someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"we can market this to submarine enthusiasts" - someone probably
I doubt very mcuh there's any correlation between undesirable units and the folks that occupy them or vise versa. As I'm pretty sure Mar-a-lago is pretty desirable place to live in, can't say the same for it's current occupants, in the example...When the building has a lot of undesirable units, you have to wonder if 20 years down the road, it'll be getting desirable tenants.
I think it's fairly safe to say that those who end up living there are likely the ones who are not bothered by the weirdly proportioned units or ones who think it's a unique living experience. Folks, like myself, who want more conventional spaces will naturally try to look elsewhere from the get go.The point is that if it's not good quality housing (e.g. if a lot of units are poorly proportioned and/or not particularly comfortable and pleasant to live in), the building can decline in the future. The residents themselves may generally be good people, but the value of the real estate might end up stagnating. The tenants who can afford to pay more will find other places to live.
While I don't think much of the unit layouts here (other than for the bowling class, who will be thrilled), anyone who invests in any building, whether they live in it themselves or whether they rent it out (you used the word tenants in a previous post—who knows how many here will be owner-occupiers and how many will be tenants), the owners will have an interest in the building being properly maintained over time so that their investment remains solid. Why would they let the building decline?The point is that if it's not good quality housing (e.g. if a lot of units are poorly proportioned and/or not particularly comfortable and pleasant to live in), the building can decline in the future. The residents themselves may generally be good people, but the value of the real estate might end up stagnating. The tenants who can afford to pay more will find other places to live.