planning issues

[elecpharm]

i know. yet another long quote among the many posted on the haif. but i found the list of planning issues and his evaluation to be interesting as many pertain to houston in some fashion. the mcmansion domination, infrastructure or lack thereof, condofication, and parking seem to dominate this forum at times.

Top Ten Planning Issues of 2005

Posted on Friday 21 April 2006

Plantizen

Edited May 17, 2006 by elecpharm

[TheNiche]

i know. yet another long quote among the many posted on the haif. but i found the list of planning issues and his evaluation to be interesting as many pertain to houston in some fashion. the mcmansion domination, infrastructure or lack thereof, condofication, and parking seem to dominate this forum at times.

Agreed with # 1, 2, 5, and 6.

3. Failing Infrastructure

When faced with a legitimate need to update/maintain infrastructure, eventually there will be an election in these communities, and if you've got a smart politician, they'll bring up the issue that has become a thorn in the side of the citizenry. The opponent will cite higher taxes as the reason that he hasn't fixed the issue, and so the people will choose for themselves.

4. McMansion Backlash

A four-person family? Where's the guest bedroom? Where are the his-and-hers studies? Where is the game room? The garage? The stairwell/landing(s)? The walk-in-closet and full-bathroom for each bedroom? The half bathroom connected to the living area? For the increasing portion of the population (at least in our region) that can afford these items, they're all nice things to have and provide utility to those that choose to spend their income in the manner that they see fit. Does the commentator have a problem with that or would he prefer that EVERYBODY live in the same kinds of housing? Perhaps there should be a government regulation that people can't live in a home that is too large for them...

7. WiFi Networks

Mayor White has a plan to provide these services to every part of the expansive City of Houston at no cost to the taxpayer. Why can't every other city?

8. Suburbs vs. Urbs

Most central cities (Houston excluded) do not have the problem of suburban voters outweighing the influence of urban voters. At least, the conflict isn't set in such a context. Usually, the debate seems to be wealthy young urbanites wanting change and dynamism versus the established less wealthy residents that would prefer that things remain static...there are often racial undertones complimenting this one. Both cite the need for an improved 'quality of live' although neither can agree what constitutes 'quality'.

9. Peak Oil

I'm just not persuaded that there are all these spillover externalities. Local food supply? In these modern times, the 'local' food supply in the off season is often Austrailia. Parents not being home with the kids? Wouldn't that be more of a lifestyle CHOICE than anything?

10. The Cost of Low Parking Prices

If parking prices are low in some cities, causing people to live even further away (despite the longer commute), what does that say about what people WANT? Also, comparing LA to Boston is a poor choice...LA's employment districts are spread out almost as bad as Houston's, so the demand for land in the CBD is lower, so land prices are lower, so parking is less expensive and more people have more choices as a result. In Boston, most of the employment is downtown. Thus, the opposite trend occurs. Cheap land isn't a bad thing as long as it isn't made cheap by incentive/disincentive.

[editor]

That last part is interesting to me. I didn't realize that parking was so cheap in L.A. No wonder people drive -- they're only getting squeezed from one side of the vice (gas prices).

[texas911]

Regarding McMansions: what is sad is that most of them aren't even designed by architects. Neither are most of the builder houses being built inside the loop.

[sevfiv]

If parking prices are low in some cities, causing people to live even further away (despite the longer commute), what does that say about what people WANT?

i am pretty sure it says that the gist of the article was that people are willing to sacrifice short commutes and for having lots of "stuff," essentially having priorities in a different order than the author

A four-person family? Where's the guest bedroom? Where are the his-and-hers studies? Where is the game room? The garage? The stairwell/landing(s)? The walk-in-closet and full-bathroom for each bedroom? The half bathroom connected to the living area?

see?

________________________

this pretty much sums it up:

"to your average hard-working family, it is a symbol of pride and achievement to finally move into one of those hideously designed mega-houses in the suburbs."

very average

Edited May 17, 2006 by sevfiv

[TheNiche]

Regarding McMansions: what is sad is that most of them aren't even designed by architects. Neither are most of the builder houses being built inside the loop.

If they were designed by architects, they'd become unaffordable.

Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs applies to architecture too: before one can reach self-actualization, they must fulfill their every other 'need'. Given that some people have different perceptions of what a 'need' constitutes, there is this conflict regarding McMansions. But my point is that if the housing budget for a given household is exhausted before its perceived needs are met, they aren't going to move up to fulfilling the need for their home to be a masterpeice of art.

[sevfiv]

Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs applies to architecture too

you know, i had never applied transcendental psychology to architecture...

i find it interesting, though, that the addition of aesthetics to the non-deficiency needs was an afterthought

[Subdude]

Interesting article. The point about "condofication" really doesn't apply here, since there hasn't been any huge rush to condo conversion. On the contrary, conversions haven't done that well.

On the McMansions, I have a hard time with his proclaiming that families shouldn't require more than 2000 sf. Technically, they might not, but housing is about more than strict requirements. People will often want more space than they "need", but it's their choice.

The one about Google maps seems a bit of a stretch with respect to planning.

[RedScare]

If they were designed by architects, they'd become unaffordable.

Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs applies to architecture too: before one can reach self-actualization, they must fulfill their every other 'need'. Given that some people have different perceptions of what a 'need' constitutes, there is this conflict regarding McMansions. But my point is that if the housing budget for a given household is exhausted before its perceived needs are met, they aren't going to move up to fulfilling the need for their home to be a masterpeice of art.

You are confusing "needs" with "wants". Once a person is afforded the three essential needs of food and water, clothing and shelter, everything else is a want. No amount of justification or rationalization changes wanrs into needs. The only variant is how much want. Priorities of want differ among various persons, but they are still wants.

I tend to believe that one who aspires to self-actualization through the attainment of bigger or more expensive material goods will never get there. The essence of life is the journey, moreso the struggle. It is not a destination. Those who believe it to be monetary wealth have not even reached the starting line.

[Trophy Property]

You are confusing "needs" with "wants". Once a person is afforded the three essential needs of food and water, clothing and shelter, everything else is a want. No amount of justification or rationalization changes wanrs into needs. The only variant is how much want. Priorities of want differ among various persons, but they are still wants.

I tend to believe that one who aspires to self-actualization through the attainment of bigger or more expensive material goods will never get there. The essence of life is the journey, moreso the struggle. It is not a destination. Those who believe it to be monetary wealth have not even reached the starting line.

If I got $10 million I aint living in a 2000 Sf house with my wife, 2.4 kids, 2 dogs and a cat. It has nothing to do with "self-actualization" as much as comfort and ability to have more space.

[TheNiche]

You are confusing "needs" with "wants". Once a person is afforded the three essential needs of food and water, clothing and shelter, everything else is a want. No amount of justification or rationalization changes wanrs into needs. The only variant is how much want. Priorities of want differ among various persons, but they are still wants.

I tend to believe that one who aspires to self-actualization through the attainment of bigger or more expensive material goods will never get there. The essence of life is the journey, moreso the struggle. It is not a destination. Those who believe it to be monetary wealth have not even reached the starting line.

You focus too much on semantics. Besides, to make it at least somewhat clear that the word "needs" is often unclear, I used the phrase "perceived 'needs'", complete with the little quotes around the word "needs". I figured that that would clarify the lack of clarity regarding the word. In any case, I think I was pretty understandable...at least until I wrote this last paragraph.

And Red, you may understand this thing about money and material posessions not being necessary for self-actualization, but as I understand it, you're a fairly well-to-do guy. Am I right? I mean, ex-assistant DAs of major metropolitan areas don't grow on trees...takes years upon years of education and countless hours of gruelling work...a big investment of your time, energy, and money. And a lot of people (I can't speak for your own experiences, but a lot of people nevertheless) need to go through the process of becoming wealthy in order to recognize the immateriality of material posessions in a broader sense. My point being, basically, you're right...but a lot of folks won't know it unless you allow them to make all the right mistakes.

At least, that's my take on it...

[nmainguy]

A reputible architect's fee for a Houston residential typically ranges from 6 to 12%. For a home costing $200,000 this would round out to a little less than $17,000 at the high end. That number would pay for it's self by building on pier and beam with HVAC rising from the floors (heat rises/cold setteles), elimination of foundation issues, High-E windows and doors, insullation savings, efficient appliances, toxic free finishes and any number of long term savings. But if you are looking for a bathroom for every bedroom , a fancy staircase landing and short term value, this may not be the place for you.

[texas911]

Not only that, but you won't get a wierd floor plan that has windows with view to nowhere, or lots of them facing west, or closets that have windows, or bathrooms right next to the kitchen and diningroom, or idiotic arches for no reason, or wrongly done. I've seen all these goofs in newly built houses around my neigborhood.

[nmainguy]

Not only that, but you won't get a wierd floor plan that has windows with view to nowhere, or lots of them facing west, or closets that have windows, or bathrooms right next to the kitchen and diningroom, or idiotic arches for no reason, or wrongly done. I've seen all these goofs in newly built houses around my neigborhood.

Exactly.

[TheNiche]

Exactly.

I see you've changed the quotation that you have set to automatically appear at the end of every post. Am I to assume that you've changed your opinion regarding the nature of liberty and safety?

The Karl Rove quote is actually a pretty good one...borderline genius. I say that because there can be such a thing as "too much" education, at least in terms of quantity. The thing is that, on an individual level, people have to make choices regarding what the optimal amount of education...and there is such a thing as too much...it seems as though folks that appear to be disproportionately on the liberal side of the isle frequently prefer to sacrifice the opportunity to make lots of money in the job market for educations that are not economically-justifiable, but that they want to have either because 1) they gain personal satisfaction from the experience that outweighs the financial cost, 2) they place enormous importance upon status, or 3) they haven't examined the options before them in an objective way and have made a poor decision.

Several years ago, I had to plan out the educational path that I wanted to take. I had a number of options: second undergraduate degree, certificate programs, MBA, academic masters' degrees, law school, Ph.D, etc. So I started shopping around and evaluating the cost of these programs. Postbaccalaureate hours cost a whole lot more than they do for an undergrad, and the marginal benefit of an extra degree obtained after the first one was relatively little; the payout wasn't enough to compensate me for time and tuition. I'd have to put $40k into an MBA in which I'd learn a lot of the same things over again that I'd already learned as a business student, and then sacrifice my nights. Even in very practical Master's and Doctorate programs, like economics or psychology (as opposed to Poly Sci), I'd only come out of school making a respectable sum of money, but still not really enough to compensate for the opportunity cost of working and gaining professional experience during that same period. Professional degrees didn't quite cut it, either...and I just have a general distaste for lawyers (nothing personal, if you're reading this, Red)...has to do with being related to them.

During my study of what I needed to study, I even found that a few economics professors from various schools (Harvard most notably) had even done studies regarding the feasibility of postgraduate degrees and had concluded that their schools charged far too much and that the typical student took far too long for such programs to be worth attending...and this is at the educational bargain that is UH!

Given all this input, I made a conscious decision to cram in an extra degree to my undergraduate program, where hours were charged at reasonable rates, and to plan to possibly pursue some inexpensive certificate programs that didn't take too much time, like the Project Management graduate certificate at UH. Its worked very well thus far.

So having gone on for so long, my point basically, is that sometimes it doesn't pay to get more education. Every additional increment should have its marginal benefits weighed against its marginal costs.

Not only that, but you won't get a wierd floor plan that has windows with view to nowhere, or lots of them facing west, or closets that have windows, or bathrooms right next to the kitchen and diningroom, or idiotic arches for no reason, or wrongly done. I've seen all these goofs in newly built houses around my neigborhood.

The notion of 'weird' is relative. A lot of folks consider cubist art to be weird...doesn't mean that it doesn't have its place.

There's a difference between 'weird' (or 'wierd') and 'crap', by the way. Crap has design flaws. Weird is just unusual.

Edited May 18, 2006 by TheNiche

[RedScare]

You focus too much on semantics. Besides, to make it at least somewhat clear that the word "needs" is often unclear, I used the phrase "perceived 'needs'", complete with the little quotes around the word "needs". I figured that that would clarify the lack of clarity regarding the word. In any case, I think I was pretty understandable...at least until I wrote this last paragraph.

And Red, you may understand this thing about money and material posessions not being necessary for self-actualization, but as I understand it, you're a fairly well-to-do guy. Am I right? I mean, ex-assistant DAs of major metropolitan areas don't grow on trees...takes years upon years of education and countless hours of gruelling work...a big investment of your time, energy, and money. And a lot of people (I can't speak for your own experiences, but a lot of people nevertheless) need to go through the process of becoming wealthy in order to recognize the immateriality of material posessions in a broader sense. My point being, basically, you're right...but a lot of folks won't know it unless you allow them to make all the right mistakes.

At least, that's my take on it...

Niche, I see your point about perceived needs. I also looked at Maslo Heirarchy a liitle more, and realized that, in fact, you fairly accurately depicted Maslo's Ego Needs, so my gripe, if there is one, may be a little more with Maslo than your post.

As for me, I am decidedly not well-to-do, but by choice. While your description of the underpaid ADA gaining a wealth of experience and knowledge, providing a springboard to a successful private legal career is largely accurate, I have allowed myself to wander into other areas that interested me enough times to thwart any real wealth building, including leaving Fort Worth to come back home to Houston, forcing me to start all over again. There WAS a period of time in the late 90s to early 00s, where the 80 hour weeks were producing the income we all expect it should. However, rather than my happiness rising in relation to the income, I found myself increasingly miserable, buying more expensive stuff to replace the perfectly good inexpensive stuff that had served me well. In 2002, when my law partner and I decided to separate our practices, and just share office space instead, I decided to make the leap of poverty, so to speak, by cutting my expenses and working less.

You are entirely correct, that one usually must achieve some degree of wealth before they can realize the emptiness of material acquisition. I have to remind myself that I scoffed at this notion myself until I was 40 years old. It is the rare and wise person that figures this out BEFORE they've wasted years of their precious life chasing the dollar. I suppose being a lawyer, I haven't quite mastered the art of the subtle dispensing of wisdom. Thanks for the reminder.

[TheNiche]

You are entirely correct, that one usually must achieve some degree of wealth before they can realize the emptiness of material acquisition. I have to remind myself that I scoffed at this notion myself until I was 40 years old. It is the rare and wise person that figures this out BEFORE they've wasted years of their precious life chasing the dollar. I suppose being a lawyer, I haven't quite mastered the art of the subtle dispensing of wisdom. Thanks for the reminder.

Why thank you! Quite a compliment, especially having come from Red.

Although, in all truthfullness, it is sometimes easier to make observations than to live by them...for one reason or another, I'm at work right now...and have stashed a sleeping bag and a couple changes of clothes in my file cabinet. This is about to become a long long night/weekend for me.

And as easy as it would be to call up the client and just say that I'm going to miss the mark on this project by a few days, I feel compelled to get it done right and on time, delivering a little bit more than I promised. That habit almost got me fired from my last job...what's more, it goes against every grain of sense I've got. But here I am...continuing to indulge the habit.

[texas911]

OK then, they have crap for floor plans.

[heights_yankee]

OK then, they have crap for floor plans.

Right. They're often not practical and full of dead, useless space. A huge master closet with weird nooks and crannies does not mean that a house has great storage. Not the smartest use of 2000 sq ft.

[TheNiche]

Right. They're often not practical and full of dead, useless space. A huge master closet with weird nooks and crannies does not mean that a house has great storage. Not the smartest use of 2000 sq ft.

And I suppose you have a monopoly on 'smart'?

Seriously, though, the customer will get what they want. Developers are cheap, but they aren't stupid. They'll perform the balancing act and figure out what sells. For some reason, these walk-in-closets seem to be a big item...so that's what's in the homes. There's no accounting for taste, but if it sells, then its gotta taste good to someone.

[nmainguy]

I see you've changed the quotation that you have set to automatically appear at the end of every post. Am I to assume that you've changed your opinion regarding the nature of liberty and safety?

The Karl Rove quote is actually a pretty good one...borderline genius. I say that because there can be such a thing as "too much" education, at least in terms of quantity. The thing is that, on an individual level, people have to make choices regarding what the optimal amount of education...and there is such a thing as too much...it seems as though folks that appear to be disproportionately on the liberal side of the isle frequently prefer to sacrifice the opportunity to make lots of money in the job market for educations that are not economically-justifiable, but that they want to have either because 1) they gain personal satisfaction from the experience that outweighs the financial cost, 2) they place enormous importance upon status, or 3) they haven't examined the options before them in an objective way and have made a poor decision.

Several years ago, I had to plan out the educational path that I wanted to take. I had a number of options: second undergraduate degree, certificate programs, MBA, academic masters' degrees, law school, Ph.D, etc. So I started shopping around and evaluating the cost of these programs. Postbaccalaureate hours cost a whole lot more than they do for an undergrad, and the marginal benefit of an extra degree obtained after the first one was relatively little; the payout wasn't enough to compensate me for time and tuition. I'd have to put $40k into an MBA in which I'd learn a lot of the same things over again that I'd already learned as a business student, and then sacrifice my nights. Even in very practical Master's and Doctorate programs, like economics or psychology (as opposed to Poly Sci), I'd only come out of school making a respectable sum of money, but still not really enough to compensate for the opportunity cost of working and gaining professional experience during that same period. Professional degrees didn't quite cut it, either...and I just have a general distaste for lawyers (nothing personal, if you're reading this, Red)...has to do with being related to them.

During my study of what I needed to study, I even found that a few economics professors from various schools (Harvard most notably) had even done studies regarding the feasibility of postgraduate degrees and had concluded that their schools charged far too much and that the typical student took far too long for such programs to be worth attending...and this is at the educational bargain that is UH!

Given all this input, I made a conscious decision to cram in an extra degree to my undergraduate program, where hours were charged at reasonable rates, and to plan to possibly pursue some inexpensive certificate programs that didn't take too much time, like the Project Management graduate certificate at UH. Its worked very well thus far.

So having gone on for so long, my point basically, is that sometimes it doesn't pay to get more education. Every additional increment should have its marginal benefits weighed against its marginal costs.

You posted with another of your long-winded rants on my signature therefore wasting bandwidth in a thread that has nothing to do with my signature. The next time you want to rant about someone's signature or your educational choices, start a new thread. Call it "I Am La niche".

Now back to tacky, poorly built homes with un-usable closets.