Learning From Sprawl??!!

Plenty of developers want to be the first to be second. In other words they want somebody else to blaze the trail, and pay for all the research and development that that entails, so they can ride their coattails safe in the knowledge that the market has been validated. This method is also widely used in other industries which is why debates surrounding intellectual property have come to the fore. Why do all the heavy lifting when you can simply follow the leader?

There are major differences, however, between merely copying what the other team is doing versus conducting a competitive analysis. Either through ignorance, arrogance, or just plain old fashioned disrespect many of my colleagues have not seen the data for the buildings. Those that advocate and develop sprawl have paid millions on focus groups, market studies, demographic studies, psychological studies, and every other type of study imaginable to divine the desires of their target market. That's very valuable information. Any competitive analysis should start by deconstructing that developer's offerings to see what lessons they've learned and what trends they've identified. There is a wealth of knowledge there just waiting to be tapped.

I tried to get that point across to a colleague who is also a New Urbanist and Classicist. They couldn't see past the ugly buildings and bad urban form of the sprawl projects. Yet their project failed even though they had a better town plan and attractive home elevations. They blamed their failure on the lack of taste in the marketplace but the real issue was their home plans didn't resonate with the market. This is a shame since what the market was looking for in a home was already figured out by the builder of the ugliness they despised. They lost the kingdom for want of a closet.

It's time to stop being snobs. This doesn't mean you have to build ugly homes. It simply means respecting your potential competition enough to analyze their offerings. You can use that data to build something wonderful. As a matter of fact, if you provide the same amenities in a more attractive package via better design you will crush the competition.

One caveat, though, based on another mistake that led to a failed project: you will win if you can provide the same features at the same price, or slightly more. You achieve this by not playing the square footage game. Better designs naturally are able to fit more living space into less square footage. Better designs typically cost more to build so this is a wash as far as the bottom line is concerned. So if you want to build better then you need to provide the same amenities (or find another way to address the desire and meet the need without providing the exact same thing) at the same price point as your competition in a smaller footprint.

So when the client offers to show you some plans that they like or that they have had success with you take them. You study them. You find out what the wish list items are in those plans, and you find a way to address those needs in the plans you provide. For instance, if all the developers are building 3/2s, but the third bedroom is being used primarily as a home office then you have some valuable data that you can use to better serve the needs of the market without building a 3/2. You can address that need without necessarily tacking on an extra bedroom. When the velocity of sales in your market favors homes within a certain price range then you can study those homes, provide a better design with less square footage that addresses the needs and desires identified in your competitive analysis and then target that price point.

Doing this requires the ability to think abstractly, to pull more from the data than "like" or "don't like", but it's not rocket science*. It simply requires of someone the ability to set aside their bias long enough to see and appreciate the tremendous amount of care and thought that goes into designing and building homes for the masses. 

*While not rocket science this could, should, and probably will be an excellent exercise in data science. The best way to break free of the rearview mirror method of design is to apply a rigorous algorithm to a large sample set of home buying data. If you're in the home building business, know what Hadoop is, aren't afraid of matrix calculus and machine learning then we should talk. Soon.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted via email from Kenneth Hitchens

Does A Muntin Have Buddha Nature?

One of the most amazing drawings I have seen shows the construction of geometric forms starting from a single line. It's sometimes referred to as the Flower of Life. As this drawing shows, with a compass and a rule it's possible to construct any shape from the basic to the most complex. Every figure generated by this method shares a proportional relationship to the original line.

Each shape, therefore, is born out of a single line. The process begins simply by drawing two circles using the each endpoint of the line as a center and the length of the line as the radius. From this simple exercise one line becomes two circles -- the division of unity, if you will -- which leads to the unfolding of an infinite number of forms. This is a beautiful metaphor for the creation of new life which commences with the division of the cell.

Architecture has relied on such geomtery throughout the ages. It was always important for an architect to be well versed in geometry, how it can be observed in nature, and how it can guide their practice. Far from being merely the generation of intricate forms, geometry encompassed harmonics, order, and rhythm imbuing a structure with a sublime sense of repose, grace, and appropriateness.

There is something mystical about experiencing a great building. It will resonate with you, make you feel welcomed, comfortable, and at peace. Mystical as it may be, the principles followed in the deisgn of these places were used for more than just religious buildings. They guided the patterns of floor tile all the way up to the design of entire cities. Every piece related to the other, each being a part of a greater whole, expressed within an infitite range of variety.

This meshes well with what we know of nature. The nautilus shell, petals of a rose, the human body; all grow based on proportional relationships. It only makes sense that the environment we build for ourselves follow natural patterns. This is the root of that connection we feel with certain buildings and special places. They have an energy that radiates wellbeing thanks to this connection.

Therefore a muntin, being part of the whole, carries within itself the nature of the entire building. This level of understanding, this depth of care in design, this philosophy is what has come to be known as Classicism. This is why, as expounded upon by Demetri Porhpyrios, Classicism is not a style. As such there are some Classical designs which may seem thoroughly modern just as there are many traditional designs which fall short of the Classical ideal. Thus a Classical building may not have muntins just as a building with muntins may not be Classical.

The distinction above I think is crucial. Economy and beauty are not mutually exclusive. The desire for more modest, clean, and simple design fits perfectly with Classical principles. As seen previously on this blog Ben Pentreath has been doing a magnificent job of exactly that. Understanding the nature of materials, how we humans use space, and what resonates with us, has little to do with rote numerology. Whether or not a window has a specific number of muntins is not the issue. What is important is that the muntins suit the window, the window suits the room, the room suits the façade, and the whole suits the plan.

This is the beginner's mind of Zen practice as applied to Classicism. They exist together at peace. Where east meets west is in the creation of the aforementioned Vesica Piscis. To find out more start here:                            

Posted via email from Kenneth Hitchens

Stretch and Flex

One of the biggest problems I faced as a designer has been trying to fit stock plans onto existing lots. I'm usually trying to help people building their dream home shoehorn a plan they purchased from another designer onto their parcel. Sometimes the plan type and layout is not appropriate for the plot, that's another issue that merits its own post. 

Like the game of football placing a plan on a lot is a game of inches. By squeezing just six inches out of a room you might ruin the space. This is more of an issue with medium and small homes, obviously. This squeezing of the plan would lead to frustration for the owners. They often wonder why the plan was designed without any flexibility. They would wonder why the lot sizes where they purchased were too narrow by just one or two feet for no apparent reason. These were good plans done by respected designers, mind you.

These home owners didn't want a custom plan but simply wanted a good plan to start from that they could customize. Expanding the home can ruin the proportions and shrinking the home can ruin the plan. A different approach is to start off with a smaller plan that has been designed to stretch. That's how the KHASA plans were conceived. If larger bedrooms are desired, for instance, it's easy to make the plan longer or wider without requiring a complete redesign. 

By designing a house to certain minimums but in a way that can stretch in each direction it is possible to find the plan type that you like best and then adapt it to best suit the size and unique features of your lot. It is far easier to expand a home plan designed in this manner than to shrink a home plan.

This might sound like an extremely simple concept. Indeed it is. It's just exceptionally difficult to execute. Once you apply this philosophy, however, it's amazing how it clarifies and resolves the plan.

Posted via email from Kenneth Hitchens

Millionaires and Tax Free Bonds

Everybody shops for a good deal. This is true of investments as it is for stereos and groceries. When interest rates are low and risk abounds in the stock market (Facebook IPO falls flat, without Apple the S&P 500 is flat) those looking for a cautious investment strategy wisely look to tax free municipal bonds. Investors are happy and the issuing municipalities are happy. Yet a problem arises. It's mostly institutional investors and the wealthy (i.e. millionaires) that invest in these tax free municipal bonds. Yet there is a cry for millionaires to pay more in tax. The only way to achieve that is to close loopholes such as allowing muni bonds to be tax free. This would undermine the municipalities at a time when many of them are teetering on the brink of insolvency. 

What makes matters worse is that when used for political purposes few make the distinction between people with a net worth exceeding one million dollars and those who are earning an annual income in excess of that amount. Those are two very different things. In either case it's entirely possible for those people to invest in instruments that are deemed tax free, tax exempt, or tax deferred. These instruments allow the government to more easily attract investment capital without having to pay a higher rate. It's an unfair advantage in that regard, but one we shouldn't begrudge them, in my opinion.

So we have yet again an instance of planners undermining their own efforts. Those who seek reinvestment in urban areas are decrying, although most likely unbeknownst to them, the very vehicle used to raise the capital required to do so. They seek to close the loopholes that allow millionaires to avoid paying tax. Yet these very loopholes were designed to attract capital for infrastructure investment from the evil millionaires who, by investing in these bonds, are seeking returns that will simply keep pace with inflation which is typically part of a larger capital preservation strategy.

The US has suffered under a capital strike before. It would be worthwhile for those interested in learning how this happens -- and what to expect in the not too distant future -- to find out when that was, who was president, and how we got out of the situation.

Posted via email from Kenneth Hitchens

Subsidizing Sprawl or Owing Your Soul to the Government Store

What is accepted as gospel by the majority of urban planners is that Walmart is bad. The planners will tell you that Walmart's retail practices kill off main street businesses, they do so knowingly and gleefully, and the video and audio evidence has been distributed widely. I'll leave the curious reader to search for those videos themselves and allow them to form their own opinion. What I'm more interested in is the how those that hold that view are undermining their efforts by supporting policies that reinforce Walmart's position in the market.

A report from Tulsa World discusses how food stamps equals big money for Walmart.

...much of the nearly $1.2 billion in food stamp expenditures went to Walmart stores, which brought in about $506 million between July 2009 and March 2011...

This creates an interesting chain whereby the increase of food stamp usage will likely lead towards increased patronage of Walmart. Therefore a large percentage of the farm subsidy bill will in effect be transferred to Walmart. The retailer will then be able to increase its efforts, if the planners are to be believed, of eradicating the US of small towns. It will ostensibly hasten the vision depicted in Disney's Wall•e where there is but one store which is either run by the government or vice versa.

The paradox, even the irony, is that those on the political left believe in the system of support which enables the growth of the retailer which has bedeviled their planning efforts. Those on the political right advocate for planning methods that lead to the growth of the percentage of the populace that, in their own words, is unlikely to vote for them. They are at cross purposes and cannot seem to reconcile their respective world views with reality.

Lost in all of this is the fact that Walmart operates on notoriously thin profit margins and are highly susceptible to price fluctuations. Walmart is now too big to fail for in it's role as the government store the millions they serve would be in a desperate situation should they go under.

Agrarian Urbanism won't solve the country's political quagmire, but it goes a long way towards protecting the individual and the community against potential food shortages and price spikes. This, as predicted by famed investor Jim Rogers, will be most important concern of this generation.

Posted via email from Kenneth Hitchens

Adamesque Simple Stick

A brief follow up on my post about the simple stick. I find the work being done by Ben Pentreath in the UK to be an excellent example of the simple stick being applied. His project in Chichester is simple, elegant, and refined. Yet, at the end of the day it's legible. There is no confusion as to whether or not this is residential.

But is it Classical? I think it meets the ideal splendidly.

While I'm at it the urban planner in me requires I call out the quality of the street design. Notice that there is a change of material and texture on the street differentiating the footpath from the parallel parking and the parking from the road. None of the swirly nonsense that dazzles the dim when viewed from a blimp, but is absolutely dreadful when seen at ground level. Excellent!

Posted via email from Kenneth Hitchens

The Simple Stick

Ken Segall has an excellent book detailing the time he spent working as an advertising executive. As the title of the book implies he has done extensive work with Apple Computer including lots of interaction with Steve Jobs. Actually Ken worked with Steve at Apple and NeXT while at different ad agencies, so he has insider knowledge on how the obsession that drove Steve Jobs wound up driving NeXT, PIXAR, and Apple. His experience with other companies during that same time period -- such as Intel, Microsoft, and Dell -- allow him to draw some comparisons between the approaches of these very talented organizations.

As far as design and brand loyalty are concerned Apple has clearly won. Many try to emulate that success yet they don't understand what it was that led to their success. It wasn't just clever marketing. Even though the other companies hired the exact same ad agencies as Apple they couldn't mimic their success. This is also why the iPhone 5 is selling out even though it has been panned by the tech press.

What is so hard for other companies to emulate, or for them to even understand if I'm being frank, is the importance of the complete package. Everything is derived from the desire to simplify. Many people can intuitively use an iPad. This is not easy to accomplish because every detail is important. This desire for simplicity impacts every aspect of design including the unboxing and the marketing. Apple has done such a good job of this that it's almost impossible to improve upon what they've achieved. Almost.

The success of this design philosophy is of vital importance to the fields of Architecture and Urban Design. What Apple has proven is that people are willing to pay more for quality design. However this isn't news. BMW has proven that, Dyson has proven that, and Braun has proven that time and time again. What has been problematic for architects is understanding how this applies to the built environment. This is where the simple stick comes into play. 

Steve Jobs would always hit everything with the simple stick. It's well worth reading the book to fully understand how the simple stick was used. What I've noticed is that there is a certain zen to the application of the simple stick which can be seen across industries. For BMW a car is a car. For Braun a shaver is a shaver. For Apple a computer is a computer. For Dyson a vacuum is a vacuum. There is a quintessential quality they are aiming for that guides the design. This is the simple stick in action.

Imagine what this simple stick method would mean for architects. A house is a house. It's not a warehouse. It's not an office building. It's not a container. Yet most of the houses that have been built in recent times look like anything but a house. This is the classic mistake. They've missed the forest for the trees.

Instead they should have started with a house. Found out what makes a house a house. Then improve the design. Make it user friendly. Trim the fat. Make it simple and elegant. Detail can always be added. This is where I see the simple stick of Steve Jobs' minimalism meeting the Classical Ideal. Robert Adam's book on Classical Architecture has a great chapter on the layering of detail. This is not too unlike the modernist use of collage, but Adam's approach has already been hit with the simple stick. The notion of collage needs a good bit of stick to be on par.

With this in mind, take your favorite house plans and spend the next couple weeks hitting them with the simple stick. That's what I've been doing with my KHASA series of plans. All the designs are from my previous catalog of homes. I've been hitting them with the simple stick. It's been an interesting design challenge, to say the least. In following this approach, however, I've found tremendous clarity.

Try it. It will change your life.

Posted via email from Kenneth Hitchens

Sidewinder Ranch

There have been several problems I have been wrestling with as a designer. One has been contending with the sliding glass door which, if you're interested in attainable housing, is something you simply cannot ignore or wish away. Another is contending with infill lots which pose unique challenges because of the desire to enhance the existing neighborhood and provide a compelling plan with all the modern conveniences. The third issue is relating all the various design criteria to the urban condition of the neighborhood. I loved living in a townhouse but missed not having a porch. I wanted to find a way to meet all those challenges while affording maximum flexibility to the homeowners so they can customize the interior and exterior appearance to their liking.

It's been a lot of fun, I must admit. The end result might look quite simple but, as is always the case, it's so much harder to simplify.

The KHASA F was developed for a client in Texas. They needed a two bedroom, two bathroom home around 1,200 s.f. on a zero lot line plot. I wanted all the living spaces to engage the street, a nice patio near the sidewalk, and some private outdoor space. There will be a garage or carport out back. Because of the proximity to the sidewalk I think there needs to be a garden wall to mediate the connection to the street. This creates a defined separation between public and private space without adding the expense of a porch.

The dining room and master bedroom open up onto a private courtyard. I'm showing a hot tub in this location since that's what I'd want. You don't have to put a hot tub there if you don't want. If you are so inclined, however, you'll notice the wall which is perfectly placed to hold the TV and tiki bar*. 

As with all KHASA plans, the KHASA F is designed for steps or ramps. It can also stretch in different directions to better take advantage of larger plots, if desired.

*Tiki bar plans not included.

Posted via email from Kenneth Hitchens

Solar Sailors for Sale

When most people in the North America mention cruisers they think of Carnival Cruise line and huge ships going to the Bahamas or Mexico. I want to introduce you to another kind of cruiser. The couple, family, or solo sailor who live aboard a boat and cruise to exotic ports of call the world over. You need to meet these people because they've solved the issues of renewable energy ages ago. That's the good news. The bad news is some of the solutions are illegal according to US building codes and architectural review boards so even today's smartest smart house isn't as efficient as a thirty year old sailboat.

When you look at a cruiser's vessel you'll notice they have solar panels, wind generators, rainwater collectors, solar ovens, and even fuel powered generators. There is no silver bullet solution. The answer isn't wind, it isn't solar, and it isn't fuel. It's a combination of all of the above. When the seasons change you need to change with them. When your location changes you need to adapt. When you have limited resources you need to use them wisely.

Wise cruisers schedule their power usage to minimize consumption. If they need to run the generator to charge up the batteries they'll make sure any power hungry activity is accomplished during this time. Then the generator will be cut and the batteries will take over. This also ensures proper loading of the generator. Too low of a load is not only inefficient it can harm the generator's engine over time.

After doing the laundry, running the water maker, or running the air conditioning to cool off the interior the rest of the day's power consumption is relatively minimal. It's primarily refrigeration and lighting. With the advent of Kindles and iPads even running electronics doesn't consume too much energy. The cruisers eke out even more efficiency, though, since their boats have lighting on a separate low voltage circuit that consumes significantly less power.

This efficient use of energy and smart scheduling mean they can actually get most of the power they need from their solar cells or wind generators. So the concept they are using is to decrease demand as much as possible and then meet that demand with renewable energy. Some cruisers only run their generators for a couple hours every month. They aren't living like hermits, either. If anything with all the radios, satellite communications, RADAR, and other goodies they have more tech on board than you'll ever see in a house. 

What they do enjoy, however, is the ability to nullify the largest contributor to energy consumption. If the weather is too hot or too cold they simply raise the anchor, hoist the sails, and find better weather. Sure, this has its own costs, but you get the point. The real culprit gobbling up energy is is the heating and cooling of our homes. Better windows, insulation, and design that takes into consideration solar orientation and prevailing winds (not just the views) will do more to save you money on your power bills than anything else. Once you've done that you can take your game to the next level by introducing task lighting, energy star appliances, and scheduling of major power usage during off-peak times. This will allow you to get the most out of solar panels and wind generators.

If we wanted to be smarter in our homes we could start lobbying for lighting only low voltage circuitry like they have in boats and RVs, allowing solar and wind generators (many places have restrictions), and start a conversation with the utilities about how we're charged for power. Championing a silver bullet solution, however, will only prevent us from being as efficient as that crusty old sailor.

Posted via email from Kenneth Hitchens

The Power of Less

Leo Babauta has a very compelling book out titled The Power of Less. Far from being a rehash of the "less is more" mantra it is a guide on how to simplify your life. He has a message that resonates well with those who also believe in building small and living large. This is a must read for those who intend to build or renovate their home. If you can edit your life and reduce what you think you need down to what you actually need you will be very happy, save money, and have a more gracious feeling home.

One interesting power of less that I've noticed is how much space you gain for living when all of the checkbox items for the 3 bedroom 2 bath sweet-spot home have been carefully pruned away. I experienced this first hand when I moved from a 2,100 square foot house to a 1,400 square foot house. The smaller house felt so much larger, especially when it came time to clean, than the bigger house. Considering we buy houses by the square foot naturally you want to get the most out of each square foot. It didn't take too long to figure out why. The bigger house had walk in everything and huge bathrooms eating up lots of space. The smaller house had smaller closets, and smaller bathrooms which maximized the amount of space left over for the living areas.

The lesson here is that it's not about more space it's about having better space. It's kind of like buying food where you pay less per pound when you get all the fat and the bones. Sure, you're paying less. Even though it might look like you're getting more you're not.

Another power of less is the opportunity to take the savings from cutting the fat and instead buying higher quality finishes and fixtures. If you can cut $20k from your budget by having a smaller and smarter design you can afford some major upgrades. Nicer kitchen cabinets, better appliances, stunning floor tiles, and other luxuries that will add tremendous value to your place and provide years of enjoyment. This is exactly what I've been preaching about in the EX, DX, LX posts.

I'm going to start posting some of my updated plans soon. When you see them please note that I've trimmed a lot of fat. I expect Realtors® not to like them, but for many people who are not interested in buying more than they need to satisfy some future buyer (ask the Boomers how that plan is working out) they will be powerful.

Which would you rather have?

Extra fat that you don't need or use ~or~ just what makes you truly happy.

That, in a nutshell, is the power of less.

Posted via email from Kenneth Hitchens

Agenda 21 Revealed

As someone who has been working in the planning profession for over a decade I can honestly say I had never heard of Agenda 21. The first time I got wind of this was when I received a link to Glenn Beck's website from a friend. I have been going to planning conferences for years and this Agenda 21 never came up. I certainly wasn't brain-washed in school, either, since I pretty much rejected everything they taught me. I went my own way then, and am pretty much the same today.

So how did I become associated with New Urbanists and Smart Growthers if I didn't drink the Kool-Aid? Pretty simple. I was a cul-de-sac kid living in a modern house that left the nest and found a way of living that I liked better. I grew up watching Home Time and This Old House and loved the traditional design and workmanship more than my modern environs. I was much happier in a place where I could get around easily, meet friends, have a drink, get my errands done, and never have to worry about finding a parking spot. There are plenty of places like this all over America. This is what traditional town planning and architecture is all about. So I signed up and loved it.

Every now and then, though, I would encounter certain attitudes from my contemporaries that didn't quite jive with my line of thinking. I didn't see anything nefarious in this. It was simply a different approach to the same design problem. Then I discovered the disconnect.

The plans were designed in such a way that you couldn't keep a boat or RV on your property. The rules were written so you couldn't have a work truck in your driveway or a flagpole in your front yard. It wasn't the planners doing this, it was the attorneys writing the HOA bylaws and the developers looking to increase the number of lots. The HOA turned into a major profit center for developers, it's a business that can be bought and sold on the open market. Increased density gave the developer more lots to sell and lowered the cost of entry. More product at a better price, but you'd get nickeled and dimed to death with fees, extra taxes, and the costs of storing your toys somewhere other than your yard.

Keep in mind density is relative and doesn't mean everything has to be like Manhattan. We were designing residential neighborhoods of the size and scale of great American places like Arlington, VA and Key West, Florida. These places are more compact than a lot of suburban development, but aren't anywhere near the density of cities like Manhattan and Chicago. What our plans did is lower the cost per lot allowing expensive parcels of land to be developed that would otherwise sit empty. This didn't mean the houses were cheap, but it did shave off quite a bit from the sales price.

So is it all "greedy developers"? No. Not in the least. While the projects I worked on drew inspiration from the great American towns of the past I met plenty of practitioners who harbored fairly serious contempt for people that didn't buy in to their vision. We always had many different sizes. Want a big house? Sure. Want a small house? Sure. Prefer a condo? Got that, too. Something in-between? Maybe you'd like a townhouse. We had it all. But not everybody shared our 'take all comers' approach. Certain things had to be banned. They disapproved of certain aspects of the American lifestyle. They didn't bother to try to understand that lifestyle, they just knew better. There was no convincing them otherwise. RVs are evil, you don't need a boat, they consume too many fossil fuels. Do we really want those people living here? I was offended. They used more fossil fuels on one trip flying to this town than I've ever put into my motorhome just so they can tell me I'm a dirtbag for having a motorhome. Really?
Guess what, I have a design where I can fit my house, two cars, and a motorhome and it achieves the same density that their plans do. I won't have to pay storage fees, won't have to pay HOA fees, and will still get to live in a compact walkable environment. I walk to where I need to go because that's my choice, not because I have no other option. I like having a front porch so I can relax and talk to my neighbors. Having the porch doesn't make me do it, it just gives me the opportunity to do so. I like having the RV because I can use it to visit all the wonderful small towns of America with my family and my dog for a lot less money (and a lot less fuel) than flying about. That's the vision I bought into and the one I'm sill pursuing. I'm not an apparatchik of Agenda 21, I just like traditional American towns. That's not to say there are those who relish the opportunity to control how other people live, but there is a big difference between us. Don't lump me in with them, I don't like 'em, either.

Posted via email from Kenneth Hitchens