Sad-Principle3781

Sad-Principle3781 t1_j5n2evf wrote

constructing a twenty story two hundred unit building for 700 million vs four hundred forty story for two billion. exactly as it sounds. I don't know why you'd assume rich would disappear, I'm not saying it. I'm just saying building taller would require you to build more expensive and it's not the ratio that's holding it back. IT's good to hear you know how economics works for supply in a free market. Now apply it to the constraints of building taller. There's no way you'd get more more taller without dedicating more space to making your building work and make it less efficient.

1

Sad-Principle3781 t1_j5m85rz wrote

then go build the transit. what'll likely happen is the housing development gets built and there's no more new transit. The investment in transit in the form of capital projects of tunnels is going to cost more than the building. Nobody is falling over themselves to build housing or it'd already be built with exemptions. The higher it goes the more likely it'll be unaffordable luxury. The types of housing that needs to be built, capital efficient affordable housing isn't being limited by the ratio cap, it's just a dumb opinion piece.

−3

Sad-Principle3781 t1_j5lj81e wrote

The part about the tall height would mean almost certainly it would be luxury. In the best case: yea, it'll be an investment by wealthy foreign owners who would never live there or use any of the building/community services, but probably just as likely it'd be turned into an airbnb listing with a revolving door of new neighbors.

0