Home
Yule Heibel's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
Ed Glaeser on development limits. (This fits in with the recent spate of interest in Vancouver around Market Urbanism, too.)
QUOTE
The relationship between housing supply and affordability isn't just a matter of economic theory. A great deal of evidence links the supply of space with the cost of real estate. Simply put, the places that are expensive don't build a lot, and the places that build a lot aren't expensive. Perhaps a new 40-story building won't itself house any quirky, less profitable firms, but by providing new space, the building will ease pressure on the rest of the city. Price increases in gentrifying older areas will be muted because of new construction. Growth, not height restrictions and a fixed building stock, keeps space affordable and ensures that poorer people and less profitable firms can stay and help a thriving city remain successful and diverse. Height restrictions do increase light, and preservation does protect history, but we shouldn't pretend that these benefits come without a cost.
UNQUOTE
This sentence, "Simply put, the places that are expensive don't build a lot, and the places that build a lot aren't expensive," applies very well to greenspace-eating suburban sprawl, too. It's cheap to build single-family homes for Victoria families on Langford's Bear Mountain or in the Cowichan Valley, but our city politicians (and NIMBY community organizations) continue to ensure that it's prohibitive (if not impossible) to develop (tall) buildings right downtown, where we have ridiculous height restrictions to go with a moribund economy and scores of empty storefronts. Further down in the article, Glaeser also notes: "One could quite plausibly argue that if members of the landmarks commission have decided that a building can be razed, then they should demand that its replacement be as tall as possible." This makes sense, and again, we don't do it (here), insisting that razed, empty parking lots in heritage-designated districts can only be built up according to severe height and density restrict
-
The cost of restricting development is that protected areas have become more expensive and more exclusive. In 2000, people who lived in historic districts in Manhattan were on average almost 74 percent wealthier than people who lived outside such areas. Almost three-quarters of the adults living in historic districts had college degrees, as opposed to 54 percent outside them. People living in historic districts were 20 percent more likely to be white. The well-heeled historic-district denizens who persuade the landmarks commission to prohibit taller structures have become the urban equivalent of those restrictive suburbanites who want to mandate five-acre lot sizes to keep out the riffraff. It’s not that poorer people could ever afford 980 Madison Avenue, but restricting new supply anywhere makes it more difficult for the city to accommodate demand, and that pushes up prices everywhere.
-
The land costs something, but in a 40-story building with one 1,200-square-foot unit per floor, each unit is using only 30 square feet of Manhattan—less than a thousandth of an acre. At those heights, the land costs become pretty small. If there were no restrictions on new construction, then prices would eventually come down to somewhere near construction costs, about $500,000 for a new apartment. That’s a lot more than the $210,000 that it costs to put up a 2,500-square-foot house in Houston—but a lot less than the $1 million or more that such an apartment often costs in Manhattan.
- 2 more annotation(s)...
Interesting (online & print) magazine about "the Built & Natural Environments" and where they intersect to create "soul." This particular issue (Nr. 25, Spring//Summer 2010) features an article about Victoria BC's Dockside Green development:
http://terrain.org/unsprawl/25/
This is an example of what should have happened in Victoria in regard to the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria's plans to move into a purpose-built gallery (designed by James Cheng), which would have been part of a single-tower residential redevelopment called Crystal Court, planned by Westbank Corp. The project was supposed to get built on Belleville Street in the heart of the Tourist District, in downtown Victoria. But it was essentially nixed from the start by the James Bay Neighbourhood Association (JBNA), which claims that block as part of its precinct. Consequently, city planners declined to support the developer's application for rezoning, and the project was still-born.
In Ottawa, meanwhile, forward-thinking city politicians are supporting a two 26-story residential tower development that will include a free-standing 2-story national portrait gallery.
Too bad the Federal government can't put any pressure to bear on the JBNA -- their idea to auction off the national portrait gallery certainly put the fires under Ottawa's seats, but hey-ho, here in Victoria we can resist all change. Boy oh boy, the city of Victoria really dropped the ball on the Crystal Court Development.
-
Claridge Homes has filed an application with the city for two 26-storey residential towers and a gallery designed by a leading architect to be built in a current parking lot between Lisgar, Nepean and Metcalfe streets in the heart of the downtown core.
-
The application and rezoning process usually take up to a year, but with the federal government's April 16 deadline for bids to host the gallery looming, the process is being crunched into to a matter of weeks.
- 4 more annotation(s)...
Crosscut's publisher, David Brewster, calls out the Seattle P-I and the Seattle Times for their gushing endorsements of two major downtown Seattle development proposals (Fifth Ave. twin condo towers by Ishmael Leyva Architects and, also on Fifth Ave., the United Methodist Church block by Zimmer Gunsul Frasca). Brewster points to the curious alliance btw developers and eco-density champions, which is wearing a bit thin in Vancouver, acc. to an article by Frances Bula, which Brewster references (see http://tinyurl.com/333ehj ). In Vancouver, there's talk of putting density & height in formerly sacrosanct areas, like Gastown & Chinatown, too. Some interesting comments showing up in the comments board, too.
-
-
We get a shower of superlatives: $900 million, according to the New York financiers, 550 feet tall, 200 hotel rooms, and 400-500 condos.
But not to worry: These massive buildings will be "designed for neighborhood," meaning shops along the streetfront. The developers, with the engaging name of Hummingbird Advisors, are going to take a pretty dead block and "make it into a vital, vibrant pedestrian area." Of course, much of the lower level will be a blank wall concealing hotel ballrooms, but that's OK because the Monorail already blocks those views. (The architects' drawing artfully turns the Monorail into gossamer.)
- 5 more annotation(s)...
"By relying on donations from suppliers, a Brampton developer has managed to build high-quality abodes for low-income families.
(...)
When the 16-storey "Chapelview" project, on John St. in downtown Brampton, is finished next year, it will provide 200 apartments for seniors and low-income singles as well as people with disabilities, and if all goes according to plan, it will earn LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification.
If he's successful, D'Angelo believes the Chapelview project, which includes a six-storey garage for municipal and tenant parking, will be the first high-rise social-housing project in North America to receive the LEED platinum rating, the highest benchmark for green building and design."
And then you wonder why this can't be done in more cities across Canada...?
-
Add Sticky Note
When the 16-storey "Chapelview" project, on John St. in downtown Brampton, is finished next year, it will provide 200 apartments for seniors and low-income singles as well as people with disabilities, and if all goes according to plan, it will earn LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification.
If he's successful, D'Angelo believes the Chapelview project, which includes a six-storey garage for municipal and tenant parking, will be the first high-rise social-housing project in North America to receive the LEED platinum rating, the highest benchmark for green building and design.
"He's really shooting for the moon here," says Stephen Kemp of Enermodal Engineering, a sustainable-building consulting firm. "For affordable housing, it's amazing."
Just as he has done on previous housing projects, Woodbridge resident D'Angelo, 53, will ensure the cupboards are stocked with donated food when the tenants move in, and each will be given a quart of paint and a brush for future touch-ups.
D'Angelo's overall mission is to create non-profit housing of quality and comfort, with better-than-basic finishings and appliances. To achieve that end, he persuades corporate sponsors and construction trades to donate upgrades or cash. So far D'Angelo's been promised $800,000 in upgrades and donations for Chapelview and is shooting for his goal of $3.2 million.
-
Yule Heibel on 2008-01-21- amazing! Simple, but brilliant and amazing.
-
-
Future tenants will also have better air quality, since each apartment will be fitted with its own ventilation system, and doorways will be weatherstripped so smoke and other odours don't penetrate the hallways. Carpeting and wood flooring that out-gas minimally will be used throughout, and the appliances will be energy-efficient, as will the plumbing.
- 7 more annotation(s)...
- relates to my blog entry Dec.23/07,"High Rents=Mamma's Boys?" Interesting comments thread, with many agreeing w/ article, others saying that it's not so bad. In either case, stagnation seems to be setting in (symptom of what?, political corruption?, more than that?). Sounds like a Donna Leon mystery come to life (as fiction, that's great, but as reality, that's not a compliment...).
One of the comments came from http://www.ilquiquiri.com/ who pointed to (his?) YouTube video of his region festering under the garbage strike (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6gpnIK-WY0) : very graphic.
-
Add Sticky Note
Yet, at home, Italians are consumed with a sense of domestic decline. “When an entire country goes into crisis over the ‘who are we and where are we going’ debate, it means we are reaching new heights of hysteria,” the writer Umberto Eco said. “This explosion of provincialism is truly painful. Personally I feel depressed.”
So do many of his fellow countrymen. There is a sense that while the past is Italy’s glory, it is also its prison, with politics and business dominated by a gerontocracy and the younger entrepreneurs and politicians held back.
-
Yule Heibel on 2007-12-27
- you can read/ understand Eco's comment as saying that the self-flagellation is "hysteria," is overblown, and is not based in reality (i.e., that he's contradicting the article's premise)
-
-
“The problem is that the leaders of our governing class are greybeards whereas, say, Spain’s are practically kids,” says Michele Salvati, a leading economist. At this year’s Miss Italia beauty contest, the contestants were all in their teens while the average age of the judges — who made headlines by arguing over whether a girl’s bottom should be judged part of her charm — was 70.
- 6 more annotation(s)...
Dutch landscape architect Adriaan Geuze's vision for T.O.'s waterfront: "The point must be that we won't have to live on the waterfront to feel at home there." In this article by Christopher Hume, some really interesting discussion (by Geuze) about cars, how they've taken over urban spaces, why all-pedestrian zones aren't necessarily a good idea ("scary at night"), and that cities today compete with one another.
-
Relax, Toronto, all is not lost; the wheels of change grind no slower here than in any other city.
So says Dutch landscape architect Adriaan Geuze, whose firm, West 8, is now redesigning the central waterfront in partnership with Toronto's DTAH.
"Bureaucratic resistance is normal," he says, smiling reassuringly. "It's the same everywhere."
-
Geuze and his team won an international competition last year to redesign the waterfront between Bathurst and Parliament Sts. It is a huge project, including the narrowing of Queens Quay from four lanes to two, the planting of thousands of trees, the construction of a boardwalk along the water's edge and bridges across various slips.
- 5 more annotation(s)...
-
Tom Blum, who leads a group called Neighbors Against Ramaz Tower, opposes this plan.
“It bothers us that a religious school is playing real estate games the way Donald Trump does,” Mr. Blum said, “not as they should be doing as a good neighbor.” He emphasized that there was unconditional support for building a new Ramaz school, but he said that the plan for a residential tower above it had come as a shock.
With the combined air rights, the tower would rise more than 100 feet above what the applicable zoning currently allows. Some neighbors, like Mr. Blum, are worried about losing their views, and although a number of local buildings are as tall as the proposed tower, few of them are midblock, as the synagogue and the school are.
Critics also say the synagogue is one of the city’s wealthiest, implying that a few hefty donations would render the residential tower unnecessary. But in the opinion of Rabbi Lookstein, the matter is not that simple. “There’s a limit to what people can give,” he said.
-
But what is intangible wealth, and how on earth is it measured? And what does it mean for the world's people—poor and rich? That's where the story gets even more interesting.
Two years ago the World Bank's environmental economics department set out to assess the relative contributions of various kinds of capital to economic development. Its study, "Where is the Wealth of Nations?: Measuring Capital for the 21st Century," began by defining natural capital as the sum of nonrenewable resources (including oil, natural gas, coal and mineral resources), cropland, pasture land, forested areas and protected areas. Produced, or built, capital is what many of us think of when we think of capital: the sum of machinery, equipment, and structures (including infrastructure) and urban land.
But once the value of all these are added up, the economists found something big was still missing: the vast majority of world's wealth! If one simply adds up the current value of a country's natural resources and produced, or built, capital, there's no way that can account for that country's level of income.
The rest is the result of "intangible" factors—such as the trust among people in a society, an efficient judicial system, clear property rights and effective government. All this intangible capital also boosts the productivity of labor and results in higher total wealth. In fact, the World Bank finds, "Human capital and the value of institutions (as measured by rule of law) constitute the largest share of wealth in virtually all countries."
Once one takes into account all of the world's natural resources and produced capital, 80% of the wealth of rich countries and 60% of the wealth of poor countries is of this intangible type. The bottom line: "Rich countries are largely rich because of the skills of their populations and the quality of the institutions supporting economic activity." -
the rule of law explains 57 percent of countries' intangible capital. Education accounts for 36 percent.
- 1 more annotation(s)...
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Top Contributors
Groups interested in developm...
-
Assignment 3: History of Western Astronomical Thought
A summary of Western astrono...
Items: 8 | Visits: 207
Created by: James Linzel
-
Rspec Intro
RSpec is a Behaviour Driven ...
Items: 11 | Visits: 236
Created by: Vincent Tsao
-
International Development
Items: 37 | Visits: 207
Created by: sussex cdec
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo