What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
56 Comments
- liebman, on 06/28/2009, -3/+34John James Audubon would be thrilled to know that major American cities are tearing down multi-million dollar estates in favor of nature preserves with waterfront views.
- pinkflyingpig, on 06/28/2009, -4/+26Those bayfront properties have the priceless river view. The park idea won't last for long.
- weister42, on 06/28/2009, -0/+20I opened Sim City 2000 and bulldozed some buildings but now I have a riot going on.
- uc1digger, on 06/28/2009, -2/+17It would be great if more local governments could purchase and preserve waterfront properties but aren't most municipalities suffering in this economy too?
- atlasdugged, on 06/28/2009, -2/+16Oceanfront listings will always have commercial value. But preservation instead of homes...priceless
- archivedigger, on 06/28/2009, -0/+12I think we have enough golf courses.
- Ferretman, on 06/28/2009, -0/+12Actually it seems to me that riverfront and oceanfront properties are perfect for this kind of thing. Houses and businesses shouldn't be built where they could easily get flooded--if a park gets flooded it's not such a big deal.
- janjamm, on 06/28/2009, -2/+14I like the concept of the "undevelopers"! It would be a refreshing trend. But, I agree with pingpants, this is a temporary pause. Waterfront property is priceless and once the economy perks up, the DEVELOPERS will be back with a vengeance. The creeps.
- yesbeegee, on 06/28/2009, -3/+14What goes down must come up! Meanwhile, let's make parks while the estate sales slump.
- jboitnott, on 06/28/2009, -1/+11This is what's going to happen to half of Detroit and Flint Michigan.
- mythicturtle, on 06/28/2009, -4/+14Maybe the banks could give builder incentives for more of actions like this -- at least until people start buying new houses.
- mrfuzz, on 06/28/2009, -3/+11They should feed luxury condo developers to the alligators ? Throw in a few bankers too.
- Ferretman, on 06/28/2009, -0/+8Honestly not a bad idea if there's no longer a population need for the areas. I'd rather see them bought and turned into parks/wild areas than become decaying husks....
- maroger, on 06/28/2009, -2/+10Waterfront property should all be public access. The problem with this is that it goes too far. Waterfront property is always in demand and more valuable, making it the perfect engine for tax revenues for the non-waterfront part of a community. With this type of unique opportunity, a public park should be developed but within a reasonable distance from the waterfront, buildable land should remain open to future development. That way it's win-win for the long term.
- GreenZephyr, on 06/28/2009, -0/+7Despite the economic downturn, Americans won’t give up the dream of owning a get away home with a great view. So unless law makers pass legislation to mark the land off limits to development, the park will surely give way to luxury condos when the real estate market turns around.
- j0hn33y, on 06/28/2009, -0/+7So turn it into a ghetto? I think tearing them down is a wiser choice.
- jasdf, on 06/28/2009, -0/+7I got it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE - senorboombino, on 06/28/2009, -2/+8Why not just turn those condos into rentals? Works in some places...
- theviceroy, on 06/28/2009, -0/+6hell, I lol'd
- td001, on 06/28/2009, -0/+5I live in Tampa, and GTown Apts were run down as all hell. Now the property is blighted. Tampa DOES NOT need more waterfront bs McMansions. There are half built, unsold McMansions all over South Tampa as it is. This is great what these people want to do.
- walker4bc, on 06/28/2009, -1/+6Wow, that is a true indication of the state of the real estate market when parks and nature preserves are being built rather than luxury homes and condos. This is an odd time for sure.
- inactive, on 06/28/2009, -0/+5Buy waterfront properties, you'll be the first ones to go when the super tsunami hits. Sad it will be less of us fighting the zombies!
- ZenMojo, on 06/28/2009, -0/+5Why would a bank hand out free money like that with no possibility of return? The government, sure, but banks? The article itself shows the principals simply hoping a bank even lets taxpayers buy the land for this sort of effort.
- pingpants, on 06/28/2009, -0/+4That was awesome, thank you!
- monkcouver, on 06/28/2009, -4/+8Yes, oceanfront listings will always have commercial value. Building parks there and giving them away to public for free is not a sustainable approach. There are some other options: Instead of building private homes, builders can build some small scale stylish water front hotels, so more people can enjoy the whatever ocean view, river view for couple nights at a price, and the government will get the tax dollars. Another option will be selling tickets for visiting these parks, raise money for maintaining them. Third option will be building water front golf courses, so people can come and play at a price. Please add more ...
- ZenMojo, on 06/28/2009, -0/+4And then developers are going to look at the rejuvenated waterfront property and think, "This would be a great place to build a condo." And then bulldoze everything to the ground.
AKA, what I learned from Sim City. - dixieleopard, on 06/28/2009, -0/+4agreed
- siestaguy, on 06/28/2009, -1/+4It's probably viable because the place was an apartment complex purchased with the intent to bulldoze and replace with condos.
- JYoungest1, on 06/28/2009, -0/+3Tampa is a ***** hole for real estate, all the business sharks have been ripping the bottom out of this city for a while now. Thats why there are no more jobs in Tampa, all the jobs were in real estate.
- mrfuzz, on 06/28/2009, -1/+4that clip made my day. ( and made me glad I drive a mac )
- nesagwa, on 06/28/2009, -0/+3I think this is just a one off type thing here in Tampa. Everywhere you look in older parts of town you see historical cigar factories being gutted and turned into lofts. Brick veneers being covered with sheet rock and generic store front treatments. They just built an Ikea in Ybor for gods sake.
- bugwayji, on 06/28/2009, -0/+3 Have to keep the housing limited, and taxes up.
- hiphoc, on 06/28/2009, -3/+6Oh wow, Nice. UN Agenda 21 at work. Cant wait to see this catch on in other cities. /s
- Amnesia10, on 06/28/2009, -2/+5First is that this is a huge waste of resources. Why demolish homes purely to support the prices of those that speculated and lost?
These homes should be be bought for a $1 by the city, then made available to the homeless or anyone willing to rent them. They could get rent from them and help the local government incomes. With a home it is a damn sight easier to get a job once the recovery comes. Over time these will rise in value and the city can sell them to their occupants. With them having an interest in the area they will crack down on bad neighbours and help redevelop the areas.
All the bull dozing is price people out of the market again. It is a home owners subsidy at the expense of everyone else. - BaphClass, on 06/28/2009, -1/+4There's always one in articles like these. Congratulations, you look like a fool.
- tnvwboy, on 06/28/2009, -0/+2Simple economics. There is more supply then demand right now. Not to mention those who CAN afford to buy a house are buying houses that are correct for their incomes instead of buying more house than they need because it's a "good investment". Smart buyers are buying existing homes, in healthy neighborhoods
So tell me why tearing down rotting devalued developments is bad? Better to go back to an empty lot than to have an area that is just plain dangerous. - s73v3r, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2Surely the revenue starved local Governments must realize that adding to public parks increases tourism and encourages people to come.
- publiclurker, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2Have pity on the poor gators, please.
- td001, on 06/28/2009, -0/+2They are in an upscale area of town, NO WAY are they going to turn it into ghetto or project. They are TEARING down projects in Tampa as it is, and have been gentrificating the inner neighborhoods of the city for years.
- s73v3r, on 06/28/2009, -0/+2It seems like it'd be better for the municipality to turn something like this into a park, rather than let the buildings sit, abandoned and in disrepair. Abandoned buildings attract crime, parks attract tourists.
- Richandler, on 06/28/2009, -1/+3Um property value going down isn't a bad thing. It means more poor people can have places to live. But I guess planting trees is more important than the poorest people.
- Barackalypse, on 06/28/2009, -1/+3Surely revenue starved local Governments must realize that DECREASING the tax base and adding to the amount of public property they must pay to upkeep isn't going to help their revenue situation any.
- publiclurker, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2How about a bunch of brothels,since the only thing you seem to be able to think of is a quick buck.
- MayorMcCheapo, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1Haven't we sprawled enough? I would love to see Undevelopment whereever it was practical.
- publiclurker, on 06/29/2009, -1/+2Strike two logi.
- Mihey, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1She.
- MayorMcCheapo, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1Here here! I've seen a lot of Tampa, and this is a fantastic "development." Hope it's a trend.
- s73v3r, on 06/28/2009, -0/+1Why would the bank really care what the land was used for, as long as it was paid for?
- publiclurker, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1To say nothing about the fact that property right next to the waterfront tends to flood. It makes good sense to leave a buffer.
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is