It seems equally obvious that the "super-rich" aren't likely to allow themselves to be condensed. Anyone who can choose between a $7m condo in Manhattan or a private island in the Caribbean isn't particularly looking for "cozy." If they're building up, it's so they can piss down on the poor not because they're trying to reduce their footprint. Lemme tell you another story: 1100 Wilshire. Built in '86 during a similar "build moar and taller" boom, 1100 Wilshire has been a ghost structure for most of its existence, never more than 10% occupied. However, during the go-go housing boom of 2005-2007, some fucktard came up with the idea to turn it into condos (never mind that there weren't any grocery stores downtown at the time). Better yet, they'd charge an additional $50,000 for every floor up you went. "Exclusivity" don'chaknow. Sales crested at about 18%, and then everybody who bought in sued because the listed square footage was a lie. It was settled out of court. So now you have a formerly-vacant office building that becomes a currently-vacant condo building. What do? Well, what 1100 Wilshire did is what everybody does: they get renters in just so the place doesn't look like a ghost town. And those renters, by and large, are spoiled children from USC. So maybe, just maybe, 1100 Wilshire is taking away pressure to keep the USC dorms from being gentrified. But you know what? There's shit-tons of neighborhoods being gentrified around DTLA and the guys buying into 1100 Wilshire are three or four degrees removed from the guys buying in Echo Park. Now, of course, prices are up through the roof on ridiculous DTLA condos because the foreigners are swooping in. But nowhere, no how in any aspect of this discussion did it have anything whatsoever to do with gentrification.It seems fairly obvious that if you condense the super-rich into smaller and smaller areas (trick them into spending more money on less space, as these skycondos are essentially doing), then logically there is more housing space left for everyone else.
I think the Washington Post etc thinks they can be tricked into doing both. I'll stop arguing -- I don't really know what to believe, and the headline does seem wrongheaded at first glance. Further, if what b_b mentioned is true, then the whole thing is a ridiculous farce. What the hell is the point of having art or jewelry if it's in another country? God.It seems equally obvious that the "super-rich" aren't likely to allow themselves to be condensed. Anyone who can choose between a $7m condo in Manhattan or a private island in the Caribbean isn't particularly looking for "cozy." If they're building up, it's so they can piss down on the poor not because they're trying to reduce their footprint.