The world economy and planning

[mot234]

With the world on the brink of economic turmoil, words
"sustainability", "global warming", "climate change" being thrown
around like cliches, being a Planner the question asks what becomes of
us? will the demand for planners be greater on a global scale or will
we along with other professions become surplus as firms become more
stringent with their spending. I have 2 years practical experience and
masters degree in planning, I am hoping to gain employment overseas
( I currently live and work in New Zealand) and am interested to hear
from those overseas of the prospects for employment and the major
players in the industry.
Any information would be greatly appreciated.

[drydem]

Post by mot234
With the world on the brink of economic turmoil, words
"sustainability", "global warming", "climate change" being thrown
around like cliches, being a Planner the question asks what becomes of
us? will the demand for planners be greater on a global scale or will
we along with other professions become surplus as firms become more
stringent with their spending. I have 2 years practical experience and
masters degree in planning, I am hoping to gain employment overseas
( I currently live and work in New Zealand) and am interested to hear
from those overseas of the prospects for employment and the major
players in the industry.
Any information would be greatly appreciated.

A urban planning must always work with what is currently
in place. IMHO its much easier to integrate concepts from
similar communities. New Zealand's counterparts might be
the United Kingdom, Japan, the state of Hawaii, Ireland,
Indonesia, and the Philippines.

[Troppo]

Post by mot234
With the world on the brink of economic turmoil, words
"sustainability", "global warming", "climate change" being thrown
around like cliches, being a Planner the question asks what becomes of
us? will the demand for planners be greater on a global scale

I have been in Planning of and on for about 38 years. (Also other areas
of the construction profession, tertiary teaching.) There has always been
a shortage of Planners. Not sure why. The job is not boring. The stress
levels can be quite high, particularly if you work in the development
assessment area. You do need experience in DA - strategy and plan
development needs to be informed by experience at the coal-face.

Post by mot234
or will we along with other professions become surplus as firms become
more stringent with their spending.

That would be two-edged - fewer proposals to assess maybe but greater
pressure to evade / ignore / reduce basic standards. The jury is still
out on the question of climate change, and I don't think anyone has got
to grips with sustainability yet. Generally, Planning favours the status
quo. I've worked with or assisted in writing something like 16 Planning
Schemes in 4 countries. The difficulty lies in producing something that
will deliver the desired outcomes cost-effectively - regulatory systems
need to be _internally_ sustainable.

Planning doesn't do much to promote affordability in housing...

Post by mot234
I have 2 years practical experience and masters degree in planning, I
am hoping to gain employment overseas ( I currently live and work in
New Zealand) and am interested to hear from those overseas of the
prospects for employment and the major players in the industry.

2 years experience should mean that you are past the period of being
downright dangerous. You could consider Australia :-O
Met a few Planners who have crossed the Tasman - seem to fit in ok :-)

[1100GS_rider]

Post by Troppo
Planning doesn't do much to promote affordability in housing...

In fact it has a strong correlation with high housing costs.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by 1100GS_rider

Post by Troppo
Planning doesn't do much to promote affordability in housing...

In fact it has a strong correlation with high housing costs.

When you make things nice, more people want to live there. This makes costs
go up locally. The solution is not to refuse to ever make any place nice,
but to make more places nice so there is more competition among nice places,
which will drive the costs back down.

[1100GS_rider]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by 1100GS_rider

Post by Troppo
Planning doesn't do much to promote affordability in housing...

In fact it has a strong correlation with high housing costs.

When you make things nice, more people want to live there. This makes costs
go up locally. The solution is not to refuse to ever make any place nice,
but to make more places nice so there is more competition among nice places,
which will drive the costs back down.

Nice is more expensive than utilitarian. The costs can't come down
enough to compete.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by 1100GS_rider

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by 1100GS_rider

Post by Troppo
Planning doesn't do much to promote affordability in housing...

In fact it has a strong correlation with high housing costs.

When you make things nice, more people want to live there. This makes costs
go up locally. The solution is not to refuse to ever make any place nice,
but to make more places nice so there is more competition among nice places,
which will drive the costs back down.

Nice is more expensive than utilitarian. The costs can't come down
enough to compete.

Nice lasts longer than cheap, which is what passes for utilitarian in the
U.S. Crap housing is actually more expensive than nice housing, long term.

[1100GS_rider]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by 1100GS_rider

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by 1100GS_rider

Post by Troppo
Planning doesn't do much to promote affordability in housing...

In fact it has a strong correlation with high housing costs.

When you make things nice, more people want to live there. This makes costs
go up locally. The solution is not to refuse to ever make any place nice,
but to make more places nice so there is more competition among nice places,
which will drive the costs back down.

Nice is more expensive than utilitarian. The costs can't come down
enough to compete.

Nice lasts longer than cheap, which is what passes for utilitarian in the
U.S. Crap housing is actually more expensive than nice housing, long term.

As someone pointed out, in the long term we are all dead.

[Troppo]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by 1100GS_rider

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by 1100GS_rider

Post by Troppo
Planning doesn't do much to promote affordability in housing...

In fact it has a strong correlation with high housing costs.

When you make things nice, more people want to live there. This makes costs
go up locally. The solution is not to refuse to ever make any place nice,
but to make more places nice so there is more competition among nice places,
which will drive the costs back down.

Nice is more expensive than utilitarian. The costs can't come down
enough to compete.

Nice lasts longer than cheap, which is what passes for utilitarian in
the U.S. Crap housing is actually more expensive than nice housing,
long term.

True, but one problem (the world over in my experience) is what
constitutes 'nice'. Original developers have one idea (usually deriving
from potential profit). Regulatory authorities get bogged down in
'amenity and aesthetics' etc, often resulting in the unnecessary and
pretentious.
Some nice places turn out that way by accident - one small factor that
works, often in a way never envisaged or intended, that has a catalytic
effect :-)

[george conklin]

Post by Troppo

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by 1100GS_rider

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by 1100GS_rider

Post by Troppo
Planning doesn't do much to promote affordability in housing...

In fact it has a strong correlation with high housing costs.

When you make things nice, more people want to live there. This makes costs
go up locally. The solution is not to refuse to ever make any place nice,
but to make more places nice so there is more competition among nice places,
which will drive the costs back down.

Nice is more expensive than utilitarian. The costs can't come down
enough to compete.

Nice lasts longer than cheap, which is what passes for utilitarian in
the U.S. Crap housing is actually more expensive than nice housing,
long term.

True, but one problem (the world over in my experience) is what
constitutes 'nice'. Original developers have one idea (usually deriving
from potential profit). Regulatory authorities get bogged down in
'amenity and aesthetics' etc, often resulting in the unnecessary and
pretentious.
Some nice places turn out that way by accident - one small factor that
works, often in a way never envisaged or intended, that has a catalytic
effect :-)

Most neighborhoods when built are "nice" to the people who buy there.
Architects, trying to drum up business for themselves, bitterly criticize
housing people like because it is not custom-designed with high fees to
architects who build odd houses people do NOT like.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by george conklin

Post by Troppo

Post by Amy Blankenship
Nice lasts longer than cheap, which is what passes for utilitarian in
the U.S. Crap housing is actually more expensive than nice housing,
long term.

True, but one problem (the world over in my experience) is what
constitutes 'nice'. Original developers have one idea (usually deriving
from potential profit). Regulatory authorities get bogged down in
'amenity and aesthetics' etc, often resulting in the unnecessary and
pretentious.
Some nice places turn out that way by accident - one small factor that
works, often in a way never envisaged or intended, that has a catalytic
effect :-)

Most neighborhoods when built are "nice" to the people who buy there.

Then they realize how much it costs to maintain something that looks
aesthetically ok, but is made just well enough for the builder to collect
his cash and hot foot it away.

[george conklin]

Post by 1100GS_rider

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by 1100GS_rider

Post by Troppo
Planning doesn't do much to promote affordability in housing...

In fact it has a strong correlation with high housing costs.

When you make things nice, more people want to live there. This makes costs
go up locally. The solution is not to refuse to ever make any place nice,
but to make more places nice so there is more competition among nice places,
which will drive the costs back down.

Nice is more expensive than utilitarian. The costs can't come down
enough to compete.

No, high density is what costs money. You can make a lot of nice places if
you don't insist on mixed land use and transit.