Dispatches from the Bleeding Edge - EoS v. EoM 1

The first entry in a series comparing economy of scale with economy of means.

Through the process of developing Longleaf we were regularly taken to the financial whipping post when factors beyond our control didn’t go as expected:  nearby road and retail projects were years behind schedule; a heavy construction contract went bad.  The honest mistakes we made had out-sized negative impacts, and the complexities of building a large, multi-use development seemed to be magnified.  I believe the reason the project was so vulnerable lay in an economic principal we pursued, the economy of scale (EoS).

Modern development practice is predicated on mass-production models, which are based largely on EoS.  The cost to manufacture a widget goes down when you make a large number of them because your costs are spread out among more “units.”  Cheaper by the dozen; cheaper still by the million.  And if your costs go down, profits can be assumed to go up, all things being equal.  It’s a self-evident and unassailable economic principle, right?  But there are limits to its application, particularly in the speculative and complex world of real estate development, where contingencies and exigencies abound.

At Longleaf EoS told us that developing 200 lots at a time would mean lower per-unit costs for building those lots, and that building a 3-story mixed-use building would cost less per square foot than a 2-story one (much less a single-story, which was considered anti-urban in those earlier days of New Urbanism.)  However, pursuing these lower per-unit costs we took on much higher total cost, which had to be financed.  That meant we had to sell those “units” at a pretty fast clip or the debt service would not only eat up the economies we had eked out, but it could also eat up ALL our profits, and eventually us!  Economy of scale led to a deal with the devil known as debt.

Being indentured to so much debt created a cascade of pressures that compromised better place-making:  suppressing prices and appreciation, bending on architectural standards, overlooking key details in executing the public realm.  It also consumed resources and attention we could have put to better use making a more beautiful and vital place, like fostering the civic realm or building more retail.  (This isn’t to suggest Longleaf is a failure:  quite the contrary, and its success as a place is a testament to the power of good urban design, in spite of things we could have done differently or better.)

Houses aren’t widgets; development is not manufacturing; a town is not a factory.  Human settlements are more like ecosystems, subject to the complexities of human nature at every scale:  individuals, families, social groups, economic production and consumption, civic life, fashion, politics and governance – these are all endlessly varied and dynamic.  What’s more, the physical context of “real estate” is, by definition, unique to each location.  The internal and external forces that shape our built environments are in every way contrary to the purity of the assembly line. Mass-production development would be well suited to creating beehives, perhaps, but it is a poor tool for creating human habitats.

OK, so if scale (and its attendant repetitiveness) is the problem, how does one argue with “economy,” particularly these days?  I struggled a long time to figure out how we might build economically, without falling into the trap of the economy of scale.   Following clues from how Robert and Daryl Davis developed Seaside, and looking at how traditional towns and cities came to be, I discovered that the underlying economic principle of authentic urbanism is the economy of means (EoM).  In the days before massive capitalization and long-term debt, cities were built one building at a time.  Likewise, in the days before mass-production, buildings were essentially built by hand.  So, at a fundamental level, traditional cities were built by hand, or rather, LOTS of hands.  And when you make something by hand, you naturally employ the economy of means.

Everyone who has made something by hand understands and employs EoM intuitively.  To the craftsperson it doesn’t make sense to purchase extra material, only to throw it away.  It makes sense to build something that uses material and performs its function with the greatest efficiency.  It doesn’t make sense to construct something flimsy, only to have it break in short order; you want it to last.  And, since it’s going to last and serve as a reflection of its maker, it makes sense to make something beautifully, incorporating timeless principles of proportion, elegance, and appropriate embellishment.  Finally, when you work by hand, you want to share knowledge with others doing the same thing, to make it easier on yourself.  This is a fundamental characteristic of human community, which is also, alas, something we urbanists are big on!

When many individuals employ EoM, a rich variety of techniques develops.  So does a progressive, “living” tradition, as folks share knowledge about what works and what doesn’t.  Innovation, Adaptation, Variety, Tradition and Progress grow naturally out of EoM building.  EoS manufacturing stifles all of these, as its underlying imperative is reductivism.  Cities built on EoM function in richly complex ways and as a result are enormously adaptive and resilient.  Those manufactured with EoS are dead on arrival.

EoM is just as valid an economic principle as EoS, and they both have their place.  Economy of Scale works wonders in the purity of manufacturing processes, where variables can be controlled, and where repetitive products have an advantage.  Real estate economics, on the other hand, are not kind to repetitive, commodity "products."  Remember the first three rules are location, location and location - real estate value comes from distinctiveness, not from similarity.  I propose that when it comes to building the human habitat, the more appropriate economic principle is the Economy of Means.

The best-loved buildings and places admired by urbanists and the real estate market alike embody EoM, and it’s no accident they have proved to be durable places, both physically, economically, and in people’s affections.  This is instructive for those of us involved in the project of buildings and places.  A revived understanding of EoM will be especially useful in the new economic realities.

Leave EoS to the widget manufacturers.

Agenda 21 from Outer Space! and The Tea Party

This anti-sustainability backlash seems to be responding to a perceived conspiracy with a counter conspiracy. Tea Partiers talk a big game about olden times, Founding principles, traditions, etc., but fail to observe that life during those agrarian times-and the social context in which our great Nation’s founders conceived our Republic – bore a striking resemblance to the sustainability “Agenda.” It takes only a very brief look at rural and urban life, agriculture, energy and what we would call environmental stewardship in the 18th and 19th Centuries to see that our righteous forebears in fact did “live, work, and play” (as well as worship, learn, and even govern!) together in ways We cannot fathom in our McSuburban condition. The Chinese Reds didn’t invent these ideas; they are basic human needs and activities, and they must be done together, and we DO them together, even if it requires an insane amount of energy and vehicle miles to do so.
Ironically, there has never been a settlement pattern more dependent on the State than automobile-oriented Suburbia. It was invented by Modernists, the kissing cousins of Marxists, and fomented only by a Federal project that was shot through with the command-and-control policies that Tea Partiers rightly find so problematic.
As evidence, I offer the fact that such a pattern never existed before 1900, the age of Marx et al, and that the urban/agrarian settlement patterns touted as sustainable today were the worldwide norm until then.

University of Miami Lectures

Here is a link to streaming video of the lectures I gave at the University of Miami's Masters of Real Estate Development + Urbanism program this past fall.  There were 8 lectures in all, but the first one hasn't been posted yet.

The lectures are organized as 4 pairs of lectures:


Pair 1 looks at the history of New Urbanist development as the "Renaissance" of urbanism.  First, the Founders/legacy projects exemplified by Seaside; second, the "follower" projects, exemplified by Celebration, that applied New Urbanist principles to master-planned community development.

Pair 2  examines fundamental disconnects between the realities of development as it has come to be practiced and regulated, and what society expects of it.

Pair 3 grapples with how the present economic cataclysm impacts not only what we develop, but also how we go about doing it.

In the final pair I try to look forward through the economic recovery to the new normal, and suggest some ways to learn the lessons of urbanism and reconcile the fundamental disconnects of development practice in order to find a new paradigm for development.

Take a look and let me know what you think.

Imagining Florida Essay Summary

Florida’s formative mythology grows out of the imaginations of the millions who have moved or lived here over the centuries.  The ideologies that grow out of these diverse imaginings have created an array of artifice as divergent as the dreams of millions.  Landscapes born of nostalgia, fantasy, utopia, or futurism abound throughout Florida, not just in the Magic Kingdom.

But as individuals project their dreams onto the shared canvas that is this State, they are confronted by millions of others doing the same thing.  Florida is ultimately left with the core challenges of community:  getting along with others, preserving one’s own interests, and finding a future that is better for everyone.  Unfortunately, when individuals imagine a life for themselves, community is usually left out of the picture.

So, how can Floridians create community while also facilitating their individual desires? Put another way, how does community form while navigating these conflicting ideologies?  And how does a built environment embody and foster this community of characters?  The problems are practical, and the search for the solution must be pragmatic.

What is a pragmatic approach to community for Florida: 

·      one that looks both to the lessons of history, and to the hopes of innovation, that other child of imagination;

·      one that solves practical problems while accommodating diverse ideas;

·      and one that connects people through the built environment?

Unlike the backward gaze of nostalgia, the forward gaze of futurism, the inward gaze of utopianism, or the outward gaze of fantasy, a living tradition finds practical solutions by looking in all these directions simultaneously; history, longevity, self-interest, and innovation.  Out of living traditions grow a host of environments and architectures displaying all the rich complexities of the human spirit.  Out of these places – and spaces – grows community, that dynamic that delivers our dreams, both individually and collectively.

Florida needs living traditions that shape its built environments in ways that foster community for a better tomorrow. 

Dan Solomon on Sprawl - which he calls the "Second-Era Town"

In his book Rebuilding, Daniel Solomon sketches out the dilemmas of sprawl, which he refers to as the ''second-era town,'' in his essay ''Two Eras.''
There are five major ways in which the second era town is different from the first era town – five ways in which the second era town is deficient
FIRST The second-era town wrecks the landscape, both natural and man-made. The blurred distinction between countryside and town only demeans both. In many parts of California there is no longer countryside or town.
SECOND The second-era town devours resources – gasoline, land, air, infrastructure.
THIRD As the second-era town becomes more and more congested and as universal mobility chokes itself, people's time is consumed in terrible ways.
FOURTH Because it is built in such large chunks, the second-era town discriminates against everyone who is not in a ''market sector.'' The big world of Planned Unit Developments does not make odd little corners for people who find them congenial. It is by nature homogenizing and intolerant.
FIFTH Perhaps worst of all, the sanitized anti-urban world of the second era is a place of diminished experience and diminished insight for its inhabitants. …To experience the immediacy of the particular, one must walk without locks or security guards. The predictable and edited human encounters of the shopping mall, the office park and the condo rec-room are to daily life what Club Med is to travel.
Source Rebuilding by Daniel Solomon (1992 Princeton Architectural Press).
(Daniel Solomon, FAIA, is an author and architect with WRT|Solomon E.T.C. based in San Francisco. He is a co-founder of the Congress for the New Urbanism)

Why I Do (and how and what)

Longleaf – Downtown Longleaf –

Businesses of Downtown Longleaf – Town Ground

Frank Starkey – May 13,2010

Why?

We are about connecting people:

We believe that people connected are better than people separated;

We believe that a society of connected people is better than a society of separated individuals;

We believe that people connect . . .

…in myriad ways – formal to informal, over meals, over around issues, conversations, discussions, arguments, rallies, protests, parties, festivals…

…for many different reasons – faith, fun, family, friendship, work, politics, sex, learning, personal growth, celebration…

…across a range of scales – one-on-one, small groups, large groups, crowds…

…in different kinds of places – porches, sidewalks, street corners, cafes, public squares, pubs and restaurants, shops, libraries, meeting halls, studios, offices, schools…

…for different amounts of time – from a few seconds to a life time.

We believe people connect best in physical places. Virtual places like the internet play an important role, but are no replacement for face-to-face connections.

We believe that people know how to connect and do so naturally when given the opportunity, and the places in which to do it. People do not need to be told how to connect, but they do need places to do it, places that foster connecting in all these different dimensions.

How?

We create places for people to connect.

Places of different size, shape, character, location, access, ownership, duration.

Quiet places, bustling places, natural settings, man-made spaces, small places, large places, intimate places, wide-open places, single-purpose places, multi-purpose places, convenient places, and far-off places.

We make sure each place we create fosters connection: its physical design, its environmental qualities, how it is accessed, and its legal status, maintenance, and governance.

What?

Streets, plazas, squares, greens:

Playgrounds, ball courts, playing fields:

Pavilions, meeting halls, gazebos:

Benches and small seating groupings:

Events and activities:

Businesses and civic institutions:

"Conservative" transportation policy?

I was struck by one of the comments to an Orlando Sentinel article on transportation. The article featured my friend and former consultant Billy Hattaway, who advocates both "Road Diets" (reducing pavement width to make roads more civilized) and mass transit.

The first commenter comes out of the blocks on what he labels "liberal" transportation policy (transit), implying that our current system of roadways somehow embodies Conservative ideals. I've heard this argument before, that cars - and the roads that accommodate them - preserve the individual's god-given freedom while transit, by being tax-funded and government-run, is nothing more than the State exerting control over individuals' mobility and freedom.

What baffles me about this argument is that precisely the opposite (of the first-half, at least) is the actual case with an automobile-and-road-based system. Probably no sector of our society is more "socialized" than transportation. Yes, individuals own the cars, but they're useless without roads, bridges, traffic signals, parking lots, etc, and the government taxes, subsidizes and controls all of those things. And not just at the Federal level. States, regions, counties, cities and even special taxing districts - EVERY level of government we have - are heavily involved in the provision and regulation of automobile-serving infrastructure. Every form of taxation we have - income, property, sales, special taxes, fees and tolls - is employed, and the transportation bureaucracy is mind-boggling, not to mention fraught with all the bureaucratic inefficiencies.

What's more, when it comes to conferring freedom of mobility (which really is something different from the fundamental Freedoms protected by the Constitution, but that is a different conversation) a car- and road-based transportation system is considerably lacking. True, the driver of an automobile can - in theory - choose where, how, and what to drive. The problem is, only 50% of our population, at best, has the ability or wherewithal to drive. The young, the old, the disabled, and the poor find their mobility ("freedom," if you will) significantly curtailed by the virtual requirement to employ a car for any trip of any purpose.

To ensure "freedom" for one half of the population, while limiting it for the other half is hardly the sort of "American Virtue" envisioned by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Trust Fund Kids and Gulf Drilling

Oil is like a zillion dollar trust fund given to us by super-rich grandparents, which we have been spending with reckless abandon.  In fact, we've been profligately paring down the principle, under the drunken delusion that the endowment is endless.

Oil under the Eastern Gulf of Mexico is like a $10,000 savings bond, also given to us by our forebears.  A nice sum which, if invested wisely, could provide useful, if modest, dividends, but really just chump change by comparison.

In the hands of this oil-drunken club kid it would be pissed away in an evening of revelry and forgotten before tomorrow's bloody mary's.

So, I say that as long as we are carrying on the hopeless oil binge, we should not be permitted to touch that precious and very limited local reserve.  And by no means should we kid ourselves that it's enough to forestall the end of the party.  

IF, and WHEN we have retooled our energy infrastructure to use renewable sources for everything they can be used for (electricity, most ground transportation, building power, etc.), AND we use fossil fuels for only those tasks which require them (flying, certain heavy industries, etc.) - in other words, when we could make that Gulf oil "go further" - THEN we should tap that sub-Gulf oil.  

Furthermore, because it may be one of our last domestic reserves, we should save it for last.  To burn it up now - when it will make the least difference - and not have it when we will need it most would be the pinnacle of prodigal irresponsibility.

But what about the tourists?!

In a country suffering the DT's of oil withdrawal, we will forget caring about Florida's tourism industry.  In fact, that industry is currently so dependent on oil that it's not truly an either-or debate, anyway.  Instead, it's a debate over when that oil gets drilled.

And for my money, the longer we hold on to that oil the better, and we even then we should drill it only if we've shown enough responsibility to handle it like grown-ups.

What's a boy to do?

There is a nexus between agriculture, human habitat, jobs, economic development, renewable energy, education and entrepreneurship; the way our species functions.  For the last century that nexus was a system based on fossil fuel, a system which is unsustainable by definition, and which in fact has been proven to be rather destructive in many ways.  

For the coming century it'll have to be something different.  Something sustainable.  Our challenge is to get there from here - while avoiding or mitigating the potentially  (or according to Jim Kunstler, http://kunstler.com/ certainly) disastrous consequences of the passing of worldwide peak oil output.

The question I ask myself is:  what should a community, a place, a business, an individual, do TODAY to begin this transition.  More specifically, what should Longleaf, Longleaf Development Company, Frank Starkey, do today to begin this transition?  

reintroduce real agriculture

introduce on-site power generation; solar, wind, etc.

turn "waste" streams into resource streams:  harvest rainwater and sewage, recycle and compost  (man, do I wish I'd installed a good old windmill-powered well downtown, instead of a dumb submersible pump!)

encourage entrepreneurship in the Longleaf economy by providing places for businesses to incubate, and supporting the existing businesses

and somehow, there are educational opportunities in all this - with the preschool and elementary school in town, but also with middle, high, technical schools, and the community college and university.

Boy, I'm going to need some help!

Vitamins - good and useless

Health experts tell us that some cheap vitamin tablets are useless because they don’t dissolve.  Even though they contain ingredients that would be beneficial our bodies, they pass through without ever being absorbed into our system.  We may tell ourselves “I took my Vitamins” but in reality, we’ve gained none of their benefits.

When it comes to urbanism, many jurisdictions - including Pasco County - fall victim to the same misperception.  While the community leaders may correctly view TND or New Urbanism as a good antidote to urban sprawl, they compartmentalize it in a “pill” - in the form of a few TND projects.   However, on their own these isolated neighborhoods fail to contribute most of the benefits of good urban principles to the larger area.  In fact, their success as TNDs is indeed hindered by the fact that they are surrounded by suburban sprawl.

Well-intentioned TND ordinances, like Pasco’s, create the problem of the cheap vitamin pill.  The ingredients - the principles of urbanism - are good, but they are too encapsulated.  Unless they become integrated into the whole “body” of the built environment, their benefits are equally isolated.  They become nothing more than the County's way of telling itself “I took my vitamins” while its patterns of habitation continue to be malnourished.

For THIS argument, I concentrate first on the principle of interconnected streets (and the implicit creation of blocks).  Second behind that is the principle of mixing uses.  Third is the principle of the fine grain.  Beyond that are numerous other important principles.  I'll deal with each of these topics individually in upcoming posts.