Ed Mazria is the first architect to propose how to use all the money the Government will soon be spending on new construction and building upgrades. daily kos | The Plan (pdf) | Previous
This plan is laughable. The narrow perspective and lack of actual foresight is what got the United States into this mess in the first place. Low density development needs to be seriously curbed as it creates the highest costs for implementing public infrastructure.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for reducing energy costs, but this is a band-aid proposal which still caters to the notion of the United States economy as one of only consumers. Any and all investments made in this time period need to be planning for 100 years out, and need to create actual assets for the country, not individuals.
Developing a manufacturing industry for power generation [turbines, pv cells, other] would serve to both create jobs which produce goods [something seriously lacking in the US] as well as lower the price point for these technologies through economies of scale. Then you can begin to implement these technologies and bring in financing options which help spur the adoption of them. Regardless of interest rate, and expensive mortgage is still an expensive mortgage.
There are many other problems with this proposal which will not get sorted out until it becomes clear how many unoccupied homes enter the market over the next. It will need to be done at some point, but I do not believe that right now this proposal should even be given a shred of consideration.
Beyond that there's some other issues, we're architects. This proposal is to rebuild every building in the country to meet these codes. I don't know if I'm quite ready to give up the entire history of buildings in a single sweep.
I believe that I agree more with the infrastructure point because it doesn't force consumer spending, especially on this level. I believe the idea is to help people meet code but it would require the already dry economy to spend what's been taken from them already.
Dec 24, 08 4:18 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
5 Comments
yeah!!!!!
makes some sense.
As pointed out. 85 billion for two years is far less than even half of what we have spent on bailout so far r what is being proposed for stimulus..
This plan is laughable. The narrow perspective and lack of actual foresight is what got the United States into this mess in the first place. Low density development needs to be seriously curbed as it creates the highest costs for implementing public infrastructure.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for reducing energy costs, but this is a band-aid proposal which still caters to the notion of the United States economy as one of only consumers. Any and all investments made in this time period need to be planning for 100 years out, and need to create actual assets for the country, not individuals.
Developing a manufacturing industry for power generation [turbines, pv cells, other] would serve to both create jobs which produce goods [something seriously lacking in the US] as well as lower the price point for these technologies through economies of scale. Then you can begin to implement these technologies and bring in financing options which help spur the adoption of them. Regardless of interest rate, and expensive mortgage is still an expensive mortgage.
There are many other problems with this proposal which will not get sorted out until it becomes clear how many unoccupied homes enter the market over the next. It will need to be done at some point, but I do not believe that right now this proposal should even be given a shred of consideration.
Beyond that there's some other issues, we're architects. This proposal is to rebuild every building in the country to meet these codes. I don't know if I'm quite ready to give up the entire history of buildings in a single sweep.
I believe that I agree more with the infrastructure point because it doesn't force consumer spending, especially on this level. I believe the idea is to help people meet code but it would require the already dry economy to spend what's been taken from them already.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.