Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not confusing anything, it is an opinion piece, it is in fact an opinion.
Also, if there was an intended audience, then this would have been in the industry specific media, not the NYT.
You still did not show where in this article it stated it was for a specific audience as you have claimed. Matter of fact, the article is written as if for an audience that is not subject matter experts in this area.
I don’t have to be told, I simply have good reading comprehension and I’ve seen the NYT before. You simply have a vested interest in staying offended, so you read my posts through the same biased filter you read the article through. Not sure what else to say at this point, enjoy your righteous indignation.
I don’t have to be told, I simply have good reading comprehension and I’ve seen the NYT before. You simply have a vested interest in staying offended, so you read my posts through the same biased filter you read the article through. Not sure what else to say at this point, enjoy your righteous indignation.
Who said I am offended? Disagreeing with an article is now considered being offended?
I asked you to demonstrate how this is for an intended audience, I laid out that it is not intended for a specific audience by;
-It is in the NYT, not in an industry specific media.
-It does not state anywhere in the article who the intended audience is.
-It is written in a manner for non-subject matter experts to understand. If it was intended for such industry experts, it would not have been written in such a way for the layman, average reader to understand.
Also, your only defense of this article is just to continue saying "it was not intended for you", because other than that, you have no real defense of this, nor can even advocate for it. And at that, are you an architect or something? If not, then how in the hell can you have an opinion and comment on it while others cannot?
Not confusing anything, it is an opinion piece, it is in fact an opinion.
Also, if there was an intended audience, then this would have been in the industry specific media, not the NYT.
You still did not show where in this article it stated it was for a specific audience as you have claimed. Matter of fact, the article is written as if for an audience that is not subject matter experts in this area.
Boxus, every piece of writing is for a specific audience. It's for the audience that connects with the content. There's no need to state specifics in the body of the article.
You can't relate to the ideas about condos? Then the article isn't for you. That doesn't make the article any less valid.
No one is telling anyone how to live. There are offering options to consider.
What are your thoughts about this? Personally, it sounds kinda silly. It basically says "owning a 10,000 sq ft McMansion is bad so we should live in tiny condos", while not really mentioning the middle ground of normal people who want a normal sized 2,000-3,000 sq ft home with a modest land/size.
Article to sway those who can't think for themselves.
If you've noticed, when young people move to the big city, they often live close to work, in high density housing, to be close to an urban center and night life.
As they mature and especially when a growing family is on the horizon, many couples will move to suburbia (or even exurbia) to have better $/SF ratio and a yard for their French bulldog.
Maybe even by this time, one or both of them can now work from home.
What are your thoughts about this? Personally, it sounds kinda silly. It basically says "owning a 10,000 sq ft McMansion is bad so we should live in tiny condos", while not really mentioning the middle ground of normal people who want a normal sized 2,000-3,000 sq ft home with a modest land/size.
Well, a walkable urban lifestyle is appealing for young or middle age single professionals, but a family with kids would be a bit squashed. In New York, a condo would have lots more room than a walk up in Manhattan.
I don’t get the McMansions either. Unless you’re Mormon and have ten kids, who would want all that space? I’ll take the happy middle ground in a home around 2,000 to 3,000 sq ft, with a few acres for the horses.
This article? Well, it is an opinion piece...and you know what they say about those..
Personally, no one I know "dreams" of owning a 10,000 sq.ft mansion. And 1800 sq ft for a condo? Last time I checked, that's an enormous condo - even many townhomes are shy of that.
The thing is, everyone has their own idea of what "dream home" means anyways. Maybe some people want a big mansion/Mcmansion. Others might like an NYC loft. I'd venture to bet that most folks fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.
Bottom line, you gotta go with what works for you and your budget. Not all real estate markets are equal, that's for sure.
What are your thoughts about this? Personally, it sounds kinda silly. It basically says "owning a 10,000 sq ft McMansion is bad so we should live in tiny condos", while not really mentioning the middle ground of normal people who want a normal sized 2,000-3,000 sq ft home with a modest land/size.
Well, once again, the New York Times seems to be completely out of touch with "Middle America". No surprise there.
And for those who think the NYT is directed only (or even mainly) at people who live in New York City, I would have to disagree. I view it as more of a national news site, as it seems that not a day goes by that someone doesn't reference an article from the NYT on City-Data on all kinds of forums.
If you want to read more free articles, download another browser. I have both chrome and safari on my computer. When I read my limited number of free articles, I clear my history and switch to the other.
I clear my history on a regular basis and never run out of free NYT articles.
No, it's an article to discuss a viable option. Why do yoi assume malintent?
Written innocently enough, but pushing high density housing intentionally designed to exclude popular convenience features enjoyed by modern multifamily housing such as walk-in closets is moving backward.
Housing that will be built to conserve space, i.e. placed in a high demand area (thus commanding top-of-market rents) should be inclusive of things beyond the bare essentials. This means space, not just trim.
$2000 and $3000 rents can only be afforded for so long before turning over tenants, when they bow out to either reside somewhere and build equity or move to cheaper accommodations altogether.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
