Matt777: "Finishes are irrelevant to apartment rents"
Me: "Every complex I've ever lived in has charged more for an identical floorplan that has nicer finishes"
The_Overdog wrote:Oh my gosh your facts are now that 'renovations' aren't given away for free? Thanks for the tip.
Are you sure you thought that one all the way through before posting, Overdog? Post after post asserting that finishes have minimal impact on rents, and when presented with a counterexample, you completely abandon that assertion and suddenly claim that I'M the idiot who thinks landlords don't give away nicer apartments for free?
I'm absolutely shocked that you clicked "submit" on such an embarrassing self-own...
Matt777 wrote:Aren't you the one trying to micromanage Streetlights residential by raging against them being able to develop their empty property the way they see fit? I'm all for holding a developer accountable when they are doing something that's a negative for the neighborhood, but the only point you harp on is that you don't think residential developers should build luxury housing. And again, the personal attacks against me are getting tiresome and ridiculous. I'm not "raging at you," nor have I made any personal attacks like you have to me. I'm merely trying to correct you so you can get off the false bandwagon of "more housing units equals higher prices."
Please point to one post of mine where I said "Streetlights residential should not be allowed to construct a tower on this site."
Your deliberate misrepresentation of my position, and subsequent attempts to "correct" me for something I've never said are absolutely a personal attack.
I am capable of disliking a trend (in this case, the "Uptownification" of Oak Lawn) without suggesting that the full force of the city government be brought to bear against the developers driving that trend. Oak Lawn doesn't attract much spillover from Uptown because that demographic either doesn't want to be associated with the LGBT community, or they perceive it as old, gross, and unsafe, but the Eatzi's development is effectively plopping an Uptown tower in Oak Lawn. Suddenly, the sort of people who would deride those $800/month walkups on Rawlins street as "ghetto" will be bragging about the great deal they got on a $1200 studio around the corner to all their friends. Developments like these make it "safe" for the Uptown demographic to move in. You seem unconcerned because you got your "deal" in the neighborhood, but there are a lot of people who aren't excited about the prospect of "densification" turning their neighborhood into another Uptown, where people with more money and better jobs are outbidding them for housing in a suddenly desirable neighborhood.
I'm not saying I have a solution, but your "Urbanism and Density at all costs" agenda doesn't seem to be very concerned about displacing the current residents of Dallas' primary LGBT neighborhood (who no doubt value the sense of place and community it offers) for the inevitable demolition of everything along Rawlins street so a developer can build 5 more cookie cutter high-rises to accommodate people who don't care about any of your Urbanist principles, because the vast majority of upwardly mobile, high-SES college grads coming to DFW for professional jobs Still. Love. Their. Cars. Sure, they'll walk to Eatzi's because it's right there, and maybe a few other places close by. But the typical renter in these sort of developments is very suburban in their mindset- everyone has their own car, wouldn't be caught dead riding a bus (and only rides the train to Mavs games and St. Paddys), and are not at all put off by the idea of 2-3 hours in traffic commuting to the burbs for their job. You're cheering for "Urbanist" developments that still have all the negative externalities of suburbs.