20 May
2014
20 May
'14
11:06 p.m.
I don't know about the bay area but the phenomenon of luxury buildings that
are scarcely inhabited is a function of the current market based in finance
and speculation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/nyregion/paying-top-dollar-for-condos-and…
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/world/europe/a-slice-of-london-so-exclusi…
Just pointing out that high-end development shouldn't be expected to
trickle down, at least within our lifetimes, or without radical political
change. These sorts of buildings won't be going up in West Oakland, though.
m
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Marcus- Do you have some examples of these uninhabited
luxury projects in
the Bay Area?
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Marcus Owens <owens.marcus(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
--
Marcus Owens
301-775-7876
Suburban living is not conducive generating value
in an
innovation/cognitive economy. The suburbs, and the externality of time
spent in commute, like increasing privatization in other spheres, will be
the burden of the poor in the future.
Just saying "rich people should live in the suburbs" is not only dumb but
it obscures the actual dynamics of what is driving contemporary urban
development. The mission was working class because a large labor force was
needed in the nearby working waterfront and industrial zones. That mode of
production is gone and isn't coming back.
That's why as Sonja says we need to use the excess capital now to build
as much housing and infrastructure as possible in ways that is socially and
environmentally acceptable. Unlike Sonja I don't think speculative luxury
projects trickle down, but are rather flipped from investor to investor and
never inhabited.
m
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Andrew <andrew(a)roshambomedia.com> wrote:
"Forcing people into the suburbs is bad for
those people, and bad for
the environment. If you're anti urban development, you're pro-freeway."
I'm pro subway, we should have an actual one in the bay area. at this
point rich people should be living in the suburbs not in the cities. I mean
this is a tech boom. Which means for most jobs that are making a ton a
money you can work anywhere, so work from your swanky apartment in Concord
or Walnut Creek, not in The Mission. Makes sense to me.
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 4:41 PM, The Doctor <drwho(a)virtadpt.net> wrote:
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 05/17/2014 12:17 PM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
> The causation is backwards here. The rich people are coming/ here
> no matter what. THATS WHY developers and cities want to build. They
> see an
The argument can be made that people are coming here because they can
afford it, and they think that starting here will give them a chance
to get rich.
- --
The Doctor [412/724/301/703] [ZS]
Developer, Project Byzantium: http://project-byzantium.org/
PGP: 0x807B17C1 / 7960 1CDC 85C9 0B63 8D9F DD89 3BD8 FF2B 807B 17C1
WWW: https://drwho.virtadpt.net/
The owls are not what they seem.
--
-------
Andrew Lowe
Cell: 831-332-2507
http://roshambomedia.com
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEAREKAAYFAlN76DAACgkQO9j/K4B7F8FRJACg8AUA4wycqM89cFQG+wVnrlwx
NHwAnj+FKKs5bThfD+CsgAcxsOynbPoF
=pk05
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss