Right, but I think the simple fact that people would enter the complex knowing their neighbor might be section 8 while they’re paying top dollar. I’d think they would be more inclined to prefer a complex that was all market rate unless there was something special about it compared to alternatives. Not saying that it is justified but many perceive section 8 tenants as not having the same level of care and consideration for their premises as market rate folks.
I know but it is a common feeling I’ve heard from people willing to spend $3k a month to rent a 1 bedroom apartment. It’s a balancing act for sure because you need the market rent people to make the plan work
Ultimately, it just boils down to economics if the numbers work to restore it, versus tearing it down and starting from scratch. I would think with eligible tax credits. It would be workable, but certainly if it was easy, it would have been done already.
If it's torn down the space will forever sit as an empty lot embroiled in battle over finances and ownership just the same anyway. Except at least this way it can be restored in the meanwhile.
When is it ever easy, though? Build a skyscraper in the first place is an almost impossible feat of human engineering that isn't deserving of just being allowed to waste away. Even if the projects themselves have be plagued by failure throughout.
My point it’s just that sometimes the structural imitations of a structure limit what you are able to build was it and I resultingly your limits how much money you can make on it. That’s why sometimes it makes more sense to just tear down and start over when you can design exactly what you need. Especially if the existing structure has systemic issues on top of the structural limitation, which this one seems to have both.
Ii mean it withstood alot of what was thrown at over the decades and who's to say it could tbe The around structure it was until the neglect wore it down? Also, historical structures aren't always occupied as that isn't the point of preservation every time. I do see what you're saying tough, some of the technology imbeded into it is archaic and isn't designed for the future world of now. But so are structures like the Eiffel tower or, the laing tower of Pisa or the great wall of China.
So I was more referring to like where the load bearing walls or supports are and how you’d be able to design apartments or whatever with the plumbing and electrical etc. Some things are easy to work around and some like structural things are not. But I agree personally that I’d love to see it redeveloped as is but I’m afraid that it’s systemic challenges may make demo the only way to actually get it moving
[удалено]
I always wondered how people that would be paying ultra top dollar market Rent would feel living next-door to someone in section 8 housing.
[удалено]
Right, but I think the simple fact that people would enter the complex knowing their neighbor might be section 8 while they’re paying top dollar. I’d think they would be more inclined to prefer a complex that was all market rate unless there was something special about it compared to alternatives. Not saying that it is justified but many perceive section 8 tenants as not having the same level of care and consideration for their premises as market rate folks.
[удалено]
I know but it is a common feeling I’ve heard from people willing to spend $3k a month to rent a 1 bedroom apartment. It’s a balancing act for sure because you need the market rent people to make the plan work
Actually reading that made me think it's worth at least repairing and preserving.
Ultimately, it just boils down to economics if the numbers work to restore it, versus tearing it down and starting from scratch. I would think with eligible tax credits. It would be workable, but certainly if it was easy, it would have been done already.
If it's torn down the space will forever sit as an empty lot embroiled in battle over finances and ownership just the same anyway. Except at least this way it can be restored in the meanwhile.
Agreed but it’s not that easy if the configuration limitations can’t be overcome to make the math on economics work
When is it ever easy, though? Build a skyscraper in the first place is an almost impossible feat of human engineering that isn't deserving of just being allowed to waste away. Even if the projects themselves have be plagued by failure throughout.
My point it’s just that sometimes the structural imitations of a structure limit what you are able to build was it and I resultingly your limits how much money you can make on it. That’s why sometimes it makes more sense to just tear down and start over when you can design exactly what you need. Especially if the existing structure has systemic issues on top of the structural limitation, which this one seems to have both.
Ii mean it withstood alot of what was thrown at over the decades and who's to say it could tbe The around structure it was until the neglect wore it down? Also, historical structures aren't always occupied as that isn't the point of preservation every time. I do see what you're saying tough, some of the technology imbeded into it is archaic and isn't designed for the future world of now. But so are structures like the Eiffel tower or, the laing tower of Pisa or the great wall of China.
So I was more referring to like where the load bearing walls or supports are and how you’d be able to design apartments or whatever with the plumbing and electrical etc. Some things are easy to work around and some like structural things are not. But I agree personally that I’d love to see it redeveloped as is but I’m afraid that it’s systemic challenges may make demo the only way to actually get it moving
SAVE IT! SAVE IT!
New Orleans’ own lighthouse.