this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
690 points (96.1% liked)

World News

32290 readers
1091 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Ah thanks for the context, I didn't know! But doesn't my point essentially stills stand?

As more people work from home and more Flatiron-like buildings struggle to find businesses looking for offices, developers might find "ex prestigious office to luxury apartments" a more appealing conversion than "ex Walmart to affordable housing".

Also, my understanding of the housing crisis is that people can't find an affordable place to live close enough to where they work. In my country there are plenty of small towns that used to be very pretty places to live, that have very affordable housing and that are turning into ghost towns because all the jobs are concentrated in a few big cities.

If you take away the offices, less people are going to need to live in New York, San Francisco or London. Plenty of people might still choose to, of course, but there should be less competition to rent the last bed space in a filthy apartment at ludicrous prices. Or to buy a small flat in a converted former office.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Some people choose a location for the amount of things to do. Like the bigger cities offer more bars, fairs, gyms, and other niche stuff. Meet ups are also a bit easier. This could change as people move out of bigger cities.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

You're point holds, I just wanted to point out why they used it as an example.