[wormwood]

We should start a club called 'The Grand Write-in Petitioners' with our own website and Youtube channel. It would help turn up the volume on items important to the City of Edmonton.
Those who are interested in joining sign up here

Anne Stevensons office requested that I also advocate for the school with the school board trustee and MLA.

 

[johnnyboy]

Frank Gehry, legendary architect of some of world’s most iconic buildings, dies at 96​

https://archive.ph/lgBHD

 

[archited]

Here's a guy who saw his major career projects start later in life; he'll certainly be missed.

 

[constance_chlore]

This post from Brian Potter of Construction Physics argues that prefab housing hasn't meaningfully reduced single-family home prices in Sweden. Along the way we find this chart, which seems to show that as of 2008 construction labor productivity growth in Canada was lagging other countries a bit:

 

[constance_chlore]

A new working paper from prominent urban economists argues that distinctive architecture sells at a 15% premium and generates a positive spillover effect where nearby buildings sell at a 9% premium. However, they're 25% more expensive to build, so builders don't currently recoup the additional costs. The problem is that much of the benefit of distinctive buildings accrues to the neighbors, not the developer. The authors suggest that governments consider providing subsidies for distinctive architecture. (I take it that 'distinctive' is chosen over 'good' here just because good is more subjective and harder to quantify.)

 

[kcantor]

Architect Liu Thai Ker, Singapore’s first master planner, dies at 87

Dr. Liu Thai Ker, Singapore's first master planner and a key figure in shaping its modern landscape, has died at 87. Read more at straitstimes.com. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

 

[policyenthusiast]

This post from Brian Potter of Construction Physics argues that prefab housing hasn't meaningfully reduced single-family home prices in Sweden. Along the way we find this chart, which seems to show that as of 2008 construction labor productivity growth in Canada was lagging other countries a bit:

View attachment 709579

Say the critique of this post is 100% true, and it is completely impossible for offsite fabrication to reach economies of scale. The construction methods in Sweden are still resulting in higher-quality homes built faster (the author barely mentions construction speed, which is one of the primary benefits.) There's also a broad critique of the relative construction cost difference between the U.S. and Sweden, without any consideration given to differences in building code. The envelope of a home built in Virginia would not work in northern climates like ours.

Further to that, there are a LOT of factors that do not translate in this comparison. For example, Europe has much higher international labour mobility than the U.S. does. A Polish auto worker might move to Sweden because his skills are transferable, it's reasonably close, and any lag in home sticker price increases relative to someone's location is a significant driver of immigration. We're seeing this right now, as Ontarians flood into AB.

I respect the amount of research that went into this, but it is half-baked and shouldn't be used to draw conclusions as the author has.

 

[constance_chlore]

Interesting reporting from Marina Bolotnikova in Vox on a new economics working paper. The whole thing is worth reading for the context it provides, but here are some excerpts on the paper itself:

There is empirical evidence that beauty matters for making housing abundance work, too. A recent working paper contributes to a growing body of research finding that aesthetic concerns play a meaningful role in driving public opposition to new housing. People seem to oppose buildings that break the mold of what’s surrounding them, and they are less likely — a lot less likely — to support building new homes if they think they’ll be visually distasteful. [...]

It might seem obvious that aesthetic tastes have something to do with attitudes toward new housing — “neighborhood character” is a watchword of NIMBYs everywhere, something I can witness every day in my local neighborhood Facebook group in Madison, Wisconsin. But it’s hard to rigorously show whether these aesthetic preferences are, as Elmendorf put it, “real or just covering up for some other concern that people are reluctant to state directly.” Those might be racist or classist attitudes or antipathy toward renters, who are usually presumed to be the residents of multifamily homes. [...]

In the new study (which hasn’t yet been through peer review), Elmendorf, along with co-authors David Broockman, a political scientist at UC Berkeley, and Joshua Kalla, a political scientist at Yale, set out to understand how aesthetic tastes might be shaping public views on housing development.

To get at the heart of the aesthetics question scientifically, the researchers ran large-scale survey experiments (with 5,999 participants broadly representative of the US population, including people across the political spectrum as well as homeowners and renters) where they manipulated the design of buildings and neighborhood context. The findings, they argue, suggest that aesthetic preferences are sincerely held, rather than mere pretexts, and that support for new apartments is strongly predicted by aesthetic factors in a number of different ways. “Aesthetic tastes are typically far more predictive of support for developing new apartment buildings than measures of other beliefs, attitudes, and preferences, such as beliefs about the relationship between development and prices or racial attitudes,” the authors write.

 

[BrettB]

On the face of it, that makes sense. I mean, I would say most (more than half) homeowners take pride in the way their home looks and no one wants to live in an ugly or bland neighbourhood if you can afford otherwise.

 

[archited]

Interesting reporting from Marina Bolotnikova

I'm a believer (surprise, surprise). I also believe in the 80/20 rule where 80% of my profession just goes along to get along... maybe its lazy thinking that propels them, or a quest for fees in the mega-range, or a copy-cat syndrome in the profession; whatever, it has a firm grip on the Edmonton Scene and it is not good.

 

[policyenthusiast]

On the face of it, that makes sense. I mean, I would say most (more than half) homeowners take pride in the way their home looks and no one wants to live in an ugly or bland neighbourhood if you can afford otherwise.

People hate change no matter what, and always have. I maintain that design standards will do more for progressive urbanism and countering NIMBYism than any education or data modelling ever could.

I may not agree with the anti-infill sentiment, but one consensus across residents, builders, and owners is that we can do a better job of making infill projects uplift the look of neighborhoods, rather than dragging it down.

 

[David A]

Interesting reporting from Marina Bolotnikova in Vox on a new economics working paper. The whole thing is worth reading for the context it provides, but here are some excerpts on the paper itself:

This is what happens when rules are relaxed it becomes the wild west, some people rush in and build cheap and ugly to make a quick buck with no regard for what is nearby, which causes anti infill sentiment to rise.

Imagine what would happen on our roads if speed limits suddenly disappeared. We do need infill, but we also still need some control over development whether it be based on design, density or other things like parking.