General Discussion

Sen. Walter Sobchak

(8,692 posts)

68. I'm going to tell you a dirty little secret...

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 04:14 PM

Jan 2016

Condos aren't housing. They're a fungible, low-maintenance commodity that can be traded nearly anonymously and easily evade most money laundering and foreign exchange controls.

There is no business case for condos in most places without their utility as a discreet store of value.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why Historic Preservation Districts Should Be a Thing of the Past [View all] KamaAina Jan 2016 OP

I've always thought it was dumb that the city could decalare your house historic agaisnt your will Travis_0004 Jan 2016 #1

Not sure where you live JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #13

I don't consider destroying historic buildings 'smart' growth. sinkingfeeling Jan 2016 #2

Likewise^ world wide wally Jan 2016 #3

But I would want to see it become more accessible KamaAina Jan 2016 #5

I do. Most of them were built on the foundations of older destroyed buildings. Recursion Jan 2016 #10

If you tear it down JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #15

The answer in either case is "it depends" Recursion Jan 2016 #18

I'm going to send you a pm JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #22

Sorry, but none of the houses in my historic district were built sinkingfeeling Jan 2016 #31

Yes, let's destroy history and replace it with soulless high rises! Odin2005 Jan 2016 #55

Same here. n/t FSogol Jan 2016 #16

The premise of this article is faulty. Odin2005 Jan 2016 #4

Disagree A Little Weird Jan 2016 #6

Me too JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #17

Oh my... jmowreader Jan 2016 #7

This article reads like it was written by a developer eyeing a historic district building FLPanhandle Jan 2016 #8

You can't both be against this and be against gentrification. It's one or the other. Recursion Jan 2016 #11

I'm not against gentrification. FLPanhandle Jan 2016 #12

Why not? Recursion Jan 2016 #14

You are painting a dystopian nightmare FLPanhandle Jan 2016 #20

And that will be an historical classic in 50 years, just like the rowhouses it's replacing Recursion Jan 2016 #23

I want no part of your idea of city planning FLPanhandle Jan 2016 #24

And I want no part of your attempt to freeze the imagined city of the past Recursion Jan 2016 #25

Eureka Springs, Arkansas is 90 % the way it looked 150 years ago sinkingfeeling Jan 2016 #32

So is Carthage, MS. Neither are "cities" (nt) Recursion Jan 2016 #33

So you only think historic homes should be eradicated in large, sinkingfeeling Jan 2016 #34

I think historic buildings are not worth infinite rent increases Recursion Jan 2016 #36

I didn't know that rent increases were confined to historic buildings. sinkingfeeling Jan 2016 #37

Any building becomes magically "historical" when a high-rise is contrmplated Recursion Jan 2016 #39

I have asked you before to address this... Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2016 #60

Vancouver (all the lower mainland really) EllieBC Jan 2016 #66

I'm going to tell you a dirty little secret... Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2016 #68

The way New Orleans works, that would go just above the Quarter KamaAina Jan 2016 #50

Most of New Orleans is historic districts. bluedigger Jan 2016 #61

Perhaps other cities could learn from NOLA's example. KamaAina Jan 2016 #70

Fuck this dystopian shit. Odin2005 Jan 2016 #56

I agree Cal Carpenter Jan 2016 #26

Want to deal with the fact that the rent is too damn high? That's definitely a start (nt) Recursion Jan 2016 #9

Tearing down old to build new does not make the rent lower, NYC develops constantly and rents are Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #47

My home is former redline JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #19

Eminent domain. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jan 2016 #27

I don't think JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #30

What gave you that idea? KamaAina Jan 2016 #69

Not my idea or thought JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #71

I disagree. Vinca Jan 2016 #21

I'm kinda shocked to read this ... Trajan Jan 2016 #28

Just throwing it out there KamaAina Jan 2016 #51

100% disagree with OP ShrimpPoboy Jan 2016 #29

There has to be a balance. Cities like S.F. that go overboard on NIMBYism geek tragedy Jan 2016 #35

Yep. Those "Painted Ladies" should be the first to be torn down. Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #41

as I said, there needs to be balance. geek tragedy Jan 2016 #42

And yet Amsterdam looks like Amsterdam while being fully modern and housing is made affordable Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #48

How affordable is Amsterdam itself as opposed to the suburbs? geek tragedy Jan 2016 #67

Yeah, anyone who wants to see old buildings can visit Europe. Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #38

This is an area where I get a bit Libertarian: Ron Green Jan 2016 #40

That's some very interesting stuff, good link. hunter Jan 2016 #43

It's a great site full of life and good discussion. Ron Green Jan 2016 #57

Eisenhower was a Republican too, but the party has been devolving since Nixon. hunter Jan 2016 #65

Stupid people don't appreciate history and tabasco Jan 2016 #44

I think it's less stupidity but more short term thinking FLPanhandle Jan 2016 #45

Having lived many years in St. Augustine, FL, I got to see first-hand the struggle to maintain the JCMach1 Jan 2016 #46

Let's take a look at the Garden of Allah Apartments in Hollywood. Residence to many, many luminaries Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #49

Jesus, no. Starry Messenger Jan 2016 #52

Obviously they didn't do it right. KamaAina Jan 2016 #53

Poorly written article about a dumb idea. Throd Jan 2016 #54

Who needs a 236 year old building when we could have another CVS? BuelahWitch Jan 2016 #58

The success with which developers have made useful idiots of the urban left is astounding Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2016 #59

Offshore investors EllieBC Jan 2016 #64

Hasn't worked here EllieBC Jan 2016 #62

NO way. romanic Jan 2016 #63