It takes money to Lobby and I would guess that it is the large builders that have more...Heck, they are getting breaks from the government through the subprime scandals...crafty lot.

Can you be more specific regarding the "end of corporate builders"?

The worst thing that you want in a downturn is more regulation, more rules - they only benefit the largest anyways. Completely nonproductive. Building industry is bottom up - attempts thus far to invert have yielded us what you see today. Remember, all those bleak suburban landscapes so chided on this site are the result of 50 years of well educated architects and planners. Those cool urban streets of downtown Manhatten were the result of logical bottom up planning, nessesity and sometimes an architect or builder.

Down, Down, Down the drain....

Homebuilding has declined before, but it always comes back, eventually. To use the term "end" is not correct. Individual firms may fail, it's true, but to think that this spells the end for large-scale residential development by corporate builders ignores history.

beta -- saying large homebuilders are a dying breed because their stock prices have declined is like saying computer technology is dead because of the dot.com collapse. imho, these builders will survive to build another day -- besides, they're using other people's money, historically a great way to run and grow a business.

and, evil's right - you (*) don't add regulations to an industry that's suffering through a downturn - if anything, you make it easier for them to operate, especially when there are ton's of blue-collar jobs at stake.

(*) obviously, "you" here is a collective pronoun -- you (i.e. beta) certainly feel such regulation is warranted at this time.

besides, i don't think architects have "any weight to throw around" -- if, as you say, AIA doesn't embrace your POV on this, just who else has any weight to throw?

Hence the [?]. Perhaps they will fail, but the overall idea will not, but I think that the industry might be weakend enough for our profession to gain some parity, and thereby some influence as to how it returns.

We need slow, manageable and responsible growth and that industry is not capable of any of that. So, we all clamour for more regulation on how banking and mortgage industry works, but we can't demand the same of our own?

Fair enough, and you're right that it is in times of crisis that the opportunity for policy change is ripe.

I agree with Evil and Quiz, though: if you thought housing was expensive before, just wait until more regulations are added. This is not the way to jump-start a suffering industry.

(Some think that the good brought by new regulation is worth higher prices, overall. That's fine, but a separate discussion.)

Quiz, housing should be expensive, new housing, and perhaps when we get to that point we might all get serious about sustainability and existing housing stock. Oil is getting nuts now, and look what that is doing to our collective consciousness!

apologies that was to citizen.

But the status quo contemporary homebuilding industry is not one anyone - at least anyone who isn't directly raking in money from - wants to see continue. It's a terrible paradigm socially and environmentally, it has deleterious effects on inner cities, it's highly subsidized by tax dollars, it diminishes quality of life for nearly everyone involved, and it all looks like stomach-turning crap (that last is a personal opinion).

So what if we firmed up regulations in the green-field suburban sprawl industry while simultaneously loosening regulations on renovating homes in closer-in existing neighborhoods? I think most are in agreement that trying to build/renovate in cities is often overly regulated and too challenging currently. Blue collar builders can just as easily build homes close in as out in the exurbs. And existing businesses in cities would benefit from all that lunch traffic, etc. during construction.

hEAR, hEAR!

(cAPSLOCK!)

That's an argument in favor of greater regulation, higher costs and raised prices. Not all will agree that this is the best tack, but some will.

And the building industry has been responding to regulators' requirements for greater energy efficiency for years, via Title 24 rules regarding insulation, glazing type, area, and orientation, electrical system controls, HVAC system controls, irrigation system controls, water-saving features, etcetera. Oriented strand board ("flakeboard") is a market response to conservation, enabling the re-use of wood fibers that a couple of decades ago could only be trash.

That all of these changes may not go as far as some would like is an arguable point. But to say that "sustainability" hasn't been a serious undertaking in homebuilding over many years is incorrect.

as long as they don't turn vacant urban lots into suburban cul-de-sacs! we need more urban growth boundaries tied with upzoning of existing suburban sprawl located near transit facilities and defunct malls.

I agree completely with LB on this one...

and her point that typical suburban development is highly subsidized by tax dollars is perhaps the most crucial point that people continually fail to understand.

How much money do you think it costs to lay down 10ft of suburban roadway? Add to that the municipal infrastructure that goes with a suburban road (sewers, phone lines, power lines, water mains etc etc) and you have perhaps the most outrageously disproportionate infrastructural spending possible.

this is more an argument for the financial benefit of density in relation to government spending, but the unnecessary use of material and energy to lay all that infrastructure is crucial as well... though admittedly more abstract to the average person.

eff that, when are weyerhauser et al gonna push the envelope and provide us w/ expedited framing systems? according to their development folks, never!

Can't there be something along these lines developed with business and developers and communities?

http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2008/01/minneapolis-digital-inclusion-cba.html

We could incentivize this, and tie any future development with guarntees to rennovate a percentage of existing housing stock - in maarkets suffering extreme foreclosure rates - and strengthen relationships that are at best - strained, and at worst downright hostile.

My neighbor - 5 houses down from me - is a state senator, I am going to start working on her. I think she would support some changes. I have also spoken with my other district rep as well, time to get talking.

"It's a terrible paradigm socially and environmentally, it has deleterious effects on inner cities, it's highly subsidized by tax dollars, it diminishes quality of life for nearly everyone involved, and it all looks like stomach-turning crap"

If this was true, they wouldnt be doing it. Just because YOU dont like it doesnt mean society doesnt as well.


LB its not my personal favorite housing choice/ example but it works very very well. Light frame fast and inexspensive. Never before could we house so many so quickly. Makes you wonder why they cant rebuild NOLA as fast as an Illinois farm field - regulation maybe? Government and do gooder meddling?

LLetdown - dont fall for the old subsidy trap - the ROI in collar counties in new sales taxes, property taxes, payroll and income far far outpace the minor subsidies it takes to laydown sewers. They wouldnt do it if it didnt make them money.

No - the problem with the inner cities, as neat as they are building wise, is social and political.

yes evil, of course they make money. withhold your adulation and praise for the brilliance of developers until their developments have survived a generation.

if you truly believe that the collar counties new sales taxes, property taxes payroll and income taxes continue to outpace the maintenance costs, then thats one thing, but you seem to be advocating an unsustainable short term approach.

i honestly dont understand why you would play devils advocate on such a cut and dry issue. under virtually no circumstances are the collar counties developing in a sustainable way... economically or ecologically, they will crash and burn.

There is no redundancy in the suburban system. When the houses age, they will lose value. They will be worth less, and due to the quick light framing you are praising above, the inclination to repair suburban housing stock will be virtually non existent. The tax base will move on, and we'll be left with miles upon miles of crumbling infrastructure.

look, pretty much all of this is socio/political in nature -- anybody who's studied the problem much understands these issues and would tend to agree with beta, and evil. and LB and lletdownl.

but, the people who govern and who control the purse strings don't necessarily understand the problem as do we. they see another set of problems -- i.e. jobs and recession and economic development. they have an incredible short-term perspective (i.e. the next election) and they're going to pander to the desire of every god-fearing, flag-loving american to own an acre, a 3-bedroom mini-manse and a 3-car garage.

my comment above was put forward in that context -- not my own beliefs about suburban sprawl and blight.

I agree quiz, on a state by state basis this may not work, but in a progressive state like mine, it just might work.

Whoa - Lletdown - I said the Government makes money. And Id like to disprove your assertion that the housing stock will deteriorate and lose value - one of the first levitown - like developments in the Chicago area was Emory Manor - in Elmhurst ca. 1950. The trees are fully mature and the cozy little cape cods and rambler tract homes are still there, still sought after and well built. Its actualy quite disheartening to hear people say tract homes are shoddy built.

It may not be our idea of good design, but that doesnt mean it isnt good design. Until the paradigm changes and oil is so exspensive that the exurban sprawl is worthless, its a working model.

Id like to point out as well that bad buildings are built all the time in the city. Chicago is plauged by the 3 story masonry condo above a storefront. Why do they suck so? Why is the same building concept from 1880, 3 flats above a front so much better than the current version? Its the detail. It lacks detail. Thats all people dont like is the lacking craft and details.