Now I'm really confused.
Today's Post-Gazette has a really interesting story about architects working on tiny little projects--impossible projects, really--refurbing little slivers of the city. Like taking a decrepit old building sandwiched between two other decrepit buildings and turning it into high-end office space and apartments. It's incredibly complex. And expensive. But it turns out... it can be done.
But wait. I thought that was impossible. You remember. The city has told us for years that the only way to revitalize a neighborhood is for the government to buy up all the properties--taking them through eminent domain, if necessary--then give the properties to a single, politically-connected developer. Or sell them to that developer at a loss. And then to pile on the subsidies.
They always claim this is the best way to do things. No matter what the project. High-end condos? Mid-range condos? Public housing? Department stores? Stadiums? Doesn't matter. The formula holds.
Look. I am not saying that the "other" way discussed in this article represents some paragon of libertarian virtue. Or that it represents a counter-argument that should apply in all cases. And I can see why this might not work well in a lot of cases. Still. This does seem to offer a different way of looking at things.
Pretty neat, I'd say.