Hacker News Reader

Comment by briga | Hacker News Reader

I bet it's insanely hard to get approval to build highrise luxury condos in London, especially when to do so you have to tear down historical buildings--and practically every building in Central London is historic. This seems like a sensible, if extravagant solution. I just hope they're considering how underground buildings might affect the structural stability of what's built on top.

View on HN

At the same time some properties are being held purely for speculative reasons and going derelict. I would much rather have a new construction rather than a rotting 'historic' building.

Point in case: The luxury Principal Tower [1] and buildings just across it [2].

[1] https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5213362,-0.0786701,3a,75y,...

[2] https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5213362,-0.0786701,3a,75y,...

Time for some taxes on foreign property ownership or uninhabited buildings then.

No need to target foreigners really; speculative land ownership does the same harm regardless of which side of the imaginary line an owner was born on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGXbiSwcqtM

Tom Scott on the 'Protected Views' or 'Sightlines' of London. It explains some of the legal issues about heights in London.

TLDW (even though is 3 frickin min. long): You have to be able to see St. Paul's (and have nothing behind it) from a few special vantage points. Something he didn't mention is the issues about London vs. The City of London, which also affects building heights, though less so.

Regarding limited building height in a capital city, my brother worked on a refection/reconstruction project in Paris (just next to the local Google office, near St-Lazare train station). They removed all the insid of the building, but they left the roof in place, because if they removed it to rebuild it, they would have to rebuild it lower (3 meters I think).

> I bet it's insanely hard to get approval to build highrise luxury condos in London

'Condo' isn't really a term we use in London. What's the difference between a condo and an apartment that you own?

There isn’t any real difference. It is just a difference in wording. Usually in the US we say apartment to mean a unit in a larger building that you are renting and condo means the same unit but you own it.

We call both things 'flats'. Apartment maybe in corporate marketing material or some historical names.

It's not necessary to change to the local lingo when you're talking about another place. When describing a trip to the US, Brits talking to Brits are perfectly able to say they rode an American lift.

But when you use a specific term like ‘condo’ rather than something generic like ‘home’ it looks like that specific term is there for a reason.

If you ask if building condos is hard does that mean you think building apartments instead is easier, for example.

It’s not really a specific use, it’s just terminology that doesn’t overlap in a the way you want it to. Most high rise developments, at least where I am, are condos, as it tends to be more profitable or convenient for a developer to sell all the units than for a single entity to rent them all out on an ongoing basis. Lots of the units will be rented out as apartments.

“High rise condo” May sound overly specific but it’s just the most common example of a category for which we don’t have a convenient descriptor.

In addition to the consideration burke mention, there is just the fact that in American English we generally don't have a term equivalent to flat (i.e., condo or apartment). (In this situation, "home" is not appropriate since that word is much more general.) This sort of use of a special case as an abbreviation of a more general case is a very common linguistic phenomenon.

Synecdoche (which I eventually learned is four syllables) is the name of that linguistic phenomenon.

“Free hold” and “lease hold” would be the British equivalents to describe ownership.

EDIT: That applies to England and Wales (and Northern Ireland?) I believe the law is different in Scotland.

Yah, {flats} = {condos} ∪ {apartments}.

I've come to understand that a condo is an apartment block with added features - a concierge, a gym, pool etc.

A block of apartments is just a grid of rooms/apartments with nothing else

Isn't condo just the apartments plus a legal entity managing the common areas and structural stuff (all of which are jointly owned)?

No, "condo" means they are owned by the occupants. "Apartments" are generally rented, although you might hear someone say "I bought my apartment" if they purchased a dwelling in a building that is mostly for rent.

Actually, it is more specific. Condos are like apartments that you own where the roof, plumbing beneath the floor (sometimes), and exterior are owned and maintained collectively by something like an HOA.

But if you own and maintain the roof and exterior of your place up to the place where it adjoins to other units, then it's actually a townhome.

I wasn't claiming that condos are defined only by being owned, just that they are necessarily owned.

It doesn’t have anything to do with occupants. Condos can be rented out too. It’s a legal term having to do with division of titles, common area ownership, etc

Sure, sorry, yes. It's not the occupant's ownership per se, it's that the units are owned individually (and hence have to have rules governing shared-use stuff like elevators).

Pretty much what Mark said. The simplistic definition as most people in NA use them would be:

Condos are typically a building where all the units in it are owned by their respective tenants.

Apartments are typically a building owned by a Company that rents out all the units, so none of the tenants have any ownership of the place they reside in.

"condo" implies a specific ownership and monthly fee structure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condominium

where i'm from, apartment is usually considered somewhat lower end, it's usually a unit that is fairly standalone in a building, and offers minimal amenities. apartments are not often gated. a condo is usually gated, with a human concierge or security guard, with much more luxurious amenities such as a nice pool and fitness centre.

Condo is one sort of ownership structure in a multi-unit building. I imagine there are more than two, but co-op is the other structure that I'm familiar with.

"Condominium" also implies luxury (and especially new) apartments rather than mid-level or down market or generally older units.

I agree with the first bit, but:

> "Condominium" also implies luxury (and especially new) apartments rather than mid-level or down market or generally older units.

Condo does not have that connotation in my form of English vernacular. There are definitely older or down-market condominiums.

The US basically has two kinds of multifamily development: dirt-cheap apartment blocks used to house the urban poor (as rentals), and luxury apartments built to cater to yuppies and investors (as a mix of rental and ownership). Essentially all “normal”/middle-class people live in detached houses in sprawl, where multifamily buildings are illegal. While homeownership is quite normal, the only urban homeowners are the rich. So almost all condos are high end.

There are many smaller suburban condominiums as well. These are typically much cheaper than luxury condos, and tend to be occupied by single parent families, the recently divorced, or retirees.

Some suburbs do not allow much apartment construction, but will allow these. They provide a more affordable lodging option that still contributes toward building equity.

"Condo" stands for 'condominium", i.e. the building is mutually owned.

In the UK it would be the equivalent of each flat owner owning a part of the freehold for the building. So in a condo all owners are mutually responsible for the upkeep of the building as whole.

An "apartment" is a flat, it could also be in a "condo", in theory, but is generally used to refer to rented flats.

Note that in Scotland, we don't really have the freehold/leasehold distinction in the vast, vast majority of cases - instead all flat owners are responsible for the upkeep of the building and there is no separate freehold, through a default set of rules defined by statute which may be overridden by the title deeds for each flat. This is different from the rest of the UK, where the freehold is a separate legal entity that is responsible for the upkeep of most structural elements of the building - although each flat owner may own a share of the freehold in many cases.

I read through some of the replies and they miss the point: "Condo" signifies wealth in American terms. When you say you live in a condo, it's a very subtle indication of your social and economic status.

Actually, if you've been to central London recently, you'll know there is a huge amount of demolition and rebuilding going on: for example dead center on the west side of Tottenham Court Road. Office buildings in the centre, from the 20s onward, regularly get demolished and rebuilt to modern specs. There are brand new "luxury condos" around Tate Modern and the amount of building going on near Canary Wharf is incredible.

It's true that there are some preserved buildings that are unlikely to be redeveloped. But in the City proper (the square mile) there is a lot of redevelopment. Nobody lives there, though.

The reason for the basements is not that the houses are architecturally noteworthy, just that they are in conservation areas. It has to do with the look of the neighbourhood and all the property value that goes along with that. It's not an effective way of densifying the housing stock.

"Nobody lives there, though."

Hello from the Barbican.

What an exceptional place to live. Is there a good sense of community between the residents?

Point taken. I love the Barbican.

According to Wikipedia: "The City has a resident population of 9,401 (ONS estimate, mid-2016) but over 300,000 people commute to and work there." That is the breakdown I was trying to communicate.

No, there are very stric planning rules in London. It’s not just about not touching listed properties (though a lot of the city is listed) but also there is a web of line of sights from different view points which are protected and results in an invisible ceiling to new constructions. Add to that a very lengthy planning process and locals hostile to the densification of the area despite the crumbling transportation system, and you get the current odd situation where most of the city is made of low rise, 2 floors high tiny houses converted into even tinier apartments, and a few spots where you have a massive concentration of some of the highest residential skyscrapers in Europe.

I would expect the seriously historic stuff to be underground. That is where the ancient Roman stuff would be best preserved.

I wonder how often an inconvenient archaeological site gets quietly disposed of.

They don't get 'disposed of'. Whenever there are large excavations it's a planning requirement to turn the site over to archaeologists first, who can find anything that's to be found before it's dug out. E.g., there was a lot of archaeology done with the Crossrail project: https://archaeology.crossrail.co.uk/exhibits/roman-moorgate-...

Yes, but that's a large excavation for public purposes, a private project is probably smaller - so does the same rules apply? Can those rules be avoided when done privately?

There's a lot of history, but there's also a lot of low-mid rise cheap postwar developments (built on bomb sites) that are overdue for replacement.

We live on a long straight road in central London lined with Georgian townhouses. It’s possible to see exactly where the bombs fell as every few hundred yards the houses stop and there’s a 60s tower block or a park.

Never realised why until it was pointed out.

I am sure I remember reading reports a few years ago where there excavation has caused serious issues/subsidence and even collapse.

There’s always the Mole Man of Hackney who spent 40 years digging tunnels under his house. He dug so much that the pavement outside collapsed.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/aug/08/communities....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com