Car manufacturers had a problem in the 1950's. A car can last for twenty years or more, how can they get people to buy a car more often? Well, Brook Stevens came up with a solution and called it planned obsolescence. To this day, this is a rather maligned concept to those who don't actively employ it.
Now, this isn't the idea that things simply fall apart after a given of time. Rather, you plan to make things look and feel old. It's a design issue. Each year you make a thing incrementally smaller, bigger, or different in evolution. The idea isn't to force people to give up their things, but to make it instantly recognisable when the thing came out. That way, the same features are both a selling point when it's new and a reason to get a new thing when it's old.
In the 1950's, it was the car fins. Today, it's most obvious in Apple Products where new versions come out every year or so with an incremental change in features and size. The original concept held that the incremental change is the primary driver in new purchases, but the fact that the model and year is immediately visible positively incentivize the decision to upgrade and penalizes the decision to use out of date models just because of the way we interact with one another.
The thing everyone thinks of, the redesign of things to wear out faster, is a poor substitute pursued by industries that cannot effectively vary the look of their product. Originally seen in things like light bulbs, this methodology cannibalizes their own sales if anyone breaks ranks and maintain quality in spite of their competition.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Car Communication
Road Rage is a thing. Walking Rage isn't. Why? People can communicate non-verbally when walking much better than they can through cars. Today, for example, I wound up cutting off a bus since the bus just let someone off at a sometimes bus stop and then had to immediately make a left at a light. This involved getting over two lanes. I was just trying to make a left, and assumed that the bus was only going to pull out into either of the straight lanes.
I felt like a dumb ass. I wish there was a "sorry" or an "I'm a dumb ass" button I could press that would communicate my actual feelings. But, I didn't so I'm pretty sure that I came off like a raging dick who didn't care that I had essentially lept into the bus' path and thereby forcing it to wait through a red light.
I find that comes up pretty often. Someone does something stupid or aggressive when driving and I kind of assume that they're just being a dick about it. I think that a few of them weren't trying to be dicks about it, much like I didn't intend to cut off a bus. The problem is that jerks exist. I want to react appropriately, but when I can't tell the difference because they can't tell me.
When walking and someone blunders, they look like they are embarrassed or sorry about it. Or they don't, and then I know they are a dick. I wish there was something, anything, that could mimic that interaction when strapped into the multi-ton frame that is a car.
I felt like a dumb ass. I wish there was a "sorry" or an "I'm a dumb ass" button I could press that would communicate my actual feelings. But, I didn't so I'm pretty sure that I came off like a raging dick who didn't care that I had essentially lept into the bus' path and thereby forcing it to wait through a red light.
I find that comes up pretty often. Someone does something stupid or aggressive when driving and I kind of assume that they're just being a dick about it. I think that a few of them weren't trying to be dicks about it, much like I didn't intend to cut off a bus. The problem is that jerks exist. I want to react appropriately, but when I can't tell the difference because they can't tell me.
When walking and someone blunders, they look like they are embarrassed or sorry about it. Or they don't, and then I know they are a dick. I wish there was something, anything, that could mimic that interaction when strapped into the multi-ton frame that is a car.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
A talk about housing
I believe that we are paying far too much attention to concepts of class in housing needs. There are many discussions about affordable housing, sustainable housing, and transit oriented housing. But one thing I read a while ago that really stuck with me. It was talking about the fact that the vast majority of Americans who are wealthy enough to consider moving end up with a very weak sense of place. How is this not a bigger issue?
Don't get me wrong, the discussions we are having about housing are important. Many people who move to those areas of the United States where they can take home more pay for the same job find housing costs so high in those areas that they wind up little better than they were before, so new ideas to help establish affordable housing without heavy handed government action like price controls would be most welcome. Many people who do not live in cities quickly find that their choices in how to get around is cars and also cars, suburbs were created partially to provide a choice that is different from either farm or major city but suburbs themselves also require more choice for those who are young, poor, or suffering from mechanical problem. Sustainability can be rather important, but I am sure that there are better folks than I to belabor that point. My point is that there is something that we aren't talking about, and that is that place sort of thing.
Many people when they reach the age where they want to move out of their parent's house find that there is nothing they can possibly afford in the neighborhood they grew up. This tends to be because the houses are too big, too expensive, or too far from work or school. This is simply because the needs and resources of a single person change significantly over time. A young man or woman moving out on their own needs little more space than a dorm room with an attached bathroom and kitchenette. They don't need a free standing house. A young man or woman moving out on their own for the first time also tends to be working in entry level positions, living off student loans, or working a couple of part time jobs. This doesn't lend itself to large housing bills. A couple of building that offer housing like this in a low rise higher density format close to the center of commercial activity and education in the area. These buildings lend themselves to mass transit options and mixed use with some commercial space in the same building, and with some early planning it should be easier to design it with sustainability in mind than single family housing units for a similar number of people.
As that person ages their wants and resources changes. In ten years or so that person is entering the main element of his or her earning potential and has been accumulating stuff. That first apartment would tend to be too small and possibly too close to the noise and bustle nightlife and commercial activity. The pattern doesn't need to be all that different or a lower density option like town homes, just a bigger space that doesn't share space with louder uses a little ways farther from the commercial heart of the community. Transit is less important because it is far more likely that the individual in question would be capable of supporting a car, but again an integration with mass transit is an easy win for the design of the community allowing people the choice of car rather than assuming it. If the individual remains a working professional this may be the last kind of housing that they need.
Many people like the single family home, and once they start having children they strongly value the privacy, land ownership, quiet, and control that the single family homes offer relative to other housing options. Schools, also, are essential to this decision. While that first house is concerned with post-secondary education, it really isn't all that important to have a strong local school system, the second house has a stronger emphasis on the local school system but primarily in so far as it relates to how it inflates or depresses the price. This stage is where schools become important, maybe even the factor. This is the largest, most expensive, and least predicated on mass transit options that the housing option is going get. The existing suburban model suits this set of wants rather effectively.
Yet, all those things the large floor space, the yard, the high quality schools, and the distance that creates the quiet and control become liabilities as this person ages. You never stop paying for the size of the house even after you pay off the loan, property taxes rarely drop especially in areas with a well funded school system. In order be sure of silence you need a large block of low density use and that normally is same use, so while noise and strangers are kept at arms length so are things like medical care and low density makes it hard or impossible for mass transit to substitute for a car if a person suffers a mechanical failure or a health problem that makes the car unfeasible. As children leave it can make a great deal of sense to move into a smaller, more dense setting especially if the area is designed for the elderly. Housing dedicated to the elderly also has the ability to eliminate that school tax on a property, that's a huge proportion of local taxes and it's reasonably safe for a community to do this because it's incredibly unlikely that the elderly will put a burden on the school system.
All that being said, building this progression everywhere simply won't work. It is predicated on a number of assumption. First, is that there is a dense commercial core a main street or a regional mall, after all mass transit cannot be an option if it cannot put someone in easy walking distance of both employment and shopping so very low density suburbs and rural areas are unlikely to support the first home apartments. The second assumption is that the local character of the community wouldn't be altered by high density development, after all nothing breaks up small town charm quite like a small sky scraper sandwiched between historic buildings on a historic square. The third assumption is that the density is low enough to allow for single family homes at all, New York and San Francisco have progressions all their own. Anyone looking at their community needs to be very careful about development, because each one has something special and unique that needs to be nurtured and protected. After all, the health and future of a community depends upon those things that make it unique.
That being said, I think that it is a way to layer the market to better address questions about transit options and affordability. Too often, discussions about affordable housing feels like it breaks down into "where do we hide the poor people". That, I feel, is the wrong way to go about it. After all, everyone is poor, relatively speaking, when they are very young or very old. So, in providing housing for the young and old you are reducing competition for low cost housing and providing a geographic areas where lower income housing is considered acceptable. If this is infill development it creates a market for and a small area where transit can thrive. Connect that transit alternative to other, existing networks and you have a core of transit that can be expanded upon later should density increase in the future.
So, how do you include low-income high density housing with parking access in a way that preserves local flavor? I believe that the answer is to have a relatively small footprint on the overall property and the inclusion of public space. By replacing a large parking lot with a parking deck built around a transit spot with a green belt, a wooded area or parkland, is a very effective way to preserve a larger area by segregating a smaller interior area. This also counteracts the property value hit that higher density develop can deal to existing low density property. Including space earmarked for something that highlights or celebrates the unique part of the community such as a museum, local gallery, or community center is a good choice for an apartment for young professionals. A theater, outdoor concert space, a movie screen, or other artistic or entertainment venue is a good addition to the general commercial space because they can readily generate walking traffic between parking, the art/entertainment, and the green space. While segregating incompatible uses and diverse densities is necessary, it is also important to ensure that people have reason to interact and exist in the same public space. The goal isn't to create a new community, but provide for choice and diversity in an existing one. Maximizing exposure for unique local assets like artists, historical artifacts and structures, and community organizations doesn't hurt either.
This probably should be expanded into a well researched book or maybe a thesis, but I would rather focus on the quality of a community and building up the chance for people to stay at home when they move away than trying to reduce everyone to a stereotype based on income levels. There are something like 10,000 localities in the United States, each one is unique and few of them provide the opportunity to find housing choices well tailored to their needs at each stage of life. While people are muddling for solution to affordable housing or transit options as though they are separate issues, I would argue that both are symptomatic of a weak theory for what people need out of homes.
Don't get me wrong, the discussions we are having about housing are important. Many people who move to those areas of the United States where they can take home more pay for the same job find housing costs so high in those areas that they wind up little better than they were before, so new ideas to help establish affordable housing without heavy handed government action like price controls would be most welcome. Many people who do not live in cities quickly find that their choices in how to get around is cars and also cars, suburbs were created partially to provide a choice that is different from either farm or major city but suburbs themselves also require more choice for those who are young, poor, or suffering from mechanical problem. Sustainability can be rather important, but I am sure that there are better folks than I to belabor that point. My point is that there is something that we aren't talking about, and that is that place sort of thing.
Many people when they reach the age where they want to move out of their parent's house find that there is nothing they can possibly afford in the neighborhood they grew up. This tends to be because the houses are too big, too expensive, or too far from work or school. This is simply because the needs and resources of a single person change significantly over time. A young man or woman moving out on their own needs little more space than a dorm room with an attached bathroom and kitchenette. They don't need a free standing house. A young man or woman moving out on their own for the first time also tends to be working in entry level positions, living off student loans, or working a couple of part time jobs. This doesn't lend itself to large housing bills. A couple of building that offer housing like this in a low rise higher density format close to the center of commercial activity and education in the area. These buildings lend themselves to mass transit options and mixed use with some commercial space in the same building, and with some early planning it should be easier to design it with sustainability in mind than single family housing units for a similar number of people.
As that person ages their wants and resources changes. In ten years or so that person is entering the main element of his or her earning potential and has been accumulating stuff. That first apartment would tend to be too small and possibly too close to the noise and bustle nightlife and commercial activity. The pattern doesn't need to be all that different or a lower density option like town homes, just a bigger space that doesn't share space with louder uses a little ways farther from the commercial heart of the community. Transit is less important because it is far more likely that the individual in question would be capable of supporting a car, but again an integration with mass transit is an easy win for the design of the community allowing people the choice of car rather than assuming it. If the individual remains a working professional this may be the last kind of housing that they need.
Many people like the single family home, and once they start having children they strongly value the privacy, land ownership, quiet, and control that the single family homes offer relative to other housing options. Schools, also, are essential to this decision. While that first house is concerned with post-secondary education, it really isn't all that important to have a strong local school system, the second house has a stronger emphasis on the local school system but primarily in so far as it relates to how it inflates or depresses the price. This stage is where schools become important, maybe even the factor. This is the largest, most expensive, and least predicated on mass transit options that the housing option is going get. The existing suburban model suits this set of wants rather effectively.
Yet, all those things the large floor space, the yard, the high quality schools, and the distance that creates the quiet and control become liabilities as this person ages. You never stop paying for the size of the house even after you pay off the loan, property taxes rarely drop especially in areas with a well funded school system. In order be sure of silence you need a large block of low density use and that normally is same use, so while noise and strangers are kept at arms length so are things like medical care and low density makes it hard or impossible for mass transit to substitute for a car if a person suffers a mechanical failure or a health problem that makes the car unfeasible. As children leave it can make a great deal of sense to move into a smaller, more dense setting especially if the area is designed for the elderly. Housing dedicated to the elderly also has the ability to eliminate that school tax on a property, that's a huge proportion of local taxes and it's reasonably safe for a community to do this because it's incredibly unlikely that the elderly will put a burden on the school system.
All that being said, building this progression everywhere simply won't work. It is predicated on a number of assumption. First, is that there is a dense commercial core a main street or a regional mall, after all mass transit cannot be an option if it cannot put someone in easy walking distance of both employment and shopping so very low density suburbs and rural areas are unlikely to support the first home apartments. The second assumption is that the local character of the community wouldn't be altered by high density development, after all nothing breaks up small town charm quite like a small sky scraper sandwiched between historic buildings on a historic square. The third assumption is that the density is low enough to allow for single family homes at all, New York and San Francisco have progressions all their own. Anyone looking at their community needs to be very careful about development, because each one has something special and unique that needs to be nurtured and protected. After all, the health and future of a community depends upon those things that make it unique.
That being said, I think that it is a way to layer the market to better address questions about transit options and affordability. Too often, discussions about affordable housing feels like it breaks down into "where do we hide the poor people". That, I feel, is the wrong way to go about it. After all, everyone is poor, relatively speaking, when they are very young or very old. So, in providing housing for the young and old you are reducing competition for low cost housing and providing a geographic areas where lower income housing is considered acceptable. If this is infill development it creates a market for and a small area where transit can thrive. Connect that transit alternative to other, existing networks and you have a core of transit that can be expanded upon later should density increase in the future.
So, how do you include low-income high density housing with parking access in a way that preserves local flavor? I believe that the answer is to have a relatively small footprint on the overall property and the inclusion of public space. By replacing a large parking lot with a parking deck built around a transit spot with a green belt, a wooded area or parkland, is a very effective way to preserve a larger area by segregating a smaller interior area. This also counteracts the property value hit that higher density develop can deal to existing low density property. Including space earmarked for something that highlights or celebrates the unique part of the community such as a museum, local gallery, or community center is a good choice for an apartment for young professionals. A theater, outdoor concert space, a movie screen, or other artistic or entertainment venue is a good addition to the general commercial space because they can readily generate walking traffic between parking, the art/entertainment, and the green space. While segregating incompatible uses and diverse densities is necessary, it is also important to ensure that people have reason to interact and exist in the same public space. The goal isn't to create a new community, but provide for choice and diversity in an existing one. Maximizing exposure for unique local assets like artists, historical artifacts and structures, and community organizations doesn't hurt either.
This probably should be expanded into a well researched book or maybe a thesis, but I would rather focus on the quality of a community and building up the chance for people to stay at home when they move away than trying to reduce everyone to a stereotype based on income levels. There are something like 10,000 localities in the United States, each one is unique and few of them provide the opportunity to find housing choices well tailored to their needs at each stage of life. While people are muddling for solution to affordable housing or transit options as though they are separate issues, I would argue that both are symptomatic of a weak theory for what people need out of homes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)