03-07-2018, 11:37 AM
Sure, but the main issue here was that residents wanted less density, so to maintain acceptable profits, the developer kept 97% of the units, while the residents eliminated 30% of the bedrooms, including 76% of the multi-bedroom units. The most profitable units a developer can sell are one bedrooms, because they have the highest upgrades-to-floorspace of any unit (kitchen and bathroom being the most upgraded and profitable rooms, bonus bedrooms adding little), and are easiest to sell.
There are a bunch of "costs" you can ask of a developer: reducing height, adding parking, adding exterior designs, adding public art/amenities, having affordable/subsidized units, having multi-bedroom units, reducing density. They all have different costs to the developer. The residents, in this choice, chose what mattered most to them: more parking and lower density, the two costliest requests, and so understandably they didn't get any of the other things they could have prioritized.
There are a bunch of "costs" you can ask of a developer: reducing height, adding parking, adding exterior designs, adding public art/amenities, having affordable/subsidized units, having multi-bedroom units, reducing density. They all have different costs to the developer. The residents, in this choice, chose what mattered most to them: more parking and lower density, the two costliest requests, and so understandably they didn't get any of the other things they could have prioritized.