Urban Planning Blog

You know a country has too much money when they build a hundred acre park covered with lush green grass in the middle of a desert or for that matter, even a skiing slope. Dubai is no stranger to ostentatious spending but compared to its equally rich cousins in the Middle East, the rulers of Dubai tend to ‘invest’ their oil revenues in their infrastructure and building an alternative to an after-oil future rather than building colossal palaces (just because you can!) I was in Dubai seven years ago and my brother and I chose to visit this thriving economy rather than idle our time on Mall Road in some Indian hillstation. Of course, we missed out on sylvan-lined bucolic evening walks but instead were exposed to wealth as never seen before. Since then, we have heard that there are plenty more things that Dubai has to offer including your own private island shaped like a country within a set of islands set to the world map.

We’ve all heard of the construction boom that is going on in Dubai so I thought it wise to revisit the Dubai property market through a paid review of LatticeWerks. You have seen the glamorous symbols of Dubai like the arching sail-like Burj-Al Arab Luxury Hotel and the view of the Giant Palm Islands but did you know that a majority of the construction cranes in the world are found in Dubai? That in itself should tell you that it is not over yet and the future of Dubai skyline is just beginning to form.

LatticeWerks, a property investment firm in Dubai gives us an overview of why you should invest in Dubai. I just hope they would increase the font a little and emphasize the headlines more since it makes it extremely difficult to read and you don’t want to lose out on potential investors if they can’t read your website, right? And of course, everyone loves photos of fancy buildings and cityscape. Perspectives of upcoming projects and a view of the future doesn’t hurt either. Convincing investors in overseas property can be much more tricky than showing them palm trees lined oceanfront property in say, Florida.

That brings me to another point -are customers convinced of investment opportunities by simply browsing through the websites of investment companies? Probably in hot property markets like Dubai, nothing can go wrong (or will it?) but are customers still gullible to read a rosy picture description of a faraway land and willingly hand over their hard earned money or will they demand more information even if it is on the Web? Probably I’m looking at it the wrong way. Probably such websites merely open the Pandora’s box and hook in the consumer making him initiate an enquiry following which the sales experts take over.

What do you think?

Seems unlikely, eh? The Case against Homework, a book by Sara Bennett and Nancy Kalish explores the myth of importance of homework towards your child’s educational outcomes. I remember being piled with homework after school and threatened with completing it before going out to play so as to “stay ahead of my classmates”. I bet they were told the same in a classic game of pitting one kid against the other and watching them slowly rot away in the rat race. But does homework have any other external effect apart from harming an individual’s outlook toward life (as if that isn’t dire enough)?

Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing mentions the effect of No Child Left Behind on neighborhoods and property prices:

No Child Left Behind and standardized testing not only turns your child into a slave to her test-scores, but they can even affect your property values: a school with low test-scores brings down the neighborhood property values. That means that whatever your approach to your kids, the chances are that the other parents in your neighborhood are busting their asses to get their kids great test scores, drilling them, sending them to tutors, helping them with assignments that they were meant to complete themselves. If you don’t do the same, your kids will suffer by comparison [emphases mine].

So it isn’t enough just getting in but also more important to keep fighting hard by keeping at it and how? By doing homework that in all probability is not going to make much difference in your education anyway. But it is like the rolling juggernaut that no one wishes to jump off in fear of being crushed under.

Living in cities is once again a viable option as trends of suburbanization are seen to be reversing at least in some urban areas. The inner city was long neglected and seen as a haven from poverty and crime. This was much in part to the dilapidated structures and abandoned property that resulted due to the changing economy from manufacturing to services. Industries no longer needed central city locations or simply found cheaper land outside the city due to advances in telecommunications and transportation. So they left lock stock and barrel leaving behind either contaminated lands or simply abandoned structures that the vandals took over.

Of course, the people that worked in those establishments didn’t follow the path of the retreating industries either because it wasn’t feasible or affordable to but largely because the industries no longer needed them. They found themselves to be out of a job and the poverty status wasn’t too far behind. Crime and poverty are often unwilling partners in these neglected parts and soon everyone else including the government writes them off and let them remain in these godforsaken parts of inner cities.

But things don’t remain the same as economy changes and so does attitudes and perceptions of people. It once again became hip to live in cities. At first, certain sections of the seemingly middle-class started moving back in the city. They spruced up their neighborhood a little, tried fitting in with the neighbors and soon got their friends interested in moving next door to them. The neighborhood, as they say, started gentrifying. Homes that once housed low income residents slowly began to be occupied by higher income people who moved to the city owing to low rents or property prices long suppressed either by crime, dilapidation, or simply due to the fact of being where it was.

People who moved in didn’t just move in but they fixed up their houses, cleaned the yards, and even got the government to cleanup the nearby brownfields. It doesn’t take long for the laws of economics and real estate to notice such changes. Prices start rising and so do the property prices. Unfortunately, the ones that had always lived there enduring years of poverty, crime, dilapidation suddenly find their homes to expensive to live in as the state comes calling for the increased property taxes. If you can’t afford your property taxes, why don’t you sell your homes to those nice people who would love to fix it up, says the state (or the market). Economically it makes sense but do they really want to leave? Probably they have lived there all their life, went to school there and built their childhood memories in the neighborhood. But the calling of the market is strong enough to stifle such sentiments.

The city isn’t complaining. It can finally look at the neighborhood without feeling sorry for its residents; after all they seem to have gotten a new lease of life. And of course, there is that little matter of increased tax revenue through property taxes for the city coffers. Everyone loves the new folk and like what they are doing to the neighborhood. Soon there is a Starbucks to cater to the new clientele and a wine bar is opening shortly. You hear faint music and laughter on Friday nights.

Where are the erstwhile residents, you ask? Who knows. Probably in some old-age home living their last days in peace or some other ignored neighborhood that hasn’t yet been gentrified. You never know they just might have to move once again when it is the turn of that neighborhood to be gentrified. The gentrified neighborhood sports a new look but where are the people that made it a neighborhood in the first place? Should we care about the place or the people?

Technorati Tags: gentrification, redevelopment, planning, neighborhood, community, revitalization

Note: This is a paid review through the Review Me program.

The housing market has cooled in the last few months with the appreciation rate dropping from almost 12% to 0.4% signaling signs of an impending recession even from the former Fed Res. Bank Chairman Alan Greenspan. However, the rental market is buoyant as ever and has been devoid of the uncertainties of the home buyers market. The rental market is also heavily location dependent and generally barring large scale changes in urban geography tends to be stable.

Information dissemination through Internet-powered technology has proven to be beneficial for the consumer who otherwise had to drive around the town to get a good deal. Craigslist was one of the first sites that shattered the monopoly of the newspaper classifieds. Tenant Market is one such site that connects renters with landlords. The property information is uploaded by landlords based on criteria for an ideal tenant which is matched with profiles uploaded by renters. The following graphic (click to enlarge) does a fine job of explaining how Tenant Markets work:

The search function is free but Tenant Market charges a subscription fee starting at $29.95 if the landlord wishes to contact the renter. The landlords are proactive by looking for renters that match their criteria and contacting them. The 10-day trial costs $29.95, the standard subscription valid for 20 days sets you back by $39.95 and the Good-till-filled subscription is valid until vacancy is filled and costs the landlords $74.95. The prices seem fair for considering the high rents and unpredictable nature of renters.

Tenant Market claims to reaching over 11 million renters per year. I find this number a little high but Tenant Market claims to partner with “some of the Internet’s biggest apartment hunting, rental listing, and online services that reach over 10 million unique visitors per year” apart from advertising. The renters aren’t required to respond to every landlord that contacts them and received a personalized offer. Both the renter and the landlord are free to meet, visit the property, and discuss finer details before finalizing the contract.

Tenant Market is not your typical classified site since it requires you to first register and create a profile for landlords before the site proceeds to hook you up. I think this is a different and unique approach in the rental market by moving the burden of searching from the renter to the landlord. It may seem a big discomforting to sit back and wait for the landlord to contact you when you might be in a tearing hurry. The site is definitely oriented toward the landlords and it might need a few testimonials before renters are comfortable in sharing their profiles and rest assured they get quick and reliable offers.

Technorati Tags: landlords, renters, rental market, for rent, classifieds, multiple listing services, MLS

Note: This is the second in the series of paid reviews through ReviewMe.

The real estate market, often an indicator of the national economy, has been doing the yo-yo dance over the last few years and although the market looked optimistic, trends have been on the downward slide since past few months. However, this phase of home-buying has been characterized by ample information available over the Internet. The surplus amount of information is always a plus when you are about to make the biggest investment of your life. Sites like Zillow have even bared the erstwhile fiercely guarded aspects of real estate namely the price. In addition, the mobility of population especially the high-skilled ones has been enhanced by the ability to research information before making the move. Often standard of life has been an influential factor in addition to the cost of living. People may wish to live in New York for its parks, museums, and night life even though it frightfully expensive (I know, I would). Also, the tools to review as much information as possible of the new place you are planning to move to without getting off your couch are more easily available now.

Automated Homefinder is one such web service that focuses on the real estate market in Colorado. This website is a free service offered by Benchmark Realty located in Boulder County and serves a host of locations around the state. This service is basically an aggregation from several Colorado Multiple Listing Servings (MLS) including listings from public information records like foreclosures, “for sale by owner” and “real estate owned” notices. Colorado is a growing market and although demand is high, the home prices are sagging. The weather can be great especially when there is no winterstorm blowing through the region.

Automated Homefinder allows you to browse through almost 40,000 listings in Boulder, Ft. Collins, Denver, and other major cities in the state. You can specify your search criteria by home size, price range, location, and other relevant criteria options available on the site. Remember, you might have to select a city first before narrowing down your search. And also, remember not to set your price range too low. I tried looking for a home between $150,000 and $300,000 and came with nothing. Living in a small and inexpensive town can spoil you.

Be sure to check out the price ranges in each city before running a search. These price ranges are provided for 24 cities and are categorized by number of listings, minimum and maximum price, and the average price. Don’t let the million-plus maximum prices scare you. Also, be sure the average price also doesn’t fool you because it can be skewed by couple of high-end properties. More the listings, the better representative the average price will be. In addition you could also sort the cities according to all of the above factors by clicking on the up or down arrows next to the field headers. The listings however are not displayed on the screen but instead are emailed to you. I am not sure why that is so but perhaps, it is to gather information on who is requesting listings. A nifty feature is the mortgage calculator which I assume is for a quick look at your payments. So is the Appraisal Tools section which aid your home buying decisions

A couple of suggestions; in addition to the oh-so-cliched testimonials, it would be useful to let users leave comments directly on the site. This would greatly enhance the credibility of the site. Also, the site would be better served by a discussion forum where people could post questions about the city they are locating to and could be replied by residents or a support staff. Of course, the chances of misuse cannot be denied but I feel, the benefits largely outweigh the downsides. Although, there is information available on Colorado and Boulder, this section can be significantly expanded or at least a compendium of related links [some provided] be provided to help the user gather more information.

Overall, an excellent service for those planning on moving to Colorado in the near future.

Technorati Tags: Colorado, MLS, real estate, housing, home buyers, home listings

I love the quirky homes on the West coast. The cities on the west coast have a unique sense of character which although can be weird at time is mostly refreshing from the sameness that we encounter in the American urban wasteland. Seattle Dream Homes, a real estate resource network showcases unique home designs and not just your run-of-the-mill cookie cutter subdivision homes.

One such quirky home is Lisa Petrucci’s home. Looks like an ordinary home from the outside, complete with a pink flamingo in the yard, it is a virtual delight from the inside. It certainly seems like a house that has been lived in and not like those fancy homes that are meant only for the architectural magazines photo-ops. Lisa has an amazing collection of dolls, photo frames, and exotic artefacts. I liked this “reading center” section of her home. It looks like a children’s dream home.

Technorati Tags: dream homes, Seattle, art, interiors, houses, residential, real estate

It seems that the above cities are the best choices for me to live in, according to this website, Find Your Spot. I dunno where Las Vegas came from because I would hate to live in a city that everyone comes to do freaky things in. There are plenty of things that have ’stayed back in Vegas’ that I am fine with not knowing.

Anyway, Find Your Spot asks you a bunch of questions on weather, choice of activities, demographics, amenities to search its database of cities that you would like to settle down in. If you don’t trust your own preferences, you can always look up the ‘Best Places to Live’ list. What do you prefer?

The Economist reports that “Nevada has the fastest-growing elderly population of any state. The number of Americans over 65 rose by 16.8% between 1990 and 2004, slightly slower than the growth of the population as a whole. In Nevada it rose by 100.5% and in Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, it rose by 122%.”

This certainly gives a new twist to their tourism slogan - what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. Jokes aside, the casino business is proving to provide decent and non-strenuous [physically] jobs as compared to driving the toy train in the hot summer sun at Disneyland. Las Vegas apart from being the fastest growing city is also attracting a wide demographic of people other than elderly folk and this certainly gives a filip to housing demand. As the housing bubble in neighboring California continues to grow, senior citizens with a fixed income prefer the equally warm climate of Vegas to settle down.

And what’s more? With a great air link, the children have no excuse not to visit.

Technorati Tags: Las Vegas, senior citizens, elderly, housing, Nevada, city, growth

According to this article in the NY Times, having to work two jobs in order to afford to live in New York city is an investment portfolio advantage [via]:

Middle-class city dwellers across the country are being
squeezed….In New York, the supply of apartments considered affordable
to households with incomes like those earned by starting firefighters
or police officers plunged by a whopping 205,000 in just three years.

….Firefighters who want to live in high-priced cities can work two jobs, said W. Michael Cox, chief economist for the Federal Reserve Bankof Dallas. “I think it’s great,” he said. “It gives you portfolio diversification in your income.”

Did he really say that? If yes, I hope it was tongue-in-cheek but I fear it isn’t.

Technorati Tags: India, rescue, Haryana, Prince

Thanks to global warming and climate change crisis, beachfront property might not seem like a feasible option in the future. Increase in sea level will definitely impact such properties as the world’s geography undergoes some serious changes. The New York Times mentions that:

According to a 2000 report by the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, at least a quarter of the houses within 500 feet of the United States coast may be lost to rising seas by 2060. There were 350,000 of these houses when the report was written, but today there are far more.

That is indeed a significant impact and this time, it will not affect the lower income group of people like it did in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Denial may work for some time but in the long run, beachfront properties will be the first line of defense in our battle against rising waters. And as we have been constantly reminded, nature always wins.

The common rant against compact or dense living is that it is not what people want. People rather prefer one-acre lots that have ample backyard space for their children to play and two-car garages to park their sedan and minivan/SUV/truck respectively. Every individual in the family needs his or her private space and in turn each family needs a large amount of private space that they chose to call home. The result – families are getting smaller and their homes are getting larger. And we believe that this is exactly what they – the consumers – wants? Or is it possible, like how I think, is this what they think they want because they have no other option or have not been offered any alternative. Before sounding to condescending regarding dictating to the common folk about how they should or should not live, I will simply argue that consumers of the real estate market or the housing market have been offered a limited set of choices for long and have been sold on the typical ‘American dream’ choice of a single-family home. Probably that worked for most part of the previous half-century but with the changing demographics and increasing need to living sustainably, we probably need more choices than we are offered right now.

Compact or dense living in condos or townhomes carry a stigma of being homes for middle and lower income but at the same time, high priced condos in most of the mega-cities cost far more than those single-family homes in the suburbs and the demand for them is no less. Single-family homes received a fillip from the government through incentives like the mortgage interest deduction or through veterans affairs or even as an indirect benefit from the construction of the inter-state system. People could afford home because they received magnanimous exemptions on their mortgages or they could commute easily to distant places thanks to the inter-states; so in fact the free-market isn’t entirely responsible for the inculcation of the American dream. The single-family homes sit on large lots away from the city mostly on cheap lands that are supported on city infrastructure and public subsidies. Fewer developers with the exception of high-growth Florida have chosen to develop subdivision if they were burdened with providing the underlying infrastructure of water, power, and sewage connections to these distant properties.

Density living, on the other hand occupy more people leaving more room for open and green space and significantly reduces dependence on automobiles. Provision of smaller parks for groups of apartments or town homes can easily fulfill the need for open space for children. This will not only further social communication but also encourage sharing of spaces that renders most backyards redundant (because children tend to play in groups in a common area as opposed to on their own in their own backyard). Compact living also makes it possible to walk down to such social spaces such as parks, neighborhood shopping, restaurants, or even hospitals. Retired folks and empty nesters (couples whose children have moved out) are already moving back into downtown to enjoy easier proximity to restaurants, night life, cultural districts, hospitals, and drug stores. They are choosing not to drive if they can help it.

Economically speaking, multifamily housing actually makes housing more affordable as infrastructural resources are shared and cost per unit is lot less than for single-family homes. The huge demand for housing is limited by scarcity of land in the suburbs which can develop only so much but by increasing the supply of land by minimizing the footprint and housing more people per footprint, real estate prices can actually decline. The city planning principle of developing several nodes in New Bombay (Navi Mumbai) has worked well in creating several foci instead of creating distinct zones for residential, commercial, or industrial that all people would have to flock to. Every sector or neighborhood is self-sufficient in its immediate needs and if you seek more, you can always travel to other nodes that have their own special attractions like movie theaters, stadiums, or transport terminals. But you may not need to use these public amenities everyday and hence reduce the daily commute by relying on facilities that your neighborhood provides. This is a proven fact by the traditional mohalla concept in Indian cities and has worked wonderfully over the ages.

Compact living has many other advantages over sprawling development, most of which cannot be packed into this short post. I’ll offer more arguments in the future. But respect for your environment is not a logical choice but in fact a moral and emotional choice, much like other choices you make in life. I wonder why this choice is always subjected to economic or logical conditions.

Do people need unique houses? I saw this question posed over at City Comforts Blog. Well, the natural and first reaction to that question is duh! People are hell bent upon literally carving their own niche when it comes to building their home. Or at least most of them start out that way. Historically building design much less home design has hardly changed and most of the innovations have been made in structural design – something that you hardly or never see and material quality; something that you may see all the time. But take a step back and you will understand why the basic concept of a dwelling hasn’t changed much. Four walls, a roof, and a floor – are the basic essentials that have sufficed for different people and different culture. Of course, somewhere along the way a Frank Lloyd Wright or a Frank O’ Gehry (what’s with the name Frank?) comes along and causes a paradigm shift. But most of their clients are rich and often like their designs because they have something to show off to.

Coming back to our question, do people really need unique houses that stand out from their surroundings? Probably some do; but for most it is merely a comfortable state of living. Either the fancy dreams of utopian living are limited by site availability (not everyone gets a Falling Water site) or financial restraints (that cantilever may look fancy but nosiree, not for your wallet). The ones who can afford to splurge often have fancy homes and then end up closing off any views to their home from public eye citing privacy concerns. Architectural Digest comes out every month with pages of outstanding homes with great technological features, comfort amenities, or distinguishing features but at the core, they still are the same. It is much like modern art; many people love to look at it in a gallery but they wouldn’t put it up in their homes. They rather prefer the traditional landscape image or floral pictures. Take a long around you at the many housing projects popping all over Mumbai’s landscapes. If the market determines the consumer’s preferences, you see little difference in the housing sold over the last 25 years.

Finally, I do agree with the conclusion over at the referring blog i.e. most people settle for generic homes but a little uniqueness goes a long way to make them feel different.

A death blow for affordable housing in Bombay as nearly 285 acres of land occupied by defunct textile mills is proposed for sale to private builders without a component of affordable housing.

The English government has hit upon a great idea to solve the affordable housing problem without building any. Houses left empty for more than a year by owners will be seized and leased by local authorities under new plans [via]. Of course, vacant buildings with valid reasons (for-sale, holiday homes, second homes, etc) will be exempt. The houses can be returned to the owners after leasing them for seven years. The government, of course, hasn’t mentioned affordable housing as its motives. That is my suggestion and I don’t see why not. Please do not confuse affordable housing with low-income slums as most people oft do, but they can be homes to people who earn 80% of the median income in the region and couldn’t have afforded a home in the area under normal circumstances.

Such overt government action over private property is nothing new. In other more serious cases of tax delinquency, local authorities can foreclose your property and auction it off on the courtroom step or add it to their land bank for public amenity provision. Markets are usually effective in allocating housing but experience has shown us that this often segregates the population and creates pockets of poverty, dereliction, and anti-social behavior. The ill-effects of such regions (think black ghettos) can often act like the proverbial bad apple and spill over to other areas. According to me (and to the imminent chagrin of libertarians), such market intervention is admissible. Affordable housing is a multi-faceted problem and discussion thereof beyond the scope of this blog. The English government’s measure can undoubtedly be adapted to correct such market failures. More on affordable housing later.

As I am continuously finding out, the wonderful thing about studying urban planning is to see the issues we study about simultaneously playing around in our community. We have been studying effect of zoning ordinances in our Housing and Community class and were handed a live case study to analyze. The fact that I could be affected by it (I almost was) is an added incentive to devote careful attention to the issue at hand. Bryan (College Station’s twin city) City Council is debating a change on its renter policies. The council is currently examining a proposal that would reduce the number of unrelated resident that can share a home from four to two. The proponents of the move cite cases of loud parties, increased traffic and trash that result from college students sharing rented houses. Now, just to give a little background, College Station is a student community; 45,000 students among the city’s 67,000-odd residents. Bryan, being almost next door also houses many students. If this proposal passes, students could face great inconveniences as they would have to rethink their housing options.

Normally, in order to reduce expenses, several students shack up in a house or an apartment; especially so if they happen to be Desi. Desis are known to live like sardines – 4 students in a two-bedroom house doesn’t raise any eyebrows (I have even seen and stayed more than 4 in an apartment). Americans prefer their own space and generally do not share a bedroom, which is often akin to your own personal space. After living in a typical Desi apartment for the past five years, I have begun to understand the conveniences of your own bedroom albeit at a higher cost.

Although the proposal under question is expected to impact only duplexes and single-family homes (apartments and fourplexes are exempted), the number of units that would be affected is still high at almost 8000 units. The student body, which by the way has a strong voice in these parts, is vehemently opposed to this move although the landlords have good reason to complain. Personally, I have been (rather my apartment) cited for causing loud noises and I can understand the inconvenience that this can cause. But on the other hand, loud noises and increased traffic during the weekend is expected in a student community. The proposal also would create a false illusion of housing shortages since a four-bedroom house cannot be leased to more than two unrelated people and two bedrooms would permanently remain vacant. This would skew the market and prices would rise, making it extremely unaffordable for students to rent housing in Bryan. Of course, College Station would benefit by providing more housing without the encumbrances of such a zoning ordinance.

Also, as one councilman who opposes the proposal says, “it is not fair to the kids that are good and maintain their yards and don’t have loud parties”. The City Council is thus generalizing student behavior and attempting to create a zoning ordinance that would affect even those that have generally been well-behaved. I propose that the decision should be left to individual landlords who if need be, can incorporate certain restrictions in their leases. For e.g. two police citations and they would have to evict. The hand of the law is pretty strong here and fines are stiff too. After our citation of almost $370 per resident, parties have literally come to a standstill and our house wears a deserted look even on weekends. Generalizing a regulation for all almost never works and people tend to find legal loopholes; instead financial disincentives in terms of fines and citations work better.