Hacker News Reader

the problem is that the cost of converting an outmoded commercial building to residential is usually within the same order of magnitude as knocking it down and putting up something built for purpose.

If you look at the urban core of many cities, they are full of old commercial buildings converted to lofts/residentia. The old bank district in LA was empty and in disrepair for decades, then a huge conversion boom in the 2000's. Soho in NYC. Many buildings south of Market in SF.

The question is why can't we accelerate the process so the buildings don't sit unused for decades before it becomes worth conversion. <- though maybe that is the crux, the prices need to decline enough to make it worth it.

Your average modern commercial skyscraper is less amenable to this kind of conversion than those older, shorter, smaller floor plate industrial/commercial buildings, though. And there's still a lot of opportunity cost in renovating a modern class A commercial building that isn't there for renovating a long-abandoned older industrial/commercial space; those have basically no opportunity cost because the existing uses are worthless.

Yeah, I could have been more specific when I said “outmoded commercial buildings.” I meant the typical open floor plan office towers built during the ‘60s-‘80s. Those are challenging, though not impossible, to convert to residential. But absent incentives it’s almost always cheaper to start from scratch.

More recent commercial buildings, particularly anything from the last decade, are generally fine in terms of valuation/viability - there’s been a very noticeable flight to quality in commercial real estate. Lots of tenants are giving up space in the slightly obsolete buildings and moving into new flagship towers.

Many of today's office buildings are not built to last, honestly. There is a good chance that a glass/concrete tower will collapse in 100 years, while the old brick factories are basically indestructible.

Brick structures, famously known for surviving earthquakes with flying colors.

Maybe building extensively in an earthquake zone isn’t the answer? It’s much more expensive and comes with huge insurance risks.

Yes, I'm making a reference to the time when these massive residential building projects began as a juxtaposition for today. The costs of just becoming a renter today are similar to what it took to own a home previously. Zoning is not irrelevant it is the absolute cause of these areas essentially becoming Special Economic Zones which are now, in historic fashion, about to flounder and fade unless the powers that be command workers back to the office, back to the commute, back to the grind.

So? LA is a desert and requires the rest of the region to support their needs; which is really just their real estate values through sustained population growth - which would otherwise not happen without sucking H2O from everywhere else. Knock down the buildings and repurpose the materials for other areas then; though people will claim that's not "profitable" either so it will just be melted, crushed and buried instead of repurposed.

Converting buildings creates jobs! Isn't that the point of much of this, job creation so we can keep all these devious little beings busy? Jobs means they can afford the new constructs. Even at increased costs, how many of these buildings are paid off? How many change hands as a means of transferring debt, buying out equity and essentially playing a Fastowian shell game? The idea that, "we can't profit off that" is absurd given how much the governments of this country subsidize profitability for the people who are wrecking so much.

LOL, was that an Andy Fastow reference? Deep cut, I love it, even if I’m still not sure how it applies here.

LA really isn’t a desert. It is definitely near a desert, but the city itself isn’t very desert like. LA’s water use is a lot smaller than the farms around LA, so converting farms to residential use would actually save a lot of water.

>so converting farms to residential use would actually save a lot of water.

Pray tell, where would you source the food required to support said new residents if you're going to convert farm land already dedicated to supporting people who are already there?

Not sure about California's import/export situation with Ag output.

LA at least gets a lot of its food from Mexico. Most of the farms in that region are for specialty crops that get exported anyways. Like almonds. I like almonds, but most people don’t live on them.

But the point isn’t to get rid of the farms, just that LAs water usage as a city is tiny in comparison to California’s agricultural water usage in general.

> Also, just nitpicks, but when was $5k a down payment for a house? 1955? And BlackRock isn’t a hedge fund.

The first house my parents bought in 1976 was $26,500. So I wager $5k down payment would have covered it. (And this was in Los Angeles County)