> county and cities are buying up the old office parks and even strip malls to convert them into government buildings. Most are ideally located as well as being offered up for sale cheaply.
The point of the grandparent comment is that these buildings are old and in need of expensive maintenance. Why should any government body move in such a building? Can they provide the needed maintenance cheaper that the current owner would do? Or will they move their offices in a decrepit building?
> The argument is being able to look at some court house built in 1925 is not more important than people in 2018 (and forever into the future) having more affordable places to live.
A compromise can be converting the court house into apartments or offices, so that it can have contemporary use but at the same time some aspects of its historic appearance are preserved (such as its façade). Of course, other parts of its historical value are going to be lost – it is likely impossible to maintain the historical integrity of the actual court rooms in the process of converting the building into offices or apartments – but it is still better than knocking down the building entirely.
I used to live around the corner from an old water pump house converted to offices. When they switched from coal-fired pumps to electrical ones, suddenly the amount of space consumed by the pumps shrunk dramatically. So they removed all the boilers and turned it into office space instead. Part of me wishes the boilers had stayed, but it is better than knocking down the building entirely.
> They are using space that could otherwise be occupied by others.
I'm building a tower. The sweet tax situation means I can sell some extra units as tax shelters, so I slap on a couple more floors. Is that then space that would've been occupied by others?
>If the gov changes an area with office buildings to mixed zoning then some will be converted and some wont because of cost.
Unless, because of the costs, none of them are. And while that does no harm, if the purpose of changing the zoning was to get more housing, then it also does no good. The profitability of the conversion absolutely should be a consideration, because a tax abatement or something could effect change where simply altering zoning might not.
> Do you not see any value in preserving our past for future generations?
Book, art, etc.? Sure. Saving one painting doesn’t stop others from being made. Buildings and the like are different. Each building that’s “protected” robs future generations of real estate that could be put to higher value uses.
My office is in the Watergate. Aside from being sinfully ugly, the historical preservation status of the building makes it impossible to redevelop a high-value piece of land (near transit and the water) into a dense walkable neighborhood. There is no doubt people would prefer the buildings that land could be developed into over a decaying ode to concrete, but a handful of architecture snobs have robbed them of the choice.
> I can also understand that not every business can afford private offices for their developer.
I think it's more true that not every business can afford private offices for their developers if they locate their business near the trendiest part of downtown.
> People hardly ever demolish structures to keep the lot empty
What up property tax? In my city you get reduced property tax (but not zero) if it's commercial building that is empty and unused, but I can imagine there are cities where demolishing an empty building is more cost effective than paying property tax on it every year.
> This is not even getting to the question of the purpose of government - it is not a business trying to achieve maximum profit, so why should it be seeking to drive out low-income residents?
Can I move somewhere that is run like a business trying to maximize profit? I think I'd far prefer it to my wasteful city...
> companies are not immune to "fake it until you make it" and many pour billions into status-buildings that are perhaps not technically necessary.
Cities too. My city government offices are located on some of the best real-estate in the city and in elegantly refurbished turn of the century buildings.
Government offices should be pre-fab cheap as possible in brownfields or on other low-value land. High value land should be used for at minimum something that will generate property tax revenue.
> Vacant homes are a problem for anyone who needs housing.
But they pay taxes without demanding any services and the seller assessed they had better use of the capital, they could buy or build a more suitable home.
If I lived in a location with 50% vacant homes all paying property taxes then wouldn’t my schools and streets and all local government services be extremely well funded?
> It would solve a lot of problems if the elderly move to smaller houses and leave the bigger houses for families that need them.
A lot of places make that kind of swap uneconomical. From paying capital gains now instead of later, to loss of property tax increase exemptions to loss of property tax deferrals. Some places exempt gains on housing gains but not other gains (kinda a problem if you downsize and take a windfall)…
Many places ignore housing wealth when it comes to social assistance, but include everything else.
>The potential profitability of converting a tower is something only the buyer should be concerned with, not the government.
I have no idea how you could possibly hold such a position, so I'm not really sure what to say. Do you think incentives don't matter? Do you think the government doesn't already heavily involve itself in real estate pricing beyond just zoning via numerous regulatory means and subsidies? Do you think that what gets built in a jurisdiction just isn't its government's concern?
The point of the grandparent comment is that these buildings are old and in need of expensive maintenance. Why should any government body move in such a building? Can they provide the needed maintenance cheaper that the current owner would do? Or will they move their offices in a decrepit building?
reply