As we’ve seen with Ed Glaeser’s analysis, making a sound business case for high speed rail is not always easy. The benefits–including reduced congestion and a smaller environmental footprint–do not typically make up for the significant cost of implementation. But perhaps we’re simply not measuring all of the benefits. A new study from the Martin Prosperity Institute has the following to say (summarized by Richard Florida):
“There are three main mechanisms through which high-speed rail can help expand the economy, according to the MPI study. First, HSR expands the labor pool available to firms, bringing talented workers from nearby centers within commuting distance and thus expanding the quantity and quality of available employees. Second, HSR makes more jobs available to workers without making them have to relocate and move to a new home. Third, HSR extends the benefits of other expensive, productivity-enhancing infrastructure such as airports across broad regions.” -Richard Florida
The Martin Prosperity Institute study can be found here.
“The Economist Intelligence Unit’s liveability survey assesses living conditions in 140 cities around the world. A rating of relative comfort for 30 indicators is assigned across five broad categories: stability; healthcare; culture and environment; education; and infrastructure. The survey gives an overall rating of 0-100, where 1 is intolerable and 100 is ideal.”
What a difference a half-century makes. America’s suburbs are now home to the largest and fastest growing poor population, according to a recent report by the Brookings Institution. The country’s largest metro areas saw their poor populations grow by 25% between 2000 and 2008, faster than either primary cities or rural areas. (The suburban fringes of Los Angeles were expected to take the biggest hit last year.) Part of this has do with math–the suburbs grew three times faster during that span. But faced with aging infrastructure, higher maintenance costs, and growing numbers of poor, this increase could become self-perpetuating, a la the inner cities in the 1960s and 1970s. “Clearly,” the Brookings Report concluded, “the balance of metropolitan poverty has passed a tipping point.”
But it’s not just that our preferences have shifted, it’s that our global economy has shifted. And the suburbs just don’t fit very well into that equation:
The data lends some credence to Christopher Leinberger’s gloomy prediction in The Atlantic two years ago that the exurbs would become “the next slums,” littered with as many as 22 million superfluous McMansions. Last year, creative class demographer Richard Florida postulated (also in The Atlantic) that a new “spatial fix” was underway, punishing low-density suburbs and rewarding high-density neighborhoods. Echoing economists like Harvard’s Ed Glaeser, he declared “the economy is different now. It no longer revolves around simply making and moving things. Instead, it depends on generating and transporting ideas. The places that thrive today are those with the highest velocity of ideas, the highest density of talented and creative people, the highest rate of metabolism. Velocity and density are not words that many people use when describing the suburbs. The economy is driven by key urban areas; a different geography is required.”
Another super simple, yet highly elegant design piece from Japan. Designed by BAKOKO Design & Development, this “mansion” apartment in Tokyo was completely gutted for a young couple.
Spacing Magazine recently profiled Hong Kong’s impressive transit system. What I’ve always found brilliant about their system is the widespread adoption of the Octopus card — their payment method. Not only can you use it on subways and buses, but also in shops and cafes around town. For someone who despises change (and is impatient), it’s an ideal solution. And to top it all off, the fares are incredibly low. An adult tramway fare is HK$2.00 flat. That translates into about a quarter. Who said privatized transit doesn’t work?
If there was one thing that Detroit was missing, it was a giant frozen house. Ice House Detroit is a provocative architectural installation intended to represent Detroit’s “frozen housing market.” But beyond that, the creators hope that it’ll spur additional ideas for the cities’ stock of abandoned houses.
An architect couple — starting with an initial $1,300 cash housewarming gift — reno their 120 year old Victorian row house in Toronto’s west end with a miniscule budget and a lot of creativity.
I particularly like the back doors, which effectively extends their kitchen space outside.
Archinect recently featured an interesting interview with George Brugmans, the Director of the International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam.
Part of the discussion focuses on a topic that we feel quite strongly about here at Globizen: that urban centres are the true engines of creativity and productivity and that we need a true urban agenda.
“For us architecture is about the city. I hold, maybe somewhat provocatively, that in the 21st century cities will become more important than nation states. And I’m personally convinced that the nation state as we know it, will not make it into the 22nd century.”
While it may seem provocative, cities already supersede nations in many respects; we just simply haven’t updated our federal structures to reflect this shift.
We recently sat down with Reena Daswani, a real estate developer based in Curacao, to discuss her new project ZenCity.
Reena Daswani is the Vice President of the development team at ZenCity. Born and Raised in Curacao, Reena has a strong understanding of the local and Caribbean real estate markets, but also brings an international perspective. She recently graduated from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania with a Bachelor of Science in Economics concentrating in Real Estate and Finance. She previously worked at The Permal Group and Deutsche Bank Asset Management in New York as a Hedge Fund Analyst before moving back to Curacao to join her family’s real estate business.
GP: You’re currently developing a luxury villa community called ZenCity in Curacao (located in the Caribbean Sea). Could you tell us about the project?
But it’s not just Tishman Speyer and BlackRock, the general partners, who will lose money. Other investors, such as the Government of Singapore Investment, could potentially lose up to $575M compared to $112M each for both Tishman and BlackRock. Here’s the capital stack (via New York Times):
Also consider the following from the same New York Times piece:
“A partnership formed by Tishman Speyer and BlackRock paid $5.4 billion. The acquisition cost was actually $6.3 billion, because the partnership had to raise $900 million for reserve funds to cover interest payments, apartment renovations and capital improvements.
The rental income did not cover the monthly debt service. But the two partners were betting that they could turn a healthy profit over time as they replaced rent-regulated residents with tenants willing to pay higher market-rate rents.”
Can you think an investor today who would be willing to put up half a billion dollars towards the acquisition of properties whose rental income is insufficient to cover debt service?
A recent New York Times article, titled “Now at Starbucks: A Rebound” discusses CEO Howard D. Schultz’s move to transform Starbucks from a faceless multi-national into a more local and urban coffee shop, the kind he originally envisioned when he founded the company.
One of the first appearances of this strategy is the new Starbucks-owned shop called 15th avenue Coffee and Tea in Seattle. The NY Times described the scene as follows:
“Young people wearing hoodies and chunky glasses are sipping microbrew beers and espressos, nibbling on cheese and baguettes made at a local bakery and listening to a guitarist strum and sing.”
Now, Starbucks hasn’t been the worst when it comes to blending into local urban environments, but there was still no mistaking that it was a corporate behemoth. The majority of their outposts were, in fact, corporate replicas. So this new strategy seems like a clever move in the right direction.
The issue with this new strategy, however, is that people feel like they’re being tricked:
“But Sylvia Lee, a doctor who lives in the neighborhood, said she was excited when she saw the shop was opening — until she discovered it was owned by Starbucks. “No one wants to be the duped customers won over,” she said.”
Is it really trickery? Is it simply a corporate giant masquerading as a local mom-and-pop shop? Or, is it actually a desirable corporate evolution, one that’s now tapping into our love for perceived customization?
I recently read an interesting article that talked about how industrial production runs in contrast to our desire for individuality; and so companies simply offer the allusion of customization by offering different colours (in the case of an iPod) or different body shells (in the case of new car models).
Now let’s be honest, there are many things to like about chains, such as product consistency, triple AAA credit ratings, and the deep pockets to do new things. And so if each new Starbucks were to use local furniture, local designers, and customize its product offerings to local tastes, would it not simply be a case where one gets all the benefits of a large corporation with the uniqueness of a local mom-and-pop? Or should we hold up our copy of No Logo and say long live the local entrepreneur?
In an effort to lease-up the tallest building in the world, the government of Dubai has announced that it is “fully prepared to host the UN headquarters on its territory in the event its officials take the decision to move from New York”, says the Globe and Mail.
And apparently, some people, other than the government of Dubai, agree:
“Bringing the United Nations to Dubai makes sense,” wrote Joel Kotkin, a fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and Robert J. Cristiano, the California university’s “real estate professional in residence.”
“New York gets rid of one of its worst welfare cheats, and Dubai finds new tenants to fill its vacant towers,” they said, describing the UN headquarters as a “pain in the butt” which “pays no taxes and annoys hard-working New Yorkers with its sloth, pretensions and cavalier disregard for traffic laws.”
It’s obvious why Dubai would want the UN. They’re striving for greater global influence, they’re clearly ambitious, and they’re trying to fill the biggest building in the world — thus the invitation.
But does it actually make sense? I mean, according to most accepted research, there are really only 2 truly first tier global cities: New York and London. Why move?
Canada
Austria
Australia
Finland
New Zealand
