The article mentions Vancouver, but we've also got some condos in Victoria BC that are doing the same thing. It's called Dockside Green and it's gotten a lot of media attention for its...
The article mentions Vancouver, but we've also got some condos in Victoria BC that are doing the same thing. It's called Dockside Green and it's gotten a lot of media attention for its sustainability goals. I think my local credit union is a big investor.
In Victoria this makes a bit more sense since we weren't treating our wastewater at all when this project was conceived - we were just dumping raw sewage into the ocean. This project checked all the boxes of the vision of locals, that is: less poop in the harbour, vague promises of green technology, affordable new housing, etc. I think it was endorsed by some local politicians at the time.
Problem is I don't think this is sustainable as a business model. There's a lot of extra overhead, both in construction, but also in maintenance. The dream is the excess money made in rent could be diverted into social causes like a water processing plant, but it turns out most landlords would rather pocket the difference.
I feel like projects like these are just built through "eco-futurist" investment as demonstrations of "what life could be like, except capitalism"
While I believe condos like this could still be profitable, and perhaps they're more desirable to buyers, I don't think they're going to be more profitable than the bog standard lowest bidder construction practices that are the norm.
Local regulation can subsidize this kind of development by providing tax benefits to properties that develop it, funded by increasing condominium property taxes more generally. Capitalism is...
Local regulation can subsidize this kind of development by providing tax benefits to properties that develop it, funded by increasing condominium property taxes more generally. Capitalism is really just a combination of an economic culture (social expectations) and an economic system structured by strong property ownership laws. Is your concern that this particular endeavor is money-losing or that the margins are too tight? Since these regulations often fail when they make new development too risky, but otherwise they can pay off.
I want to be a bit more optimistic. While I appreciate and sometimes endorse critiques of those strong property ownership laws, I think people in the modern day forget that capitalism can still benefit the average person when the government acts as a firm guiding hand towards social good.
The article mentions Vancouver, but we've also got some condos in Victoria BC that are doing the same thing. It's called Dockside Green and it's gotten a lot of media attention for its sustainability goals. I think my local credit union is a big investor.
In Victoria this makes a bit more sense since we weren't treating our wastewater at all when this project was conceived - we were just dumping raw sewage into the ocean. This project checked all the boxes of the vision of locals, that is: less poop in the harbour, vague promises of green technology,
affordablenew housing, etc. I think it was endorsed by some local politicians at the time.Problem is I don't think this is sustainable as a business model. There's a lot of extra overhead, both in construction, but also in maintenance. The dream is the excess money made in rent could be diverted into social causes like a water processing plant, but it turns out most landlords would rather pocket the difference.
I feel like projects like these are just built through "eco-futurist" investment as demonstrations of "what life could be like, except capitalism"
While I believe condos like this could still be profitable, and perhaps they're more desirable to buyers, I don't think they're going to be more profitable than the bog standard lowest bidder construction practices that are the norm.
Local regulation can subsidize this kind of development by providing tax benefits to properties that develop it, funded by increasing condominium property taxes more generally. Capitalism is really just a combination of an economic culture (social expectations) and an economic system structured by strong property ownership laws. Is your concern that this particular endeavor is money-losing or that the margins are too tight? Since these regulations often fail when they make new development too risky, but otherwise they can pay off.
I want to be a bit more optimistic. While I appreciate and sometimes endorse critiques of those strong property ownership laws, I think people in the modern day forget that capitalism can still benefit the average person when the government acts as a firm guiding hand towards social good.