In a message dated 98-01-28 09:34:39 EST, [log in to unmask] writes:

> When I think of "developer", I don't think of guys doing re-use of older
>  structures.  A developer is one who works to change and usually intensify
>  the land use to one with a higher value.

I think there are developers in the area of adaptive re-use. There is
certainly speculation in the field. Just as money-lenders look for different
ways to play with money... there is always a developer out there looking for
another need, another niche, another angle. I would not stop at increasing the
value of land, in particular cases an existing structure may be undervalued
and if brought back to viable use a new value is added, without need of
demolition. I would say that a developer is one who works to change a property
of low value to one of high value and to profit in the process. Not much
different than any business, which makes me suspect that developers may not
always look like developers.

As to The Donald, to use a public example of an otherwise private breed, I
don't think he is all that much fixated on what his creations look like,
otherwise he would be entangled for eternity with the Municipal Art Society
(overtones of gentry?) who reject his *team's* designs. So he sends the team
off for another design, paying all the way. His problem is realizing a profit
from his speculations and remaining solvent ahead of the creditors. It is the
tension of his juggling act, which he makes public like a Lothario Walenda,
that gains him the attention and respect of the unGentry. For the most part I
think NY'ers like to see tall buildings going up, I do. Why? If the union
workers are kept busy building new buildings then they tend to stay away from
the maintenance and preservation niche. It is hard enough dealing with the
bottom of the labor pile pushing up from ignorance without the top of the
labor pile pushing down with extortion. In the middle you have a spread of
somewhat competent firms competing against each other.

][<en Follett