Saturday, February 21, 2015
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Is NAMA's policy of withold property to recover value unraveling?
There seems to be a lot of action in the property scene at the moment. Site Value Tax proposals by the National Competitiveness Council http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/competitiveness-council-calls-for-introduction-of-site-value-tax-1.1629604, Government considering Vacant Site Tax proposals by Dublin City Council http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/coalition-considers-vacant-site-tax-1.1629056 and unspecified changes to planning law predicted by 'sources'.
This all points to one thing. There is a serious problem in property. Its not coming to the market quick enough. The properties available are generally not good enough, and the planning permissions attached to sites are either out of date or unsuitable. Furthermore, the financial mechanisms available to develop properties consist of either REIT funds or Student Accommodation. There's no problem with either mechanism, as long as there are multiple-choices in the market, but in reality its not a free market at all, nor has it been for a long time.
In Irish property, there is no Third Sector to speak of. Housing associations have a minute influence. There is no equivalent of UK's Locality, or Non-profit /social enterprise funds used in the US. There is no underwriting of community or social enterprise risk.
Compare this to innovative funds for enterprise and export which the government have been driving. The national government has a willingness to engage with innovative models of finance when it comes to IT, SME and jobs creation, but property is not on the same page. The reason is simple. The property sector was one of the main causes of the Irish collapse, and the government isn't going to go out of its way to help these guys out again.
Nama have made much mileage of the fact that the slight rise in property prices (in Dublin) justifies their policy of releasing so little to the market (in Ireland). However, this stance is looking more precarious by the day. Rather than looking like the big game player, who has resisted the temptations of firesales, they risk behaving as the monopoly landlord who restricts supply to the detriment of those who are in need of a reasonable product.
Under every scenario, Nama will have to offload a huge amount of property very quickly. The question is, will it be handing the ownership (or ownership of the loans .. whatever..) from one monopoly to the other? Where is the debate, research and work needed to create variety and opportunity in the property market?
This all points to one thing. There is a serious problem in property. Its not coming to the market quick enough. The properties available are generally not good enough, and the planning permissions attached to sites are either out of date or unsuitable. Furthermore, the financial mechanisms available to develop properties consist of either REIT funds or Student Accommodation. There's no problem with either mechanism, as long as there are multiple-choices in the market, but in reality its not a free market at all, nor has it been for a long time.
In Irish property, there is no Third Sector to speak of. Housing associations have a minute influence. There is no equivalent of UK's Locality, or Non-profit /social enterprise funds used in the US. There is no underwriting of community or social enterprise risk.
Compare this to innovative funds for enterprise and export which the government have been driving. The national government has a willingness to engage with innovative models of finance when it comes to IT, SME and jobs creation, but property is not on the same page. The reason is simple. The property sector was one of the main causes of the Irish collapse, and the government isn't going to go out of its way to help these guys out again.
Nama have made much mileage of the fact that the slight rise in property prices (in Dublin) justifies their policy of releasing so little to the market (in Ireland). However, this stance is looking more precarious by the day. Rather than looking like the big game player, who has resisted the temptations of firesales, they risk behaving as the monopoly landlord who restricts supply to the detriment of those who are in need of a reasonable product.
Under every scenario, Nama will have to offload a huge amount of property very quickly. The question is, will it be handing the ownership (or ownership of the loans .. whatever..) from one monopoly to the other? Where is the debate, research and work needed to create variety and opportunity in the property market?
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Uber infill - Aldo Rossi
Aldo Rossi, Schutenstrasse, Berlin. Perhaps not as clever as the other 2 examples, and closer to a less-mannerly post-modernism, but deals with breaking up massive facade pretty well!
Aldo Rossi infill on broadway NYC
This is a nice infill by the late Aldo Rossi. Restrained but still individual and certainly not overshadowed by adjoining buildings.
From the Context\Contrast exhibition: Scholastic Building, 557 Broadway, SoHo, by Aldo Rossi with Gensler Associates, 1996-2001. Image by Elizabeth Felicella (source: http://www.wallpaper.com/gallery/architecture/new-york-architecture-week/17051411/22275)
Monday, September 23, 2013
Aldo Rossi
eclectic post modern???
I came across this building today on a listserv... sourced from another list. Anyway, what a great building. No idea where it is, or who designed it!
Monday, September 16, 2013
In the interests of the common good
When in need of the higher moral ground, or a superiority judgement, you just can't beat invoking 'The Common Good'. The 'Common Good' is without doubt a good thing. But are we as planners uniquely privilged to act in its interest, let alone credibly understand what the Common Good is? Do our cities and towns abound with evidence of 'Common Good' planning?
The Common Good is a profoundly philosophical challenge and dilemma. To have a proper understanding of the common good, its probably best to start with Plato and work your way up through Marx and Lefebvre. Issues of equality are matters of government policy not philosophy or law. There is a profound difference between invoking a policy (i.e. give us 10% of your houses because we don't build any) to claiming you act in the common good. Those in Council's have a very limited mandate (local Councillors) or no mandate (officers and administrators) to act in the public good, other than the fact that the government pays them (they are therefore more responsible to government (and their pay cheque) than the common good). No less, the consultant is responsible to their client and (potential) next pay cheque.
David Harvey in his brilliant and provocative book 'Rebel Cities' addresses the concept of an Urban Commons in some detail.
"... Much of the corruption that attaches to urban politics relates to how public investments are allocated to produce something that looks like a common but which promotes gains in private asset values for privileged property owners. The distinction betweeen urban public goods and urban commons is both fluid and dangerously porous. How often are developmental projects subsidized by the state in the name of the common interest when the true beneficiaries are a few landholders, financiers, and developers?"
The point is that no decision is completely a-political. Planning is highly political. Developers arn't always the bad guys just as planners arn't always the good guy. There is no reason a Common Good can't be economic just much as environmental or cultural.
The Common Good is a catch-phrase just like Sustainable Development that is utilised to give an impression of superiority. By saying you act in the Common Good doesn't mean you do, and chances are you don't!
The Common Good is a profoundly philosophical challenge and dilemma. To have a proper understanding of the common good, its probably best to start with Plato and work your way up through Marx and Lefebvre. Issues of equality are matters of government policy not philosophy or law. There is a profound difference between invoking a policy (i.e. give us 10% of your houses because we don't build any) to claiming you act in the common good. Those in Council's have a very limited mandate (local Councillors) or no mandate (officers and administrators) to act in the public good, other than the fact that the government pays them (they are therefore more responsible to government (and their pay cheque) than the common good). No less, the consultant is responsible to their client and (potential) next pay cheque.
David Harvey in his brilliant and provocative book 'Rebel Cities' addresses the concept of an Urban Commons in some detail.
"... Much of the corruption that attaches to urban politics relates to how public investments are allocated to produce something that looks like a common but which promotes gains in private asset values for privileged property owners. The distinction betweeen urban public goods and urban commons is both fluid and dangerously porous. How often are developmental projects subsidized by the state in the name of the common interest when the true beneficiaries are a few landholders, financiers, and developers?"
The point is that no decision is completely a-political. Planning is highly political. Developers arn't always the bad guys just as planners arn't always the good guy. There is no reason a Common Good can't be economic just much as environmental or cultural.
The Common Good is a catch-phrase just like Sustainable Development that is utilised to give an impression of superiority. By saying you act in the Common Good doesn't mean you do, and chances are you don't!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)