Highrise apartment in Charlotte. Is it feasible?

[monsoon]

So you're in favor of those same decision makers making even more decisions about the distribution of wealth? My argument is the less involved the government, the better. And yes, that includes stonewalling corporate handouts also. Of course they do these things and we still vote for them.

Of course talk is cheap. The reality is the well off are highly dependant upon government to protect the value of their property. For example, when that guy wanted to build a perfectly legal asphault plant, on his land, near the spanking new First Ward condos, what did the residents of First Ward do? Complain to the government. The end result is the government spent tax money to move the plant to a part of town where less well off residents would have to deal with it. There were plenty of FW residents crying right here on UP that the city had a responsibility to protect "their investment" in their property in that part of the city.

Welfare to the rich? Yes I would say that qualifies. The point is everyone likes to complain about government action until they need the government to do something for their advantage. Since the government is owned and operated by the well off, they tend to get most of the advantages of government interference in the market place and will be the first to scream like a stuck pig if something affects that.

[dubone]

Well, I sure as heck was crying during the Asphalt Plant days .

Personally, I think that government is needed to protect the property of everyone, protect the welfare of everyone, and provide opportunities both for rich to get poor and poor to get rich.

It'll be a bad day in America for the richer if the poorer don't think they might be rich some day.

[ElricSeven]

Ah, the redistribution of wealth -- as if all your wealth had come into your hands solely through your own efforts. The question of wealth distribution does not begin at the moment you're holding all of your wealth and deciding how to distribute it. Government, lest we forgot, also played a crucial role in distributing wealth to you. Which is awfully philosophical for a discussion about highrise apartments, and a long way of saying yes, I hope society keeps on treating wealth redistribution as a valid topic for discussion.

I'm not saying the government doesn't have a role, I'm putting forth the opinion that the more tinkering the government does, and the less involved the free market, the more inefficiencies seem to prevail. The government has a role in wealth distribution, but it should be kept to a bare minimum for those truly in desparate need. In this case, the city shouldn't be tinkering with the system to provide middle class housing. Housing for the impoverished looking to get some stability and a leg up, yes. Joe blow earning $50K a year? Sorry, no. I don't think that's a good idea. Shades of gray here. Perhaps my writing skills aren't good enough, I guess, to make my point clear. Or, maybe I just incorrectly assume that free market economics are generally accepted as a positive thing.

Oh, and whether all my wealth makes it into my hands solely through my own efforts -- I would say that ideally the vast majority of it does. If it doesn't, we'd all just quit trying and go home. The government provides the frame work, but it is important that it leaves the incentives of additional wealth in place as much as possible so that we do work, and work hard. Otherwise, we'll end up in economic collapse like the USSR.

[CarolinaDaydreamin]

I have heard a stat that 90% of AMERICANS that make a million or more a year grew up in lower class families. This is probably due to the fact that people in middle class and upper class families were satisfied with just making a lot of money (just not that much) and movin to the burbs. I thought it may be intresing to know while we discuss classes in the US. Yes, we still have a NATURAL way to redistribute wealth, good old fashion hard work.

[crispin]

You know, there seems to be a pattern in this thread where proponents of the "free market" suggest that the alternative to their position is communism and its consequences.

Do I believe in the free market? I don't even believe that it exists. It's a philosophical creation, an interesting model to talk about. In the real world, we act within constraints.

Market demand exists within the context of government regulation. It is a derivative product, not a freestanding reality. And our government at all levels is already massively invested in subsidizing the cost of home ownership. This is not a new idea. We're just talking about the details.

[ElricSeven]

You know, there seems to be a pattern in this thread where proponents of the "free market" suggest that the alternative to their position is communism and its consequences.

Do I believe in the free market? I don't even believe that it exists. It's a philosophical creation, an interesting model to talk about. In the real world, we act within constraints.

Market demand exists within the context of government regulation. It is a derivative product, not a freestanding reality. And our government at all levels is already massively invested in subsidizing the cost of home ownership. This is not a new idea. We're just talking about the details.

That's right, supply and demand has no effect in our economy.

[monsoon]

That's right, supply and demand has no effect in our economy.

I know you know it does, but governments are the entity that can affect both by legislation. For example the demand for housing is directly dependent upon low interest rate, tax deductable mortgages. Both can be eliminated by the government with the stroke of a pen and you would instantly see the values of real estate, start to drop because the demand drys up.

[UptownGrrl]

Yeah, we've moved into a philosophical discussion that spreads well beyond the original question. As for the limited question -- Should the government have an affirmative obligation to build below market-price housing in an expensive sub-market, with an intangible social benefit being the payoff for the taxpayers?

The market sets the rate for what the land and the materials are going to cost and it is just not going to be feasible to build a highrise apartment building uptown w/$500 - $600 rents, regardless of how great it would be to live there.

[ElricSeven]

Yeah, we've moved into a philosophical discussion that spreads well beyond the original question. As for the limited question of: Should the government have an affirmative obligation to build below market-price housing in an expensive sub-market, with an intangible social benefit being the payoff for the taxpayers?

The market sets the rate for what the land and the materials are going to cost and it is just not going to be feasible to build a highrise apartment building uptown w/$500 - $600 rents, regardless of how great it would be to live there.

Well said. The point here is not that government intervention or redistribution of wealth has no place in our society, it is that its occurrence should be minimized so as to 1) promote as much of a free market economy as possible to allow efficient allocation of resources and 2) not destroy the incentive for people to work hard to achieve what they want. To this end, it isn't really a very good idea to spend inordinate amounts of public money and clout to promote homes for the middle class in Uptown. Instead, we should maintain a system in which those who are middle class or poor have a fair opportunity to -- if they really want to live Uptown -- go out and earn it for themselves.

[atlrvr]

Furthermore, many issues are out of control of local governments. The local government COULD subsidize housing by buying land and selling for a loss, or downzoning (though I would argue that this would have no affect on values because while reducing development value, it decreases supply without reducing demand).

The local government CANNOT however reduce building material costs, set lending rates (though they can guarantee loans), force consultants to charge lower rates for their services (in fact, my firm is hired quite often because of government regulation, thereby raising development cost), and expected rates of returns by the VERY capitalistic invetors who make all projets possible. I could carry this further and describe the micro-economics at play on each of these factors that further push development costs beyond local government control, but that would border on tedious.

The simple reality is there is no realistic way to provide equitable housing. Governments can influence the market, but even in very socialistic societies there are obvious discrepencies between the haves, have nots, and have somes. Besides, I personally wouldn't feel enriched to live next to someone enjoying my same standard of living, yet has contributed less than me or has made poor life decisions.

[crispin]

I question the extent of the demand for Uptown housing, and particularly for housing in luxury high-rises. It's been noted on this thread and elsewhere that the Vue is selling slowly, and while that was always the plan, it serves to highlight the limits of the market for this kind of project.

At the same time, there seems to be a wide-spread belief that this type of development is going to occur on many Uptown parking lots, the result of which is a market where property trades at prices that are only justified by a future in which there are a lot more bank towers and a lot more Vues.

If you downzoned some of that property, precluding the construction of skyscrapers and ending some of those dreams, you might see more midrises -- and since those can be constructed at a wider range of price points, the market could decide for itself how expensive those buildings should be.

As for the amorphous value of a diverse neighborhood, I can only tell you that it contributes to my quality of life, and therefore I support the use of tax dollars to promote such places.

[ngp]

Besides, I personally wouldn't feel enriched to live next to someone enjoying my same standard of living, yet has contributed less than me or has made poor life decisions.

Except that contribution and income don't necessarily correlate. Ask a teacher. Or a social worker. Or most any other public servant. If you can only feel enrichment by living next to people who measure up financially, then...well, then I guess you have plenty of "enriching" neighborhoods to choose from in this town.

EDIT:

Also, this "incentive to achieve" idea that keeps coming up in this thread is questionable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national...3&ex=1141880400

And new research on mobility, the movement of families up and down the economic ladder, shows there is far less of it than economists once thought and less than most people believe. In fact, mobility, which once buoyed the working lives of Americans as it rose in the decades after World War II, has lately flattened out or possibly even declined, many researchers say.

[monsoon]

Indeed. One has to wonder which makes the more livable community. One filled with public servants, nurses, educators, technicians, etc. or one full of proto yuppie drones chasing after the dollar and the next electronic gizmo that will be in the landfill in a few months and too self absorbed to care much about the community beyond current property values.

Other countries have managed to preserve the character of their cities by including all demographics but it is something that we have lost in America. (at least in places like center city Charlotte)

[atlrvr]

Ok....my wording left open obvious exceptions, but I stand by my basic premise.

I'm not valuing these people's decisions, but certainly no one who chooses to be a public school teacher expects to live an overly wealthy lifestyle. They are seeking some intrinsic value beyond material possession, and that is noble. By the same token, I turned down a job in San Jose that while would have been rewarding (and higher compensation than I had here), didn't allow for a lifestyle that I wanted for my family (i.e. smaller home, renting instead of owning, longer commute for affordability sake, etc).

BUT beyond all of these issues is still my overall complaint that many/possibly most Americans feel entitled to a large home and many material possessions. The concept of living within means is now construed into some sort of right-wing doctrine. The average American home is now 2,400 sq. ft....this is almost twice what it was before WWII and family sizes are now over 25% smaller on average!!! Instead of wanting to have the "new American dream"subsidized, people need to instead separate needs from wants.

[ElricSeven]

Except that contribution and income don't necessarily correlate. Ask a teacher. Or a social worker. Or most any other public servant. If you can only feel enrichment by living next to people who measure up financially, then...well, then I guess you have plenty of "enriching" neighborhoods to choose from in this town.

I'm pretty sure he meant someone who'd obtained the exact same resources without commensurate effort. If the teacher or social worker wants to live in an upscale place, then they should choose to do something else if their compensation isn't sufficient for their desires. Government handouts shouldn't be the solution to the problem. Teachers and social workers get a physcic income from their job, it is their choice to continue with this career.

What makes me laugh is that the same people who insist that wealth should be redistributed, are the ones who then tell you it isn't an important measure of a person. Well, which one is it? Is it important or not important?

Beyond basic living needs, I don't think it is important enough for the government to be trying to redistribute it. People who are insecure about themselves will never get over that feeling with all the accompanying sense of conspiracy and class envy. There's always someone richer, or something nicer. Handouts don't alleviate that problem.

[UptownGrrl]

At the same time, there seems to be a wide-spread belief that this type of development is going to occur on many Uptown parking lots, the result of which is a market where property trades at prices that are only justified by a future in which there are a lot more bank towers and a lot more Vues.

I agree. I can't believe some of these places that are asking upwards of $400 - $500 a square foot. I personally don't see the value in that and believe those are the people (developers and buyers alike) who will be left with the hot potato if and when things even out a bit. And, that's the risk they take for participating in that market. It will be interesting to see at what level it finally settles for a reasonable amount of time. But as long as there are people willing to pay it, either because they really really like the place, or because they think there is still room for it to increase based on the promise of even higher prices to come, it will continue to rise.

It just makes other options - neighborhoods with more steady trends and lower stakes- seem all the more appealing for those of us with lower tolerance for risk.

[monsoon]

Which is more valuable to society, a teacher or lawyer?

In other societies teachers earn much more than lawyers as teachers are considered to be a valuable asset for the future, lawyers a necessary evil to deal with legal issues. Some very modern societies have few lawyers as a result.

Wealth generated by a particular profession is not entirely determined by worth to the community, but rather by the ability of said profession to take advantage of a situation. If it were left completely to the free market, teachers would simply disappear or the pay would rise up to the level of their worth.

[ElricSeven]

Which is more valuable to society, a teacher or lawyer?

In other societies teachers earn much more than lawyers as teachers are considered to be a valuable asset for the future, lawyers a necessary evil to deal with legal issues. Some very modern societies have few lawyers as a result.

Wealth generated by a particular profession is not entirely determined by worth to the community, but rather by the ability of said profession to take advantage of a situation. If it were left completely to the free market, teachers would simply disappear or the pay would rise up to the level of their worth.

And since money isn't the measure of a person, why should we care who earns more?

[guy4charlotte]

and a lot of teachers out there earn more than lawyers btw

[ElricSeven]

just my experience...everyone loves to hate lawyers and crack on them until THEY need one

Right, and the reason they won't work for peanuts is that everyone does "crack on" them. If they did receive the reverence and positive feedback that teachers received, there'd be a lot more people willing to do the job and they would cost a lot less. I've known plenty of capable legal minds who could be devoting their time to the maintenance of a just society, but quit due to the frequent scathing remarks. Doctors these days have come under similar fire.

[ngp]

And since money isn't the measure of a person, why should we care who earns more?

Wealth isn't just about buying power. How much political power do you think the lower class has?

[ElricSeven]

Wealth isn't just about buying power. How much political power do you think the lower class has?

More than most other countries. They've got their vote, and the power to earn more money and gain the clout that comes with it.

[UptownGrrl]

Indeed. One has to wonder which makes the more livable community. One filled with public servants, nurses, educators, technicians, etc. or one full of proto yuppie drones chasing after the dollar and the next electronic gizmo that will be in the landfill in a few months and too self absorbed to care much about the community beyond current property values.

Other countries have managed to preserve the character of their cities by including all demographics but it is something that we have lost in America. (at least in places like center city Charlotte)

And so our stereotyping comes full circle. Sounds like we have to choose between becoming a malcontent pinko looking for handouts or a soulless member of the bourgeoisie who would be glad to kick dirt in your face as long as it doesn't scuff their $500 shoes. And, each thinks the other are the dregs of humanity. Is Charlotte really this polarized?

[monsoon]

And so our stereotyping comes full circle. Sounds like we have to choose between becoming a malcontent pinko looking for handouts or a soulless member of the bourgeoisie who would be glad to kick dirt in your face as long as it doesn't scuff their $500 shoes. And, each thinks the other are the dregs of humanity. Is Charlotte really this polarized?

I never knew that fire fighters, nurses, engineers, teachers, etc. would fit the description of malcontent pinkos looking for governmental handouts.

Your sig, BTW says it all.

[ElricSeven]

And so our stereotyping comes full circle. Sounds like we have to choose between becoming a malcontent pinko looking for handouts or a soulless member of the bourgeoisie who would be glad to kick dirt in your face as long as it doesn't scuff their $500 shoes. And, each thinks the other are the dregs of humanity. Is Charlotte really this polarized?

No, but maybe we need two websites.

www.communisturbanplanet.com

www.capitalisturbanplanet.com

Heh, heh.

I better go buy those now.