>>1965575>You do not need to be a large developer to build in this country. 41% of the national rental stock is owned by individual investorsYou're fucking retarded if you think the companies building the buildings are also the ones renting them out afterwards.
>>1965567>High-end novelty perfume shop with flats above in fucking Venice, Italy.Yes fuckwit, a shop with housing on top. Like in any goddam city around the world, except, amazingly enough, most American downtowns.
>No, that picture is just a standard luxury apartment building probably near some suburb of a large but otherwise unremarkable North American city.Like for like. Italy anon's pic was a fairly unremarkable mixed use building in an Italian city center. Mine was a fairly unremarkable mixed use building in a denser satellite town of Atlanta.
>It's designed to attract yuppies who want a bright, clean, modern condo/apartment willing to pay above-average rent for amenitiesYou say this like there's any difference between it and every other US apartment complex built in the last 10 years. The only difference between any of them is the date they completed.
>And in my experience it's successful at its intended purpose of attracting that demographic.I'll give you a hint, they don't all look that way because "that's what young people want". They look that way because that's the only way 99% of them can get penciled due to overly stringent city rules on how the building is allowed to look. Otherwise you'd get things more like picrel, which is simpler to build and maintain for the owner and also doesn't look like a kid built it out of spare legos.
>As for the specific architectural features you're coming off like a serious try-hardDoesn't take a fucking expert to realize that different roof levels, random setbacks, and 3+ facade materials will increase the cost to the developer fuck up the unit floorplans.
