MyPiedaterre t1_j0pz6ax wrote
Their model was successful when most of the wealthy people in the US were WASPS who wanted be around each other
Also, for all the hate that new construction receives, I’m very skeptical that something built in the 1920s can continue to be a better experience without a crazy amount of investment to upkeep. No matter how great a building is, after a 100 years, more and more things start to deteriorate
I could be wrong though
TeamMisha t1_j0qt684 wrote
I think it's about aesthetics too. Some folks favor the more old timey/posh interiors, others want clean, sleek and modern. For me it'd largely come down to amenities, if a new building is setup for washer/dryer in units, fiber optic internet, of course I will pick that over a unit I may need to gut renovate over 3 years to come close to that same level. I've been inside some older buildings in Tudor City for example, you can really see the differences, you might enter a super modern renovated unit, but the hallway looks straight out of the 80s and you can see things crumbling. If I was wealthy I don't personally think I could be bothered to deal with co-op boards it sounds nightmarish and full of power tripping egoists ruling their little fiefdom.
Badweightlifter t1_j0rm63n wrote
>it's about aesthetics too. Some folks favor the more old timey/posh interiors,
There's actually new buildings made to look like old fashion NYC buildings. Everything can be designed to look a certain way. No reason for an old crumbling building to get that classic look when you can get a new construction with the classic look.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments