• player1@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    53
    ·
    1 year ago

    For the millionth time it’s not that simple. Retrofitting commercial buildings is often impossible or more expensive than just demolishing and building new which is also ungodly expensive especially with how high interest rates are right now. Unless cities step in with millions of dollars per project it’s usually not financially possible.

    • deft@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the problem is money then there is no problem. It becomes a necessity and you can’t just not afford necessity. We allegedly are the richest country they need to figure it out regardless of cost. That simple.

      It’s like climate change, there is no issue with money it just has to get done. Pay for it regardless of the cost. It is necessary

      • boreengreen@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        But what if we let the children pay for it when they grow up? Yes, the cost will be several orders of magnitude more, but we don’t have to think about that now.

        • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, hopefully fewer people from the future generation will be homeless. It’s pretty rough starting out now, especially if you aren’t lucky enough to have a wealthy family.

          What we’ve been doing for the last number of years just isn’t working. The solution isn’t to keep procrastinating it indefinitely. There has always been debt that’s pushed onto future generations, but this debt might actually help them.

          I wish that people started building more housing many years ago. If housing was cheaper, increased taxes wouldn’t be as big of a concern. This is because there would also be more money available to spend. This means spending money for food, transportation, schooling, and more.

          Instead, currently many people are using the limited housing as investments and retirement plans. Life expectancies are increasing, and births are still happening. Where do you propose people live if there isn’t housing available?

          Rural forests in uninhabited areas also aren’t a legitimate option for most people. No running water, no heat, no medical care available, no pharmacies, no stores, no places to work, and nowhere to buy tools to build shelter. That sounds like a very bad time for most people.

    • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      I live on the North end of the SF Bay Area and literally every empty lot and a shit load of pasture land and open space is currently being developed into either low income apartments, high end apartments, town houses or track homes. It’s honestly kind of shocking. Everywhere you go, new residential development.

      Sonoma County supervisors were supposed to vote on a housing development plan in January, but failed to do so until August, and in the meantime there was a special rule that allowed builders to go ahead without most of the red tape they usually face. They took the opportunity and ran with it.

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Retrofitting commercial buildings is often impossible or more expensive than just demolishing

      That sounds like a “them” problem.

      They can watch their investments dry up and lose billions, or pivot to the new market. Not our fault they’re stuck in the 80s.

      • Kalkaline @leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s more than that though, where do you bathe in an office?

        I’m not saying it can’t be done, but it’s a lot of work to redo the plumbing, electrical, install kitchens, and seal those spaces into secure private zones with natural light exposure.

      • inconel@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What I hear is mostly water pipes. Commercial buildings have them concentrated in bathrooms and hard to split for each residence.

        I know there are bathroom less really cheap places but that attract type of people which property management/urban development corps dont want so they may also be reluctant for that change.

      • player1@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actually it’s not bullshit. Most office buildings are designed with large core space where the elevators and stairs etc go. That’s not at all how apartment buildings are designed. Changing that is extremely expensive.

      • shutz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Say you have an average size house, with a 2-car garage on the side. You decide to change that garage into a small apartment for renting. You need to add a wall or two, add insulation, build up a kitchen area (with proper water and power) and a bathroom.

        Imagine how much that would cost you for that single apartment. Now multiply that by, say, 50, to convert a large office building into 50 residential rental units. Even with economies of scale, that’s still going to cost millions…