1. ## Let's build Versailles!

Driving on a road .5 miles off my beaten path, i went touring on the side road and drove past a house that had to be at least 3 million dollars in price. It was ridiculous. But then I got to thinking, it isn't the structure that's so obscene in cost, it's how few people live in that structure that counts. I did some simple math, if you built a structure for 8000 homes and charged 200000 a piece, that leaves you 1.6 billion dollars to build a Versailles for 8000 families. Do you think something like this could be done today? is 8000 apartments in one building just too many? if we did 5000, that still leaves us with a billion dollars.

The whole point of this is that if you can take an expensive thing, like maintaining French gardens, but distribute the cost among a large number of people, that cost is no longer excessive. You could have snazzy stuff in the halls and it wouldn't cost the owners that much. Like \$200 a month association dues for 8000 people would well maintain that landscape and garbage and utilities.

What do you think of mega residential buildings like this, would they fly or no? I think it would just be soooo awesome to live in a palace like that. Even if it was \$250000 instead of \$200000 per housing unit. I'd be way cooler than some standard suburban home, which is what \$250000 could buy you in CO Springs.

Edit: this would be Versailles v2.

2. Originally Posted by Phil P
Driving on a road .5 miles off my beaten path, i went touring on the side road and drove past a house that had to be at least 3 million dollars in price. It was ridiculous. But then I got to thinking, it isn't the structure that's so obscene in cost, it's how few people live in that structure that counts. I did some simple math, if you built a structure for 8000 homes and charged 200000 a piece, that leaves you 1.6 billion dollars to build a Versailles for 8000 families. Do you think something like this could be done today? is 8000 apartments in one building just too many? if we did 5000, that still leaves us with a billion dollars.
I consider these structures to be ugly and embarrassingly revealing about their owners, who generally, have no shame. The original Versailles is gorgeous, but it's a museum. When you consider that Warren Buffett still lives in the house he bought in the 1950's, you wonder what these smaller millionaires are doing living in so much space. Are we supposed to be impressed? Envious? The important question one should ask is, "what do I really need to be happy?" Remember, when you see what someone owns you see how much they spent, not what they're worth.

3. Are you thinking like a really upper class boarding house? Or just like a palatial condo?

I could see a luxury boarding house appealing to a certain demographic. The sort of people who live in furnished apartments. The wealthy sub-contractor class.

However, vs. the cultural trend of having everything personalized, expressing one's identity, homesteading...

It would have to be very intelligently tailored to the clientele.

4. Giant condo buildings are already a thing. So the only question here is: how much ornamentation are unit owners willing to pay for, relative to their subjective benefit from it?

Most luxury buildings have amenities, like gyms, rec rooms, rooftop gardens, pools, 24 hour security, shipping desks, doormen, etc. In addition, the building could house services like dry cleaners, convenience stores, restaurants, banks, hair salons etc - which generate their income on a fee-per-user basis, as opposed to being paid for through the association fees.

I realize none of that sounds like Versailles, but the point I'm making is - large collective housing structures already exist on the extreme high-end of luxury and location, so the only difference between that and Versailles is style/format.

5. Originally Posted by Polemarch
I realize none of that sounds like Versailles, but the point I'm making is - large collective housing structures already exist on the extreme high-end of luxury and location, so the only difference between that and Versailles is style/format.
And, usually the inhabitants of these luxury condos don't get their heads chopped off.

(These places don't appeal to this introvert)

6. You may not get your head chopped off now - but you probably do make yourself a target if and when post-apocalyptic social order breaks down.

7. Originally Posted by Thevenin
I consider these structures to be ugly and embarrassingly revealing about their owners, who generally, have no shame. The original Versailles is gorgeous, but it's a museum. When you consider that Warren Buffett still lives in the house he bought in the 1950's, you wonder what these smaller millionaires are doing living in so much space. Are we supposed to be impressed? Envious? The important question one should ask is, "what do I really need to be happy?" Remember, when you see what someone owns you see how much they spent, not what they're worth.
In the U.S. with approximately 3.5 million homeless people and approximately 18.5 million vacant homes revulsion and outrage would probably be a more appropriate response.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•