I agree with Datsun, the whole ridiculously huge house thing is idiotic, regardless if it's 15,000 or 85,000 square feet.
Maybe now people with New England accents will have less of a strangle-hold on the home building/improvement show market.
I agree with Datsun, the whole ridiculously huge house thing is idiotic, regardless if it's 15,000 or 85,000 square feet.
Maybe now people with New England accents will have less of a strangle-hold on the home building/improvement show market.
I can't imagine these doing well in the second hand market. Anyone loaded enough to buy one is loaded enough to build one. I think that it's just a really sneaky way to put a hotel or star-studded detox clinic in a great location. After one of these places is vacant for a year or two, maybe the neighbors will finally relent to zoning changes.
Mitchell wrote: I can't imagine these doing well in the second hand market. Anyone loaded enough to buy one is loaded enough to build one. I think that it's just a really sneaky way to put a hotel or star-studded detox clinic in a great location. After one of these places is vacant for a year or two, maybe the neighbors will finally relent to zoning changes.
in the mean time, a lot of people are getting paid to build, maintain, and staff these places... so anyone whining about how the ultra rich are wasting money on these palaces instead of helping the poor are misguided at best and dishonest at worst..
Mitchell wrote: I can't imagine these doing well in the second hand market. Anyone loaded enough to buy one is loaded enough to build one.
Location location location. If all of the desirable locations have been built on, its a tough value proposition to tear down a $10mil house to build a $20mil house on the land it was on, unless the numbers add up.
Rich people might have poor taste and spend lots of money, but it doesn't mean they are all stupid. I'd rather have my money in a tangible asset with inherent value no matter what then the stock market.
yamaha wrote: In reply to Nick_Comstock: I'd want a ballista that could throw the peasants to the nearest town.
FTFY.
In reply to Duke:
Buwahahaha, only after they've been on the rack. 
KyAllroad wrote: In reply to Trans_Maro: It's not "only when it's convenient" and I hope I'm not a shiny happy person. I don't begrudge anyone the path to riches. But I do begrudge people getting wildly, obscenely rich and using their wealth to affect the system allowing them to use those without the absurd resources needed to maintain even a reasonable level of comfort. Wealth is good. Disgusting levels of wealth, not so much.
Hi KyAllroad,
Please consider that relative to most of the world’s inhabitants, you’re “wildly, obscenely rich”.
Although we are seeing a widening of the bimodal distribution of wealth, the whole distribution is shifting to the right so the poor are actually doing a little better while the rich are doing much better.
Much of our troubles come from replacing what works with what sounds good…in other words, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Additionally, there’s no evidence that the effect are generational.
Where are names like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and Getty now…they’ve long been replaced by names like Gates, Jobs, and Musk.
You'll need to log in to post.
