Uh huh, well I'll be honest I've been confused about why I keep getting upvotes on this post after a literal day of it being on here. I kind of assumed it has to do with OP mentioning this in another post he made today as "Part 1" and people looking his history and coming to this thread. Though it was stickied for several hours as you can see from the literal second top comment of the Mod Catsfive. So that partially answers why you're wrong about that.
But that's besides the point. I can see you're stuck in your own little world, I won't call you a shill since as far as I can tell you don't have any "shillish" behavior or history, but since you essentially are telling me I'm lying while also ignoring the biggest problem in your argument (Zoning, incompatible building design, and fire codes) I can see nothing I say will change your mind.
There's an article (Granted it's an MSM article but still proves my point) that proves that pre plandemic, the specific building you're referring to, the One World Trade Center, was 90% leased. That's not ideal for a $20 Billion project, but still a extremely far cry from the picture you're painting. A 40% difference in fact. The same is true for most office buildings. They generally hover around 90-95% occupancy unless they're a single tenant property in which case it's obviously 100%. Even after the plandemic, office is still hovering around 80-85% nationally, meaning it's essentially been recovered. Companies aren't going to give up on office space, it's a tax write off, and a BIG one at that. So they're far more likely to force a hybrid work model and keep their offices at a bare minimum.
The next point I'll address. You claim you can rent out distressed properties for storage space. So I'm assuming you're fine with having all of your worldly possessions stored in a shady run down building that looks like a crack den where you may or may not be mugged or stabbed while checking on whatever you collect and store there? Seems to be what you're suggesting. I don't know about you, btut that's not exactly an prime business model unless you want to be the self storage equivalent of a slum lord and pay stupidly big insurance premiums because of all the crimes and assaults that happen on your property. That's also ignoring some buildings may just be straight up condemned due to things like black mold or structural degradation making them unsafe for ANY use.
Now onto your claim about land and housing. No, no we don't. There's a limited amount of land that we can allocate to urbanization. There's a reason city limits exist. NYC is limited to the NYC city limits, otherwise they'd just keep constantly expanding across the state of New York. There's a reason for this. The biggest one is farm/ranch land and nature preserves. The food we eat has to come from somewhere. If you take over every single bit of land for urbanization, then eventually you lose all of your agricultural capacity as a nation. The second reason, is the existence of suburbs. A city can only grow so far out before it hits the suburbs that have developed around it. At that point the only way to continue growing the city outwards is to seize the private property of citizens against their will "for the greater good". And if you're going to say you support that (which I hope you don't) then you're no better than the literal communist leftists we're fighting.
Florida vs. California actually is an interesting comparison, especially considering Miami is now, as of 2022, the official most unlivable city in the nation because of the cost of living and population density being higher than any other city in the United states sans NYC. That's because, despite only actually having roughly 450K people give or take, Miami is a VERY physically small city. Only 56 square miles if you want a number. LA on the other hand has a little over 3.8 Million people, but they're spread out over 560 square miles because LA is a physically larger city. All of these factors combined actually result in Miami and LA having near identical housing and rental statistics (Prices, percentage of renters, rent rates, etc.) because they have a very similar population density, housing demand, and land scarcity in the cities proper. This also disproves your "Florida housing is cheaper" argument. You have to compare apples to apples. Comparing a nicer house in Tallahassee or Pensacola to San Fran or LA is apples to oranges because the statistics don't compare at all. Compare LA and San Fran to Miami and Orlando/Tampa, and it's a much better comparison and paints a different picture from what you're claiming.
As for your last accusation, by all means, stalk my posts. Not like I care or have anything to hide. I'm pretty blunt and direct in just about everything I say or do on here. I couldn't care less about you living a delusional world where I'm a shill, and every skyscraper in north america is empty because the greedy fat cats don't want to bankrupt themselves by spending the GDP of Japan and Germany combined to convert them all into apartment buildings.
Uh huh, well I'll be honest I've been confused about why I keep getting upvotes on this post after a literal day of it being on here. I kind of assumed it has to do with OP mentioning this in another post he made today as "Part 1" and people looking his history and coming to this thread.
But that's besides the point. I can see you're stuck in your own little world, I won't call you a shill since as far as I can tell you don't have any "shillish" behavior or history, but since you essentially are telling me I'm lying while also ignoring the biggest problem in your argument (Zoning, incompatible building design, and fire codes) I can see nothing I say will change your mind.
There's an article (Granted it's an MSM article but still proves my point) that proves that pre plandemic, the specific building you're referring to, the One World Trade Center, was 90% leased. That's not ideal for a $20 Billion project, but still a extremely far cry from the picture you're painting. A 40% difference in fact. The same is true for most office buildings. They generally hover around 90-95% occupancy unless they're a single tenant property in which case it's obviously 100%. Even after the plandemic, office is still hovering around 80-85% nationally, meaning it's essentially been recovered. Companies aren't going to give up on office space, it's a tax write off, and a BIG one at that. So they're far more likely to force a hybrid work model and keep their offices at a bare minimum.
The next point I'll address. You claim you can rent out distressed properties for storage space. So I'm assuming you're fine with having all of your worldly possessions stored in a shady run down building that looks like a crack den where you may or may not be mugged or stabbed while checking on whatever you collect and store there? Seems to be what you're suggesting. I don't know about you, btut that's not exactly an prime business model unless you want to be the self storage equivalent of a slum lord and pay stupidly big insurance premiums because of all the crimes and assaults that happen on your property. That's also ignoring some buildings may just be straight up condemned due to things like black mold or structural degradation making them unsafe for ANY use.
Now onto your claim about land and housing. No, no we don't. There's a limited amount of land that we can allocate to urbanization. There's a reason city limits exist. NYC is limited to the NYC city limits, otherwise they'd just keep constantly expanding across the state of New York. There's a reason for this. The biggest one is farm/ranch land and nature preserves. The food we eat has to come from somewhere. If you take over every single bit of land for urbanization, then eventually you lose all of your agricultural capacity as a nation. The second reason, is the existence of suburbs. A city can only grow so far out before it hits the suburbs that have developed around it. At that point the only way to continue growing the city outwards is to seize the private property of citizens against their will "for the greater good". And if you're going to say you support that (which I hope you don't) then you're no better than the literal communist leftists we're fighting.
Florida vs. California actually is an interesting comparison, especially considering Miami is now, as of 2022, the official most unlivable city in the nation because of the cost of living and population density being higher than any other city in the United states sans NYC. That's because, despite only actually having roughly 450K people give or take, Miami is a VERY physically small city. Only 56 square miles if you want a number. LA on the other hand has a little over 3.8 Million people, but they're spread out over 560 square miles because LA is a physically larger city. All of these factors combined actually result in Miami and LA having near identical housing and rental statistics (Prices, percentage of renters, rent rates, etc.) because they have a very similar population density, housing demand, and land scarcity in the cities proper. This also disproves your "Florida housing is cheaper" argument. You have to compare apples to apples. Comparing a nicer house in Tallahassee or Pensacola to San Fran or LA is apples to oranges because the statistics don't compare at all. Compare LA and San Fran to Miami and Orlando/Tampa, and it's a much better comparison and paints a different picture from what you're claiming.
As for your last accusation, by all means, stalk my posts. Not like I care or have anything to hide. I'm pretty blunt and direct in just about everything I say or do on here. I couldn't care less about you living a delusional world where I'm a shill, and every skyscraper in north america is empty because the greedy fat cats don't want to bankrupt themselves by spending the GDP of Japan and Germany combined to convert them all into apartment buildings.
Uh huh, well I'll be honest I've been confused about why I keep getting upvotes on this post after a literal day of it being on here. I kind of assumed it has to do with OP mentioning this in another post he made today as "Part 1" and people looking his history and coming to this thread.
But that's besides the point. I can see you're stuck in your own little world, I won't call you a shill since as far as I can tell you don't have any "shillish" behavior or history, but since you essentially are telling me I'm lying while also ignoring the biggest problem in your argument (Zoning, incompatible building design, and fire codes) I can see nothing I say will change your mind.
There's an article (Granted it's an MSM article but still proves my point) that proves that pre plandemic, the specific building you're referring to, the One World Trade Center, was 90% leased. That's not ideal for a $20 Billion project, but still a extremely far cry from the picture you're painting. A 40% difference in fact. The same is true for most office buildings. They generally hover around 90-95% occupancy unless they're a single tenant property in which case it's obviously 100%. Even after the plandemic, office is still hovering around 80-85% nationally, meaning it's essentially been recovered. Companies aren't going to give up on office space, it's a tax write off, and a BIG one at that. So they're far more likely to force a hybrid work model and keep their offices at a bare minimum.
The next point I'll address. You claim you can rent out distressed properties for storage space. So I'm assuming you're fine with having all of your worldly possessions stored in a shady run down building that looks like a crack den where you may or may not be mugged or stabbed while checking on whatever you collect and store there? Seems to be what you're suggesting. I don't know about you, btut that's not exactly an prime business model unless you want to be the self storage equivalent of a slum lord and pay stupidly big insurance premiums because of all the crimes and assaults that happen on your property. That's also ignoring some buildings may just be straight up condemned due to things like black mold or structural degradation making them unsafe for ANY use.
Now onto your claim about land and housing. No, no we don't. There's a limited amount of land that we can allocate to urbanization. There's a reason city limits exist. NYC is limited to the NYC city limits, otherwise they'd just keep constantly expanding across the state of New York. There's a reason for this. The biggest one is farm/ranch land and nature preserves. The food we eat has to come from somewhere. If you take over every single bit of land for urbanization, then eventually you lose all of your agricultural capacity as a nation. The second reason, is the existence of suburbs. A city can only grow so far out before it hits the suburbs that have developed around it. At that point the only way to continue growing the city outwards is to seize the private property of citizens against their will "for the greater good". And if you're going to say you support that (which I hope you don't) then you're no better than the literal communist leftists we're fighting.
Florida vs. California actually is an interesting comparison, especially considering Miami is now, as of 2022, the official most unlivable city in the nation because of the cost of living and population density being higher than any other city in the United states. That's because, despite only actually having roughly 450K people give or take, Miami is a VERY physically small city. Only 56 square miles if you want a number. LA on the other hand has a little over 3.8 Million people, but they're spread out over 560 square miles because LA is a physically larger city. All of these factors combined actually result in Miami and LA having near identical housing and rental statistics (Prices, percentage of renters, rent rates, etc.) because they have a very similar population density, housing demand, and land scarcity in the cities proper. This also disproves your "Florida housing is cheaper" argument. You have to compare apples to apples. Comparing a nicer house in Tallahassee or Pensacola to San Fran or LA is apples to oranges because the statistics don't compare at all. Compare LA and San Fran to Miami and Orlando/Tampa, and it's a much better comparison and paints a different picture from what you're claiming.
As for your last accusation, by all means, stalk my posts. Not like I care or have anything to hide. I'm pretty blunt and direct in just about everything I say or do on here. I couldn't care less about you living a delusional world where I'm a shill, and every skyscraper in north america is empty because the greedy fat cats don't want to bankrupt themselves by spending the GDP of Japan and Germany combined to convert them all into apartment buildings.