The Ground Floor

Site Visits are Overrated

This post was written for The Ground Floor by Rick Abelson, ULI Member, and director at Online Land Planning in Redondo Beach, California.

University of Washington Professor Richard Haag, the noted landscape architect and designer of Gas Works Park in Seattle, insists on seeing each property before starting any project, and often camps overnight on site to understand its true dynamics. Excuses are rationalized daily throughout the ranks of design firms worldwide who never set foot on location.

Is it acceptable for planning professionals to bypass a site visit and prepare a salient master plan based on creativity, past experience, other resources, and today’s incredible Internet tools like Google Earth, flickr, blogs, local and regional websites to present a property owner with a viable concept vision for their land?

Planners are being paid from the start and often create their masterpieces. An informed understanding of topography, simple roadway geometrics, building forms and patterns are all drawn to scale. This is often enough to invigorate a property owner and give them the sense of relief and confidence to begin a much anticipated dialogue about the initial results. So how off base is planning without a site visit?

What would is learned that the property owner can't tell us, especially if the right questions are asked? The answer is simple: Send the base maps, some photographs, email address, and Skype number.

Drinking the Growing Cooler-Aid

This post was written for The Ground Floor by Robert Dunphy, senior fellow of Transportation at the Urban Land Institute.

The most important new insight in the book Growing Cooler, is the finding that location (titled Regional Accessibility) swamps density, land use mix, and design in influencing travel and reducing auto travel. It affirms that 'being there' is the best transportation solution.

The book, published by ULI was developed in cooperation with Smart Growth America, the Center for Clean Air Policy, and the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of America. The author team includes lead author, Reid Ewing, a research professor at the National Center for Smart Growth at the University of Maryland, and Steve Winkelman, director of the Transportation program at the Center for Clean Air Policy.

It has been the topic of a ULI webinar and a ULI Seattle program, as well as other events including a Capitol Hill program, "GROWING COOLER Federal Transportation and Development Policies for Climate-Friendly Communities," co-sponsored by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute and ULI.

Touring the ICC

This post was written by The Ground Floor by Brandon Sedloff of the Gerson Lehrman Group (Asia).

With the sun setting on another Hong Kong day, a group of 56 participants stepped aboard 2 oversized orange construction lifts en route to the 77th story of the International Commerce Center (ICC). An iconic West Kowloon property, the ICC is being developed by Sung Hung Kai and when completed will stand at 118 floors and 490 meters (1,608 ft). It will be the tallest building in Hong Kong and the third tallest in the world.

Hosted by N. Asia's Young Leaders Group, this property tour was the first in a series of "first look" events, which consist of a site visit followed by a cocktail reception. This format gives participants the opportunity to learn about the design and construction concepts, "walk" the property and see construction's progress, as well as network with other young leaders.

As a chair of the Young Leaders Group for N. Asia, I was especially excited to witness the enthusiasm among Hong Kong's Young Real Estate professional. I look forward to watching ULI and the Young Leaders Group expand throughout Asia.

The Fire Next Time

The San Diego and Los Angeles areas are hit by a raging series of high-impact wildfires -- the worst in the state's history. Many of the blazes coincide with areas already scorched in 2003 by fires that themselves were declared California's worst ever.

But is there any move to move homes away from the areas where a century of firefighting has left many forests choked and overgrown, thick underbrush creating tinder-box conditions? Apparently not. Most homeowners vow that they'll stay in the fire-prone areas, or return to rebuild on the charred foundations of their former homes.

-- Nationally syndicated columnist Neal Peirce

There is one lesson all major disasters teach us -- the first and strongest reaction of local residents is to rebuild what was lost in the same way and the same place. Look at New Orleans: residents of the city's low lying areas that flood frequently have raised such a firestorm of protest at the mere suggestion that New Orleans's land use plan might be rethought after Katrina that rational discourse has been impossible.

Now those who have been burnt out in the San Diego fires vow to rebuild despite the obvious danger that the fires will return once again. Their losses have been tragic, but their commitment to return may be more tragic still.

The Youthful Face of the Industry

The real estate recessions of the 1980s and early 1990s, which created a lack of 10- to 15-year veterans in the industry, have been referenced numerous times here in Vegas. We can speculate that the state of the capital markets is bringing this to top of mind. The number of young faces at the Fall Meeting, however, is proof that the industry is teeming with those who have three to ten years of experience. Many of them have advanced to the leadership roles that otherwise would have been filled by the "missing" generation. Others have worked for a couple years in their first position in the industry and are poised to consider a new job. Studies show that young real estate and land use professionals typically change employers every three to four years (and from observation it often appears significantly less than this). Those in generations X and Y are attracted to a position for many tangible and intangible reasons, such as corporate culture, the challenge of learning new things, gaining responsibility, and -- let's be frank -- compensation. These same things, too, can attract them away.

What can companies, both large and small, do to retain these critical workers with three to five years of experience? How can middle managers and corporate executives breed leaders out of this group? Whether it be mentorship programs, professional development, or increased feedback in the workplace, this is a real problem as the possibility of another downturn looms on the horizon. Noone wants to lose great staff to their competitors if bonuses run out or fewer deals are in the pipeline. This is especially true when you consider the time and money that companies invest in training their staff.

What is your company doing to retain this vital part of the workforce and grow them into leadership roles?

Buzz McCoy on Decisions

This post was written by The Ground Floor contributor and ULI senior resident fellow, Bill Hudnut.

Buzz McCoy is the best I have ever seen or read at relating business to ethics and value systems. He is not pontifical, adversarial, or self-righteous. He does not try to espouse a particular religious point of view. He understands the ecumenical and personal nature of values, that is, that they can be derived from many traditions, secular, spiritual, religious, etc., and they involve intensely personal decisions each person has to make individually. He talks about the importance of trust, for example, and the willingness of leadership to learn from mistakes.

During his book talk in Vegas, one listener raised the question about ULI doing more in this area, which might be worth considering.

Most of our decisions we make are pragmatic: they can be made quickly, and do not involve crises of conscience. Some decisions have to be made on where the preponderance of right lies, because we live in a realm of indeterminate greys where there are very few, if any, blacks and whites. They are more agonizing. Finally, a few decisions are conscience ones, where we have to do what we think is right and let the chips fall as they will. As my Dad used to say to me, do your best and leave the rest.

Two Views on Change

This post was written by The Ground Floor contributor and ULI senior resident fellow, John McIlwain.

Is change something a serious business person or investor should be thinking about now? Or is it something to simply keep an eye on for the future? Here are a couple of different views on the subject.

This weekend the question came up during a small gathering of well educated, successful college roommates. They have had a range of careers: one at the most senior levels of the federal government and now as a tenured professor at a world class university; one as a well known news anchor; and another as a leading foreign currency manager and successful businessman. There was also a distinguished doctor and a retired senior civil servant and commercial attaché.

They dismissed the question as of little interest. Voluntary changes will not be enough, they said, if we have to get to the levels of carbon reductions called for by the scientists (20% to 40% of the U.S.'s 1990 levels), and the government will never adopt the policies needed. We will reach these only if technology makes it possible, they concluded, and went back to talking about the upcoming Presidential primaries. Indeed, they did not expect the levels being called for by the science to be achieved and were unconcerned about the outcome.

What's the Tipping-Point for Gas Prices?

Today's Washington Post article, "Tipping-Point Shock," found that even with high gas prices "most motorists still plan to stick to the roads at least until pump prices climb another dollar."

This information was the result of a new Washington Post-ABC News poll of a random national sample of 1,007 adults conducted by telephone interviews May 17-21.

While the poll found that nearly six in 10 of those surveyed say higher gasoline prices are a hardship, "only 11 percent said that soaring prices would curtail their driving habits in the coming weeks."

The poll seems to confirm Americans' love affair with their automobiles despite rising gasoline prices.

But at what point will we begin to change our behavior? The new poll found that the price of gasoline would have to increase to $4.38 a gallon. And, if you live in the West, that price for a gallon of gas would have to reach $5.12.

The Economics of Climate Change

The United Nations IPCC report released Friday was a wake up call for the world. The report stated that between 1970 and 2004, greenhouse gas emissions increased by 70 percent. And, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that without global action, emissions would increase between 25 and 90 percent by 2030 compared to 2000 levels.

"The largest growth in global GHG emissions between 1970 and 2004 has come from the energy supply sector (an increase of 145 percent)."  The report continues, "CO₂ emissions between 2000 and 2030 from energy use are projected to grow 45 to 110 percent over that period."

That's the bad news!

The good news: there is an opportunity to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades that could offset the growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels. The IPCC report states that an estimated 3 percent decrease in global economic output over the next 25 years is the projected cost of cleaning up emissions.

Time to Sound the Alarm

ULI Senior Resident Fellow Bill Hudnut found the discussions at the recent World Cities Forum in Shanghai troubling as well as enlightening. Below are some additional thoughts from Bill upon returning back to the United States:

"I found the World Cities Forum meeting in Shanghai frightening. A couple of speakers referred to a train wreck coming down the road if we do not change our ways, and make a national, local and global commitment to greater energy efficiency and environmental conservation, to say nothing of alleviating poverty and fighting global warming. I found it frightening because I have a 14-year-old boy who will hopefully someday be a parent with kids of his own. What's going to happen to them if our mentality is not changed? If we go on with business as usual and don't take the imminence of the train wreck seriously? Americans are so comfortable, so unused to sacrifice, so averse to changes in their lifestyle, so spoiled. Can we create positive change? That's why I am frightened. I see no leaders on the national stage who are up to the challenge of rallying our country around goals of sustainability. I am troubled by the clouds on the horizon. What can any of us do? What does the World Cities Forum say about the role of ULI? To me, it says, SOUND THE ALARM. RING A CLARION BELL. GIVE AS MANY PEOPLE AS WE CAN A WAKE-UP CALL. ULI should become a gadfly for change. I have tried to sound this theme in projects I have been working on, in areas such as climate change, affordable housing, regional thinking and acting, funding the infrastructure deficit, balancing growth with preservation and conservation. But I do not feel as though I have spoken forcefully enough. It should be a collective effort by all of us at ULI, and our members, to face the problems discussed in Shanghai and deal with them as directly and positively as we can. We cannot do everything, but we can do something, and because we cannot do everything, that does not mean we should not do what we can do."