News & Discussion: Architecture, Planning & Urban Design

All other development discussion.
Message
Author
stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: #Article: Adelaide architects failing in top-end design

#61 Post by stumpjumper » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:31 am

It seems to me that there are several obstacles which tend to prevent good design triumphing over shite in Adelaide.

They can be summarised:

1. In commercial development - the owner/developer's desire for maximum net lettable floor area at lowest cost combined with statutory building requirements means that even before a building is built its form at least is almost set. For example, the building will be either concrete columns and floor plates or steel frame, depending which is cheaper at the time. The floor to floor height will be set by the minimum ceiling height plus the minimum floor plate thickness plus the minimum mechanical space above the suspended ceiling. The number of floors and the percentage of site covered will be set by the planning regulations. The structural design of the building will be based on a grid determined by the carpark requirements and the column size. For a four level building, the grid might be based on centre to centre dimension across three parking bay widths and the columns either side, meaning a grid of say 8400. This 8400 grid allows a 1200mm wide passageway and rooms either side of 3500mm square after allowance for partitions. The fire regs might determine 1000mm extensions of the floor plates in a concrete building beyond the windows between the floors to avoid the need for sprinklers etc. So we have the building floor area, height, construction method and basic external form decided before the 'designer' even does a preliminary sketch. What's left for the architect to do, in the case of one of these built to a price buildings? He or she can select the finishes (within the budget, of course), and maybe the door handles (subject to Australian Standards and the Disability Discrimination Act. Note to Shuz - the Seagram building in New York is a classic example not of this: Mies van der Rohe placed the building back on its site with a plaza in front. Whether the gift of space to the public was compensated by an extra height allowance on the smaller building footprint I don't know, but it was in any case a departure from the basic 'max floor area, sue the whole site' formula. As a result,the building is famous. The building itself is not what's remembered as being excellent design, it's the combination of the plaza and the building that does the trick. (See 'delight' below...)

2. The usual models of procurement have sidelined architects. This is partially the fault of the profession. Instead of the 'traditional' model in which the architect contracted to the client then the architect sub-contracted other consultants, for a number of reasons including fear of being sued, the separation of the various competencies required to deliver a modern building into separate consultancies and the rise of project management as a profession, the architect on large projects is now the design consultant at best on the same level as the electrical consultant, the vertical transport consultant, the HVAC consultant and all the others, the point being that the architect no longer has control of the project. It's hard to believe that architects have allowed this to happen. They've failed to defend their patch in the way that doctors and lawyers defend theirs. Architects have been too nice - they haven't been aggressive enough, but then they haven't had the basic protection that lawyers and doctors enjoy. Anyone can design a house for anyone else, but only a lawyer can appear in court for you, and only a doctor can take out your appendix.

3. There seems to be an unhelpful culture in Adelaide in which people generally don't value good design. In Melbourne, for example, where Prof Ian McDougal spent much of his working career, if you are building a house people might say 'Oh, great, what architect are you using?' whereas in Adelaide it's more likely to be 'Oh, my brother-in-law used an architect for their place and what a disaster, the wanker.... and it cost....' etc. No appreciation of the advantages of good design. Everyone in Adelaide, some seem to think, has the expertise of an architect - 'After all, I live in a house, of course I can design one'. Yet the same people would never question the need for a doctor, an accountant, or mechanic, despite their familiarity with the subject matter. Less than 3% of residential design in SA is the work of an architect. Unfortunately, the RAIA (now the AIA) is limited by funds and to an extent by policy in the help it can give to its members in promoting the use of architects to the community. Instead of celebrating good design and critiquing bad design, it tends to simply look after its own. Some years ago I raised a design issue about the Wine Centre, and was told that the RAIA could not say anything publicly about the building because one of its members was involved in the design. The RAIA's annual design awards are for members only, and are chosen from designs submitted by those members. Some offices spend a lot of time on presentation of their award submissions, while others don't have the time or labor to apply to that sort of work. And now, more than ever, the architects' professional body needs to spread the word that using an architect is not for silvertails only, is sound environmental practice among other things and can even save you money or get you a better result for the money.

4. This is my opinion anyway - all of the above combines to make architects too tentative about proposing if not off the wall or overly heroic design solutions then at least imaginative ones. They want to be paid and they're usually very time sensitive, so they tend to propose what they're fairly sure the client will accept, and pay for.

Finally, and generally, the same problem has existed for thousands of years. There is a historical complaint about his architect by a client in classical Greece - too slow, too expensive, too keen on his own ideas etc.

But there are also the writings of Vitruvius, often paraphrased by later writers on design: the best architecture has 'firmness, utility and delight'.

Firmness is easy - the building can easily be made strong enough to not fall down and built so that it won't leak. Any engineer can do that. 8)

Utility - the building must be fit for the purpose - enough floor space, light, ceiling height etc for the use.

An engineer might stop there. If the structure is well built and able to fulfil its function, what else is there?

There's delight - the indefinable amalgam of ingredients that gives the owner, user or just the viewer of the building real pleasure. The Sydney Opera House has it, for example, as do many other well-designed structures. Think of your 'favourite house'. Might that not have 'delight' designed into it?

That's what you pay for with good design. If we don't value it, we might as well set up an algorithm to design our buildings, using the minimum material to achieve a useful configuration.

Little boxes, little boxes...

So what do we do? Our state government could take a lead, for a start. No more farming out big jobs to prestigious overseas or interstate firms (see cult, cargo and cringe, regional cultural). We have the design expertise here. If it's not as highly developed by use as it is elsewhere, then the only way we will develop the expertise here is to give it some locals a go. Forget the fear of failure. In Melbourne, where there is a strong design culture, the thinking is do it - if it's a disaster, undo it, or don't do it again. Look at the famous 'Yellow Peril' sculpture. It was built at public cost and was a brave effort by the sculptor. People hated it, and it was eventually moved to a discreet spot near the Yarra but not actually in it. But it didn't stop the enthusiasm for design. Melbourne had moved on, and was constructing Federation Square. In Adelaide, we'd still be arguing about whether or not we should build the Yellow Peril at all.

Good design is cool. We value it in fashion, in cars and in many other areas of life. Why not the built environment?

It doesn't have to cost more, but it still takes extra effort, but people have to be convincedn that the the extra effort brings results.
Last edited by stumpjumper on Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:29 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Prince George
Legendary Member!
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Melrose Park

Re: #Article: Adelaide architects failing in top-end design

#62 Post by Prince George » Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:11 pm

The Seagram building predates New York's incentive zoning schemes. In fact, incentive zoning was introduced after the popular success of the Seagram Plaza, in an attempt to replicate it. I recollect that there's a lengthy discussion of the Seagram Plaza and incentive zoning (and its failures) in William Whyte's City: rediscovering the center. It's likely that the plaza exists because of a combination of Rohe's desire for a certain aesthetic about the shape of the building and the zoning in effect back then: he strongly favoured simple shapes like the rectangle, the 1916 building ordinance prevented a sheer rectangle rising from the edge of the footpath, Rohe prefers to move the whole building back rather than not use a Platonic shape. Certainly, he had no intention of making a public space with the plaza, IIRC he expressed surprise that people were using it; he didn't even include seating.

Regarding your second point on the architect's role and the procurement process, I've just been reading some of Christopher Alexander's The nature of order - A vision of a living world. He presents a form of contractual arrangement that he calls "program budgeting":
The essence of this new type of architectural construction contract lies in the following points:
  1. The price is fixed.
  2. What is agreed is only the building outline and the rough plan.
  3. The object is to build the best possible building for the given sum.
  4. This is made possible by holding price fixed, by giving the architect-builder the right to re-distribute the funds continuously within the buillding operations and changing designs as the building, construction and its evolving changes go forward.
  5. Modifications unfold as the construction of the building goes forward. Changes in plan, section, interior space, exterior construction, details and ornaments are made continuously thoughout construction by the architect and builder, without change orders.
  6. The construction is run under a fixed percentage management contract with open books.
  7. Sinces the builder's money is fixed, there is no incentive to reduce quality in order to gain profit.
  8. The builder has obligation and discretion to discuss with the client as the building unfolds, but the builder's decision is final
(I changed the order of the points a little for emphasis) Even though I'm a fan of him and his work, I could imagine this running into huge opposition. Who is going to bankroll a project that has no guaranteed outcome beyond "making the best building possible"? Would a council approve a rough-outline of a building, would a community accept approving it?

But I also like his comparison with, say, cooking. You don't try to cook a souffle by describing exactly the finished souffle that you want -- the height that it rises, the location of the pockets of air, the colour of the crust -- and then try to chase exactly that abstraction. Instead, you follow a recipe, which is a process you know will generate a souffle that is roughly like the one in the photo. You don't get exactly what was pictured, but when the recipe is right and the cook is suitably skilled, you're still going to get the result that you wanted.

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: #Article: Adelaide architects failing in top-end design

#63 Post by stumpjumper » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:07 am

I didn’t know that about the Seagram Building, Prince George. It makes sense, though. From what you say, the 1916 regs would have encouraged a plinth of a few stories with the rest of the building set back on it.

Christopher Alexander’s concepts (I’d recommend ‘A Pattern Language’ by Alexander, too) are are a good circuit-breaker for entrenched ideas about building procurement. But imho like some of the good intentions of the Arts and Crafts movement (such as the idea of honestly-made goods for all, when the hand-made goods in question were so expensive that only the very rich could afford them) Alexander’s ‘autonomous building’ – design and construction by occupant - methods have their limitations in scale and cost, if not quality. A good recent successful although limited example of autonomous building is the Kunst Haus in Vienna by artist/architect Hundertwasser, where occupants were given paint and paintbrushes and asked to attack the interiors and exteriors of the building. We could have had something like it in Adelaide’s East End, but that’s another story. So is Hundertwasser's last design being a public lavatory in rural New Zealand.

As to fixed price construction – imho it’s a noble idea which has the potential to result in unwelcome compromises – eg building down to a price, especially given the volatility of some building components like steel and the difficulty of locking in a supply price considering the time taken to progress from design through approval to construction. Under our present system of approval, intended to ensure sound, safe and healthy buildings, it’s just not possible to go from rough plan and building outline to commencement. Given that constraint, and helped by Australia’s generally good weather, our competitive sub-contract system goes a long way to keeping down the cost of construction. Supported by sub-contracting, the Australian project building system can provide at its best well-designed and built homes for a very reasonable price. Further, the idea that under the system you describe the builder has no incentive to cut quality to increase profit may be overtaken by the need to cut quality to at least finish the building!
But I also like his comparison with, say, cooking. You don't try to cook a souffle by describing exactly the finished souffle that you want -- the height that it rises, the location of the pockets of air, the colour of the crust -- and then try to chase exactly that abstraction. Instead, you follow a recipe, which is a process you know will generate a souffle that is roughly like the one in the photo. You don't get exactly what was pictured, but when the recipe is right and the cook is suitably skilled, you're still going to get the result that you wanted.
That’s almost a description of performance-based building specification. Instead of being prescriptive about, say, a fireproof wall, requiring it to be constructed from x thickness of y material, the wall simply has to achieve for example a two hour burn rating. You can make the wall out of donuts if you can demonstrate the required performance.

User avatar
Prince George
Legendary Member!
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Melrose Park

Re: #Article: Adelaide architects failing in top-end design

#64 Post by Prince George » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:12 pm

The 1916 ordinances would have made the Seagram more of a stepped design if it was going to maximise the leasable space, like the Rockerfeller Center, for example. It proscribed a "maximum building envelope" along each block, best documented in Hugh Ferris's famous illustration.

Now, I don't want to turn this into a thread about Alexander, but ... oh, what the heck.

Many, many people pickup A pattern language and leave Christopher Alexander there; it's a bit like reading The Hobbit and not carrying on to The Lord of the Rings -- it's a seminal book, but only part of the story. Basically he became a little dispirited by the results of some of the projects that he worked on: they were good, as far as they went, but they lacked enough of the "quality without a name" that he was chasing. One of the things that he picked up on was that the occupants didn't have the same sense for the geometry and details that his team had (you can debate whether that was just elitist posturing or if it was because they really do benefit from greater experience).

So Alexander's methods changed, in particular to focus on the role of the architect/builder to care, really care, about all the details of the project and to produce something beautiful. You'll notice that in that set of contractual criteria that I quoted earlier, the "participatory design" stuff is almost absent; it's still part of his method to work with all the stakeholders, but now the architect/builder is the fundamental authority. From what I have seen, Alexander is demanding on his clients (in the broadest sense of his clients); he expects them to work at reflecting on their building the way that he is, rather than just hand a design over for a 'yes' or 'no' from an otherwise passive client.

And he has worked in this manner for more than 20 years now, and has produced buildings in the USA, the UK, and Japan(Emoto apartments, the Eishin campus - here's a description of the process), who all presumably have planning restrictions and an interest in "sound, safe and healthy buildings" that are similar to our own. These projects, by the way, were run with budgets in millions of dollars; rather more than the low-cost housing that he's frequently associated with.

If I may say, the conventional building system is inherently a fixed-price system: there is a figure that the developer will make every effort not to exceed; it may be more than the initial quotes, but it is still there and when that figure looms, corners get cut. What developer was ever compelled to build exactly the one that they showed in their renders? The difference here is that the (unspoken) arrangement is that the developer will build the building they showed if that can be done for less than their magic value (and keep that difference), and will build something else if they can't; and these choices might be made by the architect, but as likely by the developer, or some of the subcontractors. Alexander's method is to forego the charade of promising exactly this or that building, and instead to promise a certain amount of investment in the building, with the responsibility for deploying all those resources resting with the architect.

*ahem* and that's enough meandering off topic for one day

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: #Article: Adelaide architects failing in top-end design

#65 Post by stumpjumper » Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:16 pm

I'm still thinking about Mies using Platonic solids. I'd always thought that his liking for clear, rectangular forms was due in some way to his being the son of a stonemason - not genetic, but from exposure to common stone forms, but you never know. People thought Gertrude Jekyll had discovered a new aesthetic in gardening with her freeform, merging shapes. Then she admitted at the end of her career that she had always had bad eyesight, and that things had always looked a bit fuzzy to her. It's a bit like an admiring interviewer discovering that T S Eliot smoked Kool cigarettes. I read the interview and for some reason that bit of ordinariness on the part of his hero upset the reviewer quite a lot.

As to Alexander and building with the close participation of the client and designing what I would call holistically - where every component and even the contents (non-human) of the building are in harmony with the whole design, perhaps Frank Lloyd Wright and C R Mackintosh among others are exponents of that too. Both often designed the furniture, fabrics, light fittings and even the cutlery. You'd like to think that these elements, while the product of the architect's drawing board, were at least developed in close consultation with the client. It's interesting that the work of FLW (certainly) and CRM (possibly?) showed a strong oriental influence.

Alexander had an influence on the methodology of problem solving in computer programming too, I believe. I'd like to have the time to look into that further. I wish I knew enough about Alexander to have a good debate.

One of the most satisfying design jobs I've ever had was simultaneously designing and building the interior of a hairdresser's salon. Working with flexible sheets and creating the shape of counters and dividers as we went, with the client discussing user requirements and the carpenter and I manipulating the material until we got the right shape. No council approval or building standards involved at that level.

I'm still wondering about the ideal developer/architect/builder/client formulae and how Alexander's methods would maximise the outcome for all parties.

User avatar
AG
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:44 am
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 20 times

#Article: Architecture ripe for new-age makeover

#66 Post by AG » Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:29 am

Architecture ripe for new-age makeover
Article from: The Advertiser
RUSSELL EMMERSON
October 02, 2009 12:01am

ADELAIDE has reached a "tipping point" and is ready to make design a political issue in 2010.

The Advertiser understands the current Thinker in Residence, Laura Lee, will have an active role in a government-sponsored design committee to be established next year.

The committee would directly address issues previously raised by Professor Lee, who said this year that debate over the redevelopment of Victoria Square was flawed because it focused on details without engaging key interest groups.

Professor Lee would not rule out returning to Adelaide after the end of her residency to oversee the new design council.

"I would just acknowledge that I am extremely invested in the work that I've done here and I see great promise for it in the future," she said.

"At the moment I'm really focused on making really robust recommendations on what I've learnt."

WHAT CHANGES ARE NEEDED TO ADELAIDE'S APPROACH TO DESIGN? Have your say in the comment box below.

The council, which will probably be a key recommendation of Professor Lee's residency but must still be approved by the State Government, is expected to take an active role in approving public building designs and other planning issues.

Hassell chairman Ken Maher said there was scope for a change in Adelaide's approach to design. "Generally speaking, design is not on the political agenda . . . but we get the cities we deserve," he said.

"The more sophisticated the debate, the more likely it is there will be a better outcome, whether that is about politics or urban design."

Mr Maher, who was awarded architecture's highest honour this year for shaping Sydney, said earlier this year that Adelaide's future was being held back by mindless bickering, with major projects, such as the new Adelaide Hospital and Bowden Village, being tests for the city's future.

Professor Lee said South Australia perhaps offered some of the best opportunities for the next generation of designers to meet those challenges.

"It has shown some global leadership in environmental sustainability and... there's also a history of social innovation," she said.

"You have real landscape diversity . . . so there are unique conditions and assets here that make this a particularly rich place to play out those issues," she said.

User avatar
Shuz
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Glandore

Re: #Article: Architecture ripe for new-age makeover

#67 Post by Shuz » Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:43 am

Bout' bloody time it becomes a political issue. Adelaide has some real gems of architecture from centuries past, but has over time has digested itself into a state of mediocrity. The architecture of today is far from provocative and innovative, and even some of our most "challenging" designs, really are quite standard of quality produced in other cities.

Brilliant architecture and design of the modern day is reflected in the works of Sydney's Macquarie Bank HQ, or Melbourne's Recital Centre to name couple of examples. European examples have proved time and time again, history is best complimented with leading-edge design of its day. The Louvre Pyramid of Paris, in particular strongly reflects this statement.

User avatar
Prince George
Legendary Member!
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Melrose Park

Re: #Article: Architecture ripe for new-age makeover

#68 Post by Prince George » Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:08 pm

Shuz wrote:European examples have proved time and time again, history is best complimented with leading-edge design of its day. The Louvre Pyramid of Paris, in particular strongly reflects this statement.
Actually, we could do with chosing other comparison points. I. M. Pei's pyramidal addition was pretty controversial. The project was one of Francois Mitterand's megalomaniac vanity pieces that he personally had built across Fance, asserting himself as some sort of contemporary Napoleon. By putting the pyramid in front of the Louvre, he was also inserting himself in front of the Louis who had built and elaborated the palace itself.

Let's take Norman Foster's Reichstag or the Musee d'Orsay instead.

User avatar
Prince George
Legendary Member!
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Melrose Park

Age friendly cities

#69 Post by Prince George » Mon May 10, 2010 12:15 pm

From ABC radio's Life Matters, a discussion of the implications of our aging populations on how we design our cities. It makes a very good point that accomodating the elderly involves thinking that is good for everyone, not just the over 70s, and it's important to see this in that light. We're not talking about everyone making massive concessions, we're talking about making positive changes for a whole range of different people.
Age friendly cities

The number of Australians aged over 65 is set to double in the next 40 years, but are our cities set up and designed to deal with greater numbers of older people?

As we hear in this discussion, it's not just practical improvements like more seats and public toilets, it's attitudes towards ageing and older people that need to change too.

To talk about what makes an age friendly city are Dr John Beard, Director of the World Health Organisation's Department of Ageing and Life Course; Barbara Squires, General Manager for Ageing for the Benevolent Society; and, Professor Hal Kendig, Research Professor of Ageing and Health at the University of Sydney.

All three were speakers at the IFA 10th Global Conference on Ageing held from 3-6 May 2010 in Melbourne
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/ ... 9_0936.mp3

vik_man
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Age friendly cities

#70 Post by vik_man » Tue May 11, 2010 10:24 pm

does any city want to be known as "age-friendly" though?

it's not as if attracting more elderly is going to give any economic benefit

User avatar
Prince George
Legendary Member!
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Melrose Park

Re: Age friendly cities

#71 Post by Prince George » Wed May 12, 2010 8:33 am

vik_man wrote:does any city want to be known as "age-friendly" though?

it's not as if attracting more elderly is going to give any economic benefit
Did you actually listen to the recording? The things that they were talking about - reducing single-use suburbs, making our neighbourhoods easier to move around and reducing car-dependence, providing a variety of housing options (detached houses through to apartments), etc etc - are good ideas for a lot more than just the over 70s.

Remember, it's not a matter of attracting the aging, it's of dealing with the fact that life expectancy is steadily rising, our birth-rate is falling, and our population is getting older whether we like it or not.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 130 times

Re: Age friendly cities

#72 Post by Wayno » Wed May 12, 2010 11:07 am

"Age Friendly" should not be interpreted to mean "Old Age Friendly". People with younger age need a friendly city too!

This is a complex multi-faceted topic, and is heavily reliant upon how we architect our urban spaces.

In my opinion, the ultimate city/community is one that encourages & enables connections & interactions between people of similar age, and across ages as well. It is a city where people benefit by 'staying put in their local community' for the vast majority of their lives without social/physical isolation as a result. The attitude marketed to Australians is that you must move to different accommodation (often outside your established community large distances away) as you age - pfft! all this achieves is increased isolation across generations - effectively working against the fabric of a rich society.

As an example, I believe New York has the longest 'stay put' factor of any US city (i read an article on this many moons ago - can't find it now). This 'long in-situ tenure' of NY residents is probably because of it's compact nature with literally everything you need (materially & socially) being at your doorstep or only a short walk/taxi/subway ride away.

For Adelaide, i think we are already reasonably 'age friendly' (again, not just thinking about older people), but we could become increasingly so by providing more living choice options (Burbs vs TODs), improving public transport, and by encouraging more people to socialise in the streetscape.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Age friendly cities

#73 Post by AtD » Wed May 12, 2010 12:01 pm

Of course people should move though their life. Everyone justifies a suburban home as a place to raise kids, but most suburban homes have no kids at all. Our stamp duty system is inductive to people not moving, which leads to DINKs buying suburban houses rather than something smaller because they intend to start a family in the future, and then empty nesters keeping their big family home they no longer need. This is why Australia has a housing shortage dispute the fact we have such low room occupancy.

New York's high long tenures are probably more to do with their rent control system, which gives a financial disincentive to move.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 130 times

Re: Age friendly cities

#74 Post by Wayno » Wed May 12, 2010 1:18 pm

AtD wrote:Of course people should move though their life. Everyone justifies a suburban home as a place to raise kids...
point taken AtD. My message was unclear - so i changed just a few words in my previous post. My point about 'staying put' does not preclude moving house, but is more recognition that an 'all ages friendly' city/community provides living options that enable you to adjust as lifestyle demands but remain local & connected.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
Prince George
Legendary Member!
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: Melrose Park

Urbanism and business

#75 Post by Prince George » Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:58 pm

You know that urbanism's time has come when the Harvard Business Review is talking about it (to be fair, the HBR has a healthy range of interesting articles on all sorts of subjects). This article though talks about an important change in the dynamics of population changes, and the implications for businesses:

Back to the City
United Air Lines is set to move its operational headquarters, starting this year, from the Illinois suburb of Elk Grove to downtown Chicago. Quicken Loans, also citybound, recently began leasing space in Detroit and plans to build its headquarters there. And in February, Walgreens announced its acquisition of New York drugstore chain Duane Reade, signaling a deliberate decision to improve its capabilities in urban settings.

These companies are getting a jump on a major cultural and demographic shift away from suburban sprawl. The change is imminent, and businesses that don’t understand and plan for it may suffer in the long run.

To put it simply, the suburbs have lost their sheen: Both young workers and retiring Boomers are actively seeking to live in densely packed, mixed-use communities that don’t require cars—that is, cities or revitalized outskirts in which residences, shops, schools, parks, and other amenities exist close together. “In the 1950s, suburbs were the future,” says University of Michigan architecture and urban-planning professor Robert Fishman, commenting on the striking cultural shift. “The city was then seen as a dingy environment. But today it’s these urban neighborhoods that are exciting and diverse and exploding with growth.”

...

In the last U.S. census, almost two-thirds (64%) of college-educated 25- to 34-year-olds said they looked for a job after they chose the city where they wanted to live. That suggests that businesses like Quicken Loans are on to something: Move in and help build up urban neighborhoods, the argument goes, because that’s what will draw the talent.

For example, CEOs for Cities president Carol Coletta says that by supporting education in cities, companies not only help improve the prospects of entrants to the workforce but also enhance the overall value of the city and hence its attractiveness as a place for people to live and work. CEOs for Cities research suggests that increasing the proportion of residents with four-year-college degrees in the 51 largest metropolitan areas by only one percentage point would be associated with a $124 billion spike in aggregate annual per capita income.

“Increasingly CEOs understand that without a vibrant central city, their region becomes less competitive,” says Coletta. “Good CEOs care about the fate of their cities, because they have to question whether that is the place where they can attract the talent they need."
That change - graduates first choosing their city and then finding a job - is hugely important. This is almost a case of the tail wagging the dog; in the past the majority of people chose their job and then went where that job required them to be. If that trend holds, it means that there's a completely different priority needed for a city like Adelaide. Instead of chasing businesses (defence contractors, mining) for them to in turn attract people, you could opt instead to focus on the people that you want in the city. Build the city that appeals to them directly, bring them to you, and businesses look to follow them there.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest