Originally Posted by
PQZ
So far, I think you are pretty damn stupid and pretty irrational.
You have consistently shown an inability to think critically about the economics of renoavtion, demolition and what to do with very limited budgets and instead cling to a dogma. each time a direct question is asked, you deflect and answer by raing a different question.
The statement was about proximity as you are awkwardly suggesting.
You posited that looking at the restoration of one building was an isolated data point not indicative of a trend. I pointed out that even looking within a two block radius, the multiple data points taken together showed a bias towards renovation, not demolition. Looking across the entirely of the downtown, the bias towards renovation vs. demolition is even more apparent.
The area where it really gets skewed is when you look at the DDA's total investments. Over the last dozen years or so the investments in renovation are nearly fifteen times the investment in demolition.
I note you cite a single data point - The Hudsons Building - to prove a trend.
If you like, we could draw a one block radius around the Hudsons site where I can show you six or seven examples of investment in renovation - and zero in demolition. That is a data trend.
Now, considering the Book Cadillac is having a hard time selling condos and Lofts of Woodward and Merchants Row are struggling to stay above the low 80s in occupancy percentage - and considering that the combined square footage of these projects with the Kales thrown in less than a million square feet - can you realistically say that there would have been a market for the 2.2 million square feet of space at the Hudsons Building?
Can you?
Yes or no.
No deflections please.
Which is the greater data trend?