find it absolutely fascinating that in some select markets, land values are so astronomically high that it's reasonable to acquire an already existing high-rise at fair market value for such a high-rise then pay extra on top of that to turn the property into vacant buildable land, because the newest and best use you're about to make of that land will make this maneuver financially justifiable.

I understand why it's the case in some areas of London, but I still find that totally foreign and exotic. (As well as somewhat environmentally wasteful, as you said.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #290  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 4:42 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,783
They are dismantling a 700' building on Park Ave for a much taller building. That seems insane to me and the one they took down was a gorgeous example of mid century international style. You'd think JP Morgan would find somewhere else in the vicinity and build there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #291  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 5:27 AM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
They are dismantling a 700' building on Park Ave for a much taller building. That seems insane to me and the one they took down was a gorgeous example of mid century international style. You'd think JP Morgan would find somewhere else in the vicinity and build there.
It is shameful what they did to 270 Park, they threw a rare mid-century gem in the trash like it was nothing.

What they plan to replace it is quite frankly one of the most obnoxious developments I've ever seen. And I'm pretty sure most of the increased height is due to higher ceilings, not more office space. Chase clearly has more money than they know what to do with, worst bank ever.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #292  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2021, 4:37 PM
nito nito is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Actually it doesn't take many external bidders with completely out-of-local-scale money in order to grossly distort prices for everyone (and then everyone starts to think of those prices as normal, which perpetuates the problem). There's a real "trickle down" effect there. Vancouver is a good example.
London has seen an influx of overseas purchases (including some developments marketed overseas before release in the domestic market) much like other international cities, although the larger size of London compared to say Vancouver probably dilutes the impact. The prevailing issue is a disconnection between supply meeting demand, but the UK also suffers from an effective oligopoly in residential development, an inefficient allocation of dwellings (e.g. family homes occupied by retirees who are unable to downsize), far too much and inefficient lending on property, restrictions on development, NIMBYism, and the obsession of house prices only going up as being a good thing.

The UK really needs to be building 2-3x the number of current dwellings just to meet annual demand, in addition to the multi-decade backlog. At some point it needs to be rectified as it is by far the biggest risk to the viability of London – far more than Brexit ever will be.
__________________
London Transport Thread updated: 2023_07_12 | London Stadium & Arena Thread updated: 2022_03_09
London General Update Thread updated: 2019_04_03 | High Speed 2 updated: 2021_09_24
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #293  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2021, 6:53 PM
Gantz Gantz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Actually it doesn't take many external bidders with completely out-of-local-scale money in order to grossly distort prices for everyone (and then everyone starts to think of those prices as normal, which perpetuates the problem). There's a real "trickle down" effect there.

Vancouver is a good example.
Really? Vancouver's main issue, like in many other cities, is that it is building a lot less housing than its population growth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:50 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.