• @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        122 years ago

        Like a skyscraper of the same size but with apartments? The original idea seems pretty practical to me.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          7
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          One popular option is floor level businesses with apartments above them. Doesn’t necessarily have to be as tall, many of these skyscrapers take a lot of space for landscaping that could be used for square footage. On top of this, other areas could also be rezone and recreated into city parks to make up for the over indulgent landscaping.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      Is that something the government needs to figure out? Seems like something will eventually be done with the buildings once the current owners get tired of losing money.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        I don’t know the exact situation (and I admit I didn’t read the article). Honestly the Canadian housing crisis is still confusing, and I live here.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Converting office space to living space strains infrastructure in ways not intended by the original intent of the buildings. They can’t put thirty apartments on a single floor of a high rise and have those residents use the same four bathrooms per floor that the offices had. Same with sewage. Same with electrical.

        Water and sewage is a real question, that’s true. From the projects like this that I’m aware of, fire safety is actually the bigger issue, though. Usually sleeping areas are required to have an easier escape route than would be typical in the middle of a big office building. I guess you can add pipes and pumps without too much modification, and offices use plenty of electricity, although probably not in the same pattern.

        As for the systemic issues, governments do manage to get things done sometimes. The exact details of such a legislation are more granular than I really would want to hammer out on Lemmy.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        Corporations already do hold onto buildings without using them. Because typically real estate goes up in value, especially when there’s scarcity, which there will be if corporations are holding property. This isn’t the solution you think it is.