That’s what I’m saying, your source is from someone in a field unrelated to the one responsible to make the modifications, that’s like if you just gave me a quote by a geographer as a source for something related to computer science. The responsibility of finding a credible source for your number is still on you.
Buildings cost money. The whole point is that it isn’t economically viable to convert most buildings. My source is perfectly validly for the number I quoted. And if you need further convincing, watch the 60 minutes interview with the same guy. Not going to argue further with someone who clearly is arguing in bad faith.
There, I bothered finding the actual source, not just a number reported in an article
When you look at it you realize that it’s for NYC only, that they consider that current high occupancy means that a building can’t be converted, that they base it on current laws in place (which would change if the government wanted it to happen), they they automatically eliminate tons of buildings based on them being too recent or too small…
Also, they’re studying the financial feasibility and assume a whole lot of things (their own words), they’re not studying the physical feasibility which is what I was talking about. We’re talking about housing people, ROI isn’t the important part to homeless people or those who would love to live closer to their workplace but can’t afford it.
So in NYC there’s 10 to 15% of buildings that are FINANCIALLY viable conversions for a return on investment they consider acceptable. You can now stop saying only 10% of buildings can be converted as that’s not what they were trying to determine.
Not bad for someone arguing in bad faith huh? Or is arguing using unrelated studies is a way of arguing in bad faith on your part? 🤔
No building will be renovated if it isn’t financially viable. I never said you can’t convert any building with infinite money. The 10-15% number is the actual relevant one for getting the conversions done in reality, not the fantasy world you seem to be living in.
They will be if it’s a governmental project, they won’t be if it’s handled by the private sector (as in, none of them will be, zero, niet, nada) and a large scale project like that shouldn’t be handled by the private sector as the goal is to create affordable living spaces.
An economist…
Get me an engineer’s or architect’s opinion and then I will give it some credibility.
I mean, you’re welcome to provide a source refuting mine from an engineer or an architect. I provided my source, where’s yours?
That’s what I’m saying, your source is from someone in a field unrelated to the one responsible to make the modifications, that’s like if you just gave me a quote by a geographer as a source for something related to computer science. The responsibility of finding a credible source for your number is still on you.
Buildings cost money. The whole point is that it isn’t economically viable to convert most buildings. My source is perfectly validly for the number I quoted. And if you need further convincing, watch the 60 minutes interview with the same guy. Not going to argue further with someone who clearly is arguing in bad faith.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31530/w31530.pdf
There, I bothered finding the actual source, not just a number reported in an article
When you look at it you realize that it’s for NYC only, that they consider that current high occupancy means that a building can’t be converted, that they base it on current laws in place (which would change if the government wanted it to happen), they they automatically eliminate tons of buildings based on them being too recent or too small…
Also, they’re studying the financial feasibility and assume a whole lot of things (their own words), they’re not studying the physical feasibility which is what I was talking about. We’re talking about housing people, ROI isn’t the important part to homeless people or those who would love to live closer to their workplace but can’t afford it.
So in NYC there’s 10 to 15% of buildings that are FINANCIALLY viable conversions for a return on investment they consider acceptable. You can now stop saying only 10% of buildings can be converted as that’s not what they were trying to determine.
Not bad for someone arguing in bad faith huh? Or is arguing using unrelated studies is a way of arguing in bad faith on your part? 🤔
No building will be renovated if it isn’t financially viable. I never said you can’t convert any building with infinite money. The 10-15% number is the actual relevant one for getting the conversions done in reality, not the fantasy world you seem to be living in.
They will be if it’s a governmental project, they won’t be if it’s handled by the private sector (as in, none of them will be, zero, niet, nada) and a large scale project like that shouldn’t be handled by the private sector as the goal is to create affordable living spaces.