Archive for October, 2006

A lot of the analysis of my generation has been off the mark. Usually, pundits will get distracted by the fact that we’re growing up with ubiquitous Internet access, then pontificate about cyber-this, virtual-that, and gadget obsessions. The Internet is definitely influencing my generation, but not quite in the way everyone’s thinking.

We’re living in a time where you can get almost anything, anywhere, at any time. We’ve witnessed unprecedented material wealth and the manifestation not only of every product imaginable, but also seemingly every variation. It’s overwhelming. We’re very much an Ecclesiastes 1:9 generation: there’s very little new from modern industrial and commercial processes that will impress us or hold our attention for very long, because it’s essentially the same thing repackaged. In response, my generation is demanding everything that’s original and simple. Bigger, faster, and cheaper aren’t appealing because we can already get big, fast, cheap things whenever we want them. We know we can readily get precisely what we want at an instant (provided we can afford it), so we’re constantly looking for the very best and original things we can find. But there’s more to it than this.

Once we’ve amassed the original, pure elements, we take it one step further: we mix them together to build new things that reflect our independent identities. It’s a tired example, but it’s very true: we are the Starbucks generation. Debates about coffee quality and corporate vs. indie aside, Starbucks starts with fresh brewed coffee (not instant), adds fresh cream (or soy, or half-and-half, but never powdered anything), then optionally finishes with concentrated syrups. By contrast, the last generation would have settled for freeze dried coffee, premixed with non-dairy creamer and three or four generic artificial flavorings mainly because you can make it in the microwave in one minute. This does not appeal to my generation. We don’t see the point in getting something pre-processed, mass-marketed, and shrink-wrapped when we can get the real stuff and make our own for little more effort. Hence, you see lots of (often crappy, but sometimes good) independent entertainment, shared photos, and mashups both on the Internet and in music.

Of course, there are inconsistencies and hypocrisies (not everyone can afford to always eat organically, we tend to rely on certain conveniences, etc…) but the overall attitude is there. What this means for the built environment will be very interesting and something I will delve into soon.

You may not agree with me, but hey, “I’m just being real with you.”

Come get your fall pictures. When I become an Internet billionaire, I’ll probably have to live in the bay area, but I’ll be sure to spend October in the Northeast.

Just finished reading Robert Bruegmann’s new book. He does a reasonably good job of pointing out hyperbole spread by extremists and the abuse of the term “sprawl.” He rightly points out that “sprawl” is loosely defined and seems to adapt to the whims of whoever has an issue with the way a certain built environment is constructed. He also brings up many examples where people have preferred private, low density dwellings throughout history (although almost all of them are from Western civilzation).

However, there are several shortcomings.

Early in the book, he characterizes the anti-sprawl movement as a product of rich elitists from the Northeast. He later goes on to point out Florida-based Duany Plater-Zyberk, Portland’s urban growth boundary, limits placed in San Francisco and Boulder, and several other examples of NU/Smart Growth/anti-sprawl projects from around the country. He also tends to lump people representing many different goals into one huge camp and aggregates their shortcomings for easy deconstruction.

His whole book seems to revolve around the fact that the Census Bureau “urbanized area” for Los Angeles is more densely populated than New York’s. If you take a look at the maps, New York’s area jets out into several streaks of New Jersey, with one going almost all the way down to Atlantic City and another almost touching Trenton, which is across the river from land that’s considered to be a part of Philadelphia’s urbanized area. These maps supposedly take the city’s “connection” to these areas into account (along with a 1,000 person per square mile density), but you could potentially argue that part of that land really belongs to Philadelphia more than NYC. On the other hand, LA’s map appears to have bordering cities that should probably be counted. In any event, he takes his statistic and runs with it all over the book. Population estimates and figures tend to be highly contentious in general, so make your own call:
LA,
NYC, Philly.

Book seems a bit repetitive. In one place, he captions a bucolic picture of Nantucket mentioning that it was the first place in the US to have home prices averaging over $1 million dollars and how this prevents the working class from living on the island. He brings up this example again several chapters later, almost word for word. He also takes several opportunities to repeat the LA vs. NYC comparison.

I also recently read the now two decades old book Edge City by Joel Garreau. I found this to be far more interesting, as it’s an observation instead of an attack. It’s also interesting to see how these places have progressed since the book was written.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that Lowes is considering selling Katrina Cottages, starting at $27,200, to more than just Gulf Coast rebuilders. I’m excited! Something like this could go a long way to provide affordable housing as well as a flexible option for building neighborhoods. With something like this available, there’s a greater incentive to design the road network in such a way that properties can be accessed at multiple angles. You could easily fit one or two of these behind a typical single family home on a quarter-acre lot, with plenty of yard space to spare. A homeowner wishing to cut down on real estate taxes could sell off some excess land where these small homes could go up.

Furthermore, these homes would be much easier for young couples and singles to purchase, instead of renting an apartment. Instead of having to get a mortgage for the median $190,000 a home in the US costs, you could get by with as little as $50,000. The mortage on that for a 15 year loan would be comparable to (and possibly less than) rent in most cities.

The main hinderance I see to this will probably be local regulations on lot sizes and possibly some building code considerations. On the other hand, I think the quality of these homes and the incentive for suburban homeowners to sell off some of their yard will prevail.

Here’s the video: