urbanSTL

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Jun 23, 2023

Side note: why must we name buildings in St Louis after NYC neighborhoods?

brianadler6545 wrote: ↑

Jul 14, 2022

Yeah I think it’s a problem when people take an obviously sh*tty company and then take something obviously bad and exaggerate it through the roof like this. Just don’t see how that helps.
You talk about structural collapses in the plural, but so far as I know, that was an isolated incident with no injuries that was resolved.

I have lived in one of their old buildings and toured a couple of new ones. Frankly, our neighbors were totally fine with our building and I’ve seen and spoken with happy residents at other ones. I also know from experience that when something breaks, like a microwave, you might not get prompt responses. I’m also not a shill for the a**holes who own the place - I wrote a lengthy article detailing their sh*tty business practices.

But your framing exists seemingly to justify further behavior on the part of neighborhood associations that probably goes way past what their duties should be, based on a premise of some extraordinarily evil company. But that’s not the role of these orgs. If the company is doing something illegal, that’s a matter for ordinance and for law enforcement.

You are calling for orgs to deny otherwise completely compliant buildings, like the first edition of this project that would call for no variances. The only reason it ended up asking for variances was to satisfy neighborhood concerns.

There was also another resident of one of their buildings at the meeting who spoke quite a bit about how he enjoyed the amenities and likes his apartment. He was then called a shill by Michael.

But we have to stop being so crazy as to assume that nearly fully occupied buildings probably summing thousands of tenants don’t have any happy residents.

And at some point, there has to be some agency for the renters too. They are entering a contract on their own free will. You are advocating for an organization that has a handful of votes at best to choose it’s leaders to deny people of their choices in housing.

That’s a bad precedent, I think. If you think they have shoddy practices, then call for the accountability elsewhere, with orgs and individuals that are more accountable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PeterXCV wrote:

brianadler6545 wrote: ↑

Jul 14, 2022

Yeah I think it’s a problem when people take an obviously sh*tty company and then take something obviously bad and exaggerate it through the roof like this. Just don’t see how that helps.
You talk about structural collapses in the plural, but so far as I know, that was an isolated incident with no injuries that was resolved.

I have lived in one of their old buildings and toured a couple of new ones. Frankly, our neighbors were totally fine with our building and I’ve seen and spoken with happy residents at other ones. I also know from experience that when something breaks, like a microwave, you might not get prompt responses. I’m also not a shill for the a**holes who own the place - I wrote a lengthy article detailing their sh*tty business practices.

But your framing exists seemingly to justify further behavior on the part of neighborhood associations that probably goes way past what their duties should be, based on a premise of some extraordinarily evil company. But that’s not the role of these orgs. If the company is doing something illegal, that’s a matter for ordinance and for law enforcement.

You are calling for orgs to deny otherwise completely compliant buildings, like the first edition of this project that would call for no variances. The only reason it ended up asking for variances was to satisfy neighborhood concerns.

There was also another resident of one of their buildings at the meeting who spoke quite a bit about how he enjoyed the amenities and likes his apartment. He was then called a shill by Michael.

But we have to stop being so crazy as to assume that nearly fully occupied buildings probably summing thousands of tenants don’t have any happy residents.

And at some point, there has to be some agency for the renters too. They are entering a contract on their own free will. You are advocating for an organization that has a handful of votes at best to choose it’s leaders to deny people of their choices in housing.

That’s a bad precedent, I think. If you think they have shoddy practices, then call for the accountability elsewhere, with orgs and individuals that are more accountable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just remembering how passionately supporters of this project argued they weren't actually so bad, against all available evidence. Some folks really believed YIMBY meant Yes to every project proposal no matter what.

PeterXCV wrote:Ok but you were saying that they were good enough to move forward with the project, which is what mattered.