Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

revertothemiddle t1_jcd9ygh wrote

Gawd that thing was going to be a monstrosity. Can't we build high density housing that's not mostly luxury? I'm genuinely asking, since I'm not an economist.

1

lightningbolt1987 t1_jcevm7h wrote

The answer is no. High rise construction is extremely expensive to build. In theory, the people living there, however, would not be living in low density apartments in the neighborhoods, which in theory helps prevent those units from becoming more expensive (not going down in price, but having more competition so they don’t go up as fast).

3

revertothemiddle t1_jcfbws7 wrote

Thank you for your response. That makes sense. I still think it would've been an eyesore, but the rich needs to get theirs so the rest of us can fight for scraps. That's just how it is. I wonder if a city somewhere can implement Singapore's drastic model for housing. An experiment, if you will.

1

lightningbolt1987 t1_jcfdaql wrote

More housing across the board is good. Luxury, workforce, affordable. It all makes providence more robust vibrant and affordable. Just build more housing in general in walkable, we’ll-serviced areas.

The only negative would be if affordable buildings were knocked down for luxury buildings to be built in their place. That’s not really happening here though. Providence has so many vacant lots. Let’s turn these lots into housing rather than keeping them empty.

1