|
|
|
|
|
by pydry
1876 days ago
|
|
They use a small amount of some of the most valuable land in the United States. They also purchased "air rights" from neighboring buildings. Their LVT bill (assuming air rights were also taken into account) would not be small. It seems that people also don't actually like living in them. It's particularly noteworthy that they're speaking out about it because they're risking doing real damage to their investment by doing so. That's a sign that they really don't like it. If it were built primarily as a place to live rather than as an investment I don't think it would look the same at all. There would be far greater emphasis on livability, less on views and probably a much lower height. |
|
A LVT increases the cost per square foot more for shorter buildings. A 10 story building pays about twice as much on a square foot basis as a 20 story building. The whole point is to encourage taller buildings.
(It’s not quite that simple since taller buildings probably have less usable square footage per floor, but that’s basically how it works.)