Families. And, to a lesser but still significant extent, peers.
So all of that blather about 'the Gubmint's gotta Do something about
Monday, January 13, 2014
Families determine academic progress, and lifetime earning capacity
In a single, well-referenced article, George Will nails the causes of inequality.
Families. And, to a lesser but still significant extent, peers.
So all of that blather about 'the Gubmint's gotta Do something about', completely misses the point. External agents (Governments, Councils) can do little or nothing to create a positive influence, because the roots of inequality, and hence poverty, lie deep within the oldest structures of them all: the family, its immediate context (tribe, location, peers) and its culture (what we do around here).
Families. And, to a lesser but still significant extent, peers.
So all of that blather about 'the Gubmint's gotta Do something about
Sunday, January 05, 2014
The Christchurch CBD Precincts
The road to hell is paved by Good Intentions (not an original thought) but let's count some of these 'intentions'.
- Commerce needs to be planned. By Planners. With Degrees. So let's hire a few dozen and see what they produce. And, as John McCrone notes, what they've duly produced is a whole bunch of pretty drawings, some spatial thoughts, and little else. Whereas, as anyone with commercial experience knows, a classic strategy for building a business is simply to start any old where, NOW. Then, constantly tune products, prices, places and propositions,. That way. people (customers) actually shape your business into something that is good for them, and in the process make you profitable. But this approach (which relies on short feedback loops, business nous and a willingness to abandon unprofitable ventures) is simply not understood by Planners, who have rarely run a business in their short, cloistered lives.
- Spatial Plans (the frames, precincts etc) have a nice logic to them, and feed the illusion that Progress is being Made. This is largely what Share-an-Idea turned into - precincts, compulsory purchases to enable a pure occupation of the spaces, and yet more pretty drawings. But, (and John, this is an avenue to explore) the precincts seem destined to be inhabited by Government (the only large tenant with deep enough pockets) - so Justice, Health, IRD, WINZ, and their accessories - cafes, meeting spaces, are destined to be the main occupants of said Frames. The collateral damage (NG gallery, the car yards, any business still hanging on in there) is already apparent. And because the per-square rents for these large chunks of land and their largish buildings are so large compared to those in suburban and new-CBD (Sydenham/Addington/Middleton/Riccarton/Hornby/Airport arc, plus the Oxford Terrace to Bealey Ave strip (Montreal/Victoria street, non CCDU...) locations, most potential tenants outside Government have opted for the lower rents and immediate availability there. This may change, but only at the rate of contractual review. And the high old-CBD rents, identified as the commercial killer three years ago by the original Sir Bob (Jones), will surely not have gone down in the meantime.
- the notion in John's article about the creatives going first is a partial and I would argue incorrect rendition of an idea better developed in Stewart Brand's (SB put together the Whole Earth Catalogue last century) 'How Buildings Learn'. Brand's argument was that creatives need cheap, uncared-for spaces to colonise, and bend to their own whims. This kicks off a cycle of what John's article rightly notes as 'Buzz', money starts to take an interest, the nature of the area slowly but subtly changes, the creatives move on to more old cheap premises and the cycle turns. But an overall regeneration has occurred.
These spaces, of course, (High Street was a local example) are precisely the 'old dungers' that fell down. And no-one is planning more old dungers - they will by definition be new dungers, and not cheap ones at that. So bye-bye creatives, especially since spaces where, as Brand notes 'the landlord doesn't care what you do in there' are not going to be countenanced by new landlords, CCDU, CERA or whoever. Imagine the EPIC building getting modified by its tenants (as was the famous innovation hub that started it all: MIT's Building 20). Hmm, not gonna happen, is it.
- the large Precincts run exactly counter to an interesting streetscape. Jane Jacobs, a half century ago, identified one key to varied-but-rhyming streetscapes: small plots, many owners, hence many ideas and the ability to put them into practice. The precincts are the polar opposite of this.
Finally, a quote from the great lady herself:
“There is no logic that can be superimposed on the city; people make it, and it is to them, not buildings, that we must fit our plans.”
- Commerce needs to be planned. By Planners. With Degrees. So let's hire a few dozen and see what they produce. And, as John McCrone notes, what they've duly produced is a whole bunch of pretty drawings, some spatial thoughts, and little else. Whereas, as anyone with commercial experience knows, a classic strategy for building a business is simply to start any old where, NOW. Then, constantly tune products, prices, places and propositions,. That way. people (customers) actually shape your business into something that is good for them, and in the process make you profitable. But this approach (which relies on short feedback loops, business nous and a willingness to abandon unprofitable ventures) is simply not understood by Planners, who have rarely run a business in their short, cloistered lives.
- Spatial Plans (the frames, precincts etc) have a nice logic to them, and feed the illusion that Progress is being Made. This is largely what Share-an-Idea turned into - precincts, compulsory purchases to enable a pure occupation of the spaces, and yet more pretty drawings. But, (and John, this is an avenue to explore) the precincts seem destined to be inhabited by Government (the only large tenant with deep enough pockets) - so Justice, Health, IRD, WINZ, and their accessories - cafes, meeting spaces, are destined to be the main occupants of said Frames. The collateral damage (NG gallery, the car yards, any business still hanging on in there) is already apparent. And because the per-square rents for these large chunks of land and their largish buildings are so large compared to those in suburban and new-CBD (Sydenham/Addington/Middleton/Riccarton/Hornby/Airport arc, plus the Oxford Terrace to Bealey Ave strip (Montreal/Victoria street, non CCDU...) locations, most potential tenants outside Government have opted for the lower rents and immediate availability there. This may change, but only at the rate of contractual review. And the high old-CBD rents, identified as the commercial killer three years ago by the original Sir Bob (Jones), will surely not have gone down in the meantime.
- the notion in John's article about the creatives going first is a partial and I would argue incorrect rendition of an idea better developed in Stewart Brand's (SB put together the Whole Earth Catalogue last century) 'How Buildings Learn'. Brand's argument was that creatives need cheap, uncared-for spaces to colonise, and bend to their own whims. This kicks off a cycle of what John's article rightly notes as 'Buzz', money starts to take an interest, the nature of the area slowly but subtly changes, the creatives move on to more old cheap premises and the cycle turns. But an overall regeneration has occurred.
These spaces, of course, (High Street was a local example) are precisely the 'old dungers' that fell down. And no-one is planning more old dungers - they will by definition be new dungers, and not cheap ones at that. So bye-bye creatives, especially since spaces where, as Brand notes 'the landlord doesn't care what you do in there' are not going to be countenanced by new landlords, CCDU, CERA or whoever. Imagine the EPIC building getting modified by its tenants (as was the famous innovation hub that started it all: MIT's Building 20). Hmm, not gonna happen, is it.
- the large Precincts run exactly counter to an interesting streetscape. Jane Jacobs, a half century ago, identified one key to varied-but-rhyming streetscapes: small plots, many owners, hence many ideas and the ability to put them into practice. The precincts are the polar opposite of this.
Finally, a quote from the great lady herself:
“There is no logic that can be superimposed on the city; people make it, and it is to them, not buildings, that we must fit our plans.”
The road to hell is paved by Good Intentions (not an original thought) but let's count some of these 'intentions'.
- Commerce needs to be planned. By Planners. With Degrees. So let's hire a few dozen and see what they produce. And, as John McC notes, what they've duly produced is a whole bunch of pretty drawings, some spatial thoughts, and little else. Whereas, as anyone with commercial experience knows, a classic strategy for building a business is simply to start any old where, NOW. Then, constantly tune products, prices, places and propositions,. That way. people (customers) actually shape your business into something that is good for them, and in the process make you profitable. But this approach (which relies on short feedback loops, business nous and a willingness to abandon unprofitable ventures) is simply not understood by Planners, who have rarely run a business in their short, cloistered lives.
- Spatial Plans (the frames, precincts etc) have a nice logic to them, and feed the illusion that Progress is being Made. This is largely what Share-an-Idea turned into - precincts, compulsory purchases to enable a pure occupation of the spaces, and yet more pretty drawings. But, (and John, this is an avenue to explore) the precincts seem destined to be inhabited by Government (the only large tenant with deep enough pockets) - so Justice, Health, IRD, WINZ, and their accessories - cafes, meeting spaces, are destined to be the main occupants of said Frames. The collateral damage (NG gallery, the car yards, any business still hanging on in there) is already apparent. And because the per-square rents for these large chunks of land and their largish buildings are so large compared to those in suburban and new-CBD (Sydenham/Addington/Middleton/Riccarton/Hornby/Airport arc, plus the Oxford Terrace to Bealey Ave strip (Montreal/Victoria street, non CCDU...) locations, most potential tenants outside Government have opted for the lower rents and immediate availability there. This may change, but only at the rate of contractual review. And the high old-CBD rents, identified as the commercial killer three years ago by the original Sir Bob (Jones), will surely not have gone down in the meantime.
- the notion in John's article about the creatives going first is a partial and I would argue incorrect rendition of an idea better developed in Stewart Brand's (SB put together the Whole Earth Catalogue last century) 'How Buildings Learn'. Brand's argument was that creatives need cheap, uncared-for spaces to colonise, and bend to their own whims. This kicks off a cycle of what John's article rightly notes as 'Buzz', money starts to take an interest, the nature of the area slowly but subtly changes, the creatives move on to more old cheap premises and the cycle turns. But an overall regeneration has occurred.
These spaces, of course, (High Street was a local example) are precisely the 'old dungers' that fell down. And no-one is planning more old dungers - they will by definition be new dungers, and not cheap ones at that. So bye-bye creatives, especially since spaces where, as Brand notes 'the landlord doesn't care what you do in there' are not going to be countenanced by new landlords, CCDU, CERA or whoever. Imagine the EPIC building getting modified by its tenants (as was the famous innovation hub that started it all: MIT's Building 20). Hmm, not gonna happen, is it.
- the large Precincts run exactly counter to an interesting streetscape. Jane Jacobs, a half century ago, identified one key to varied-but-rhyming streetscapes: small plots, many owners, hence many ideas and the ability to put them into practice. The precincts are the polar opposite of this.
Finally, a quote from the great lady herself:
“There is no logic that can be superimposed on the city; people make it, and it is to them, not buildings, that we must fit our plans.”
- Commerce needs to be planned. By Planners. With Degrees. So let's hire a few dozen and see what they produce. And, as John McC notes, what they've duly produced is a whole bunch of pretty drawings, some spatial thoughts, and little else. Whereas, as anyone with commercial experience knows, a classic strategy for building a business is simply to start any old where, NOW. Then, constantly tune products, prices, places and propositions,. That way. people (customers) actually shape your business into something that is good for them, and in the process make you profitable. But this approach (which relies on short feedback loops, business nous and a willingness to abandon unprofitable ventures) is simply not understood by Planners, who have rarely run a business in their short, cloistered lives.
- Spatial Plans (the frames, precincts etc) have a nice logic to them, and feed the illusion that Progress is being Made. This is largely what Share-an-Idea turned into - precincts, compulsory purchases to enable a pure occupation of the spaces, and yet more pretty drawings. But, (and John, this is an avenue to explore) the precincts seem destined to be inhabited by Government (the only large tenant with deep enough pockets) - so Justice, Health, IRD, WINZ, and their accessories - cafes, meeting spaces, are destined to be the main occupants of said Frames. The collateral damage (NG gallery, the car yards, any business still hanging on in there) is already apparent. And because the per-square rents for these large chunks of land and their largish buildings are so large compared to those in suburban and new-CBD (Sydenham/Addington/Middleton/Riccarton/Hornby/Airport arc, plus the Oxford Terrace to Bealey Ave strip (Montreal/Victoria street, non CCDU...) locations, most potential tenants outside Government have opted for the lower rents and immediate availability there. This may change, but only at the rate of contractual review. And the high old-CBD rents, identified as the commercial killer three years ago by the original Sir Bob (Jones), will surely not have gone down in the meantime.
- the notion in John's article about the creatives going first is a partial and I would argue incorrect rendition of an idea better developed in Stewart Brand's (SB put together the Whole Earth Catalogue last century) 'How Buildings Learn'. Brand's argument was that creatives need cheap, uncared-for spaces to colonise, and bend to their own whims. This kicks off a cycle of what John's article rightly notes as 'Buzz', money starts to take an interest, the nature of the area slowly but subtly changes, the creatives move on to more old cheap premises and the cycle turns. But an overall regeneration has occurred.
These spaces, of course, (High Street was a local example) are precisely the 'old dungers' that fell down. And no-one is planning more old dungers - they will by definition be new dungers, and not cheap ones at that. So bye-bye creatives, especially since spaces where, as Brand notes 'the landlord doesn't care what you do in there' are not going to be countenanced by new landlords, CCDU, CERA or whoever. Imagine the EPIC building getting modified by its tenants (as was the famous innovation hub that started it all: MIT's Building 20). Hmm, not gonna happen, is it.
- the large Precincts run exactly counter to an interesting streetscape. Jane Jacobs, a half century ago, identified one key to varied-but-rhyming streetscapes: small plots, many owners, hence many ideas and the ability to put them into practice. The precincts are the polar opposite of this.
Finally, a quote from the great lady herself:
“There is no logic that can be superimposed on the city; people make it, and it is to them, not buildings, that we must fit our plans.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)