Shu, Probably not going to get much play on this subject at the moment, being student season…watched it to see what it was and when he got to the part about the fountain on the corner of Main Street I stopped right there. 99% of architects have no stomach for developing anything because they would think that a maneuver like that was illegal or immoral…by nature architects don’t bend rules, as far I can figure out on here they think tax deductions are immoral. Has a lot to do with why they don’t like developers….you just can’t be a developer without “moves”….people zig, you gotta zag. Buddy of mine lives in Cincinnati on Zig Zag Road, that’s where I should live, I had plenty of that.
I think it’s always helpful to see how other people think; why they do things…I had hopes it might inspire someone…but when they get to the fountain part they are going gasp in horror.
StarchitectAlpha
Mar 24, 16 5:02 pm
Wait what's immoral about it? He went to each city member and asked what do you want to see? That's not immoral that's just figuring out what they want. The contrast is there is a developer here in San Diego who is developing an abandoned school on beach front. City said they want X footage of park, developer tried to satisfy it by giving a little slit of green grass along the perimeter and be like "here's your park." Not gonna fly and gives the community ammo against the project. So what's immoral? Secondly notice how this is a lecture on being successful at developing, nowhere once was "get a good architect" mentioned. We need to work on our value.
Carrera
Mar 24, 16 6:32 pm
^ it was a little beyond the point where the city said they wanted a fountain on the corner and he agreed to provide one….it was when a bank came along and wanted that corner for a branch bank and the developer said…”I’ll sell you that corner if you agree to build a fountain”….it’s a chain of pandering, starting with the developer handing out candy to get zoning votes then making the bank pay for the candy…it is a reality, I just think that most architects would find that a very distasteful way to comport themselves.
distant
Mar 24, 16 7:03 pm
^ the bank undoubtedly factored the cost of the fountain into the price they were willing to pay for the corner - meaning the developer probably ended up paying for the fountain anyway in the form of reduced income. It was an acceptable economic determination by the bank, the developer kept his commitment to the city, the city got what it wanted. I'm an architect and I don't find any aspect of this transaction to be distasteful at all.
Being "pragmatic" is not the same as being "immoral".
I thought this series of videos was pretty interesting - they bring in a old developer, who has some interesting advice/stories...
talks about getting screwed by walmart, then later screws a contractor who missed paving in his bid.
Mostly i just found his perspective interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKBAMmLW2ts
Shu, Probably not going to get much play on this subject at the moment, being student season…watched it to see what it was and when he got to the part about the fountain on the corner of Main Street I stopped right there. 99% of architects have no stomach for developing anything because they would think that a maneuver like that was illegal or immoral…by nature architects don’t bend rules, as far I can figure out on here they think tax deductions are immoral. Has a lot to do with why they don’t like developers….you just can’t be a developer without “moves”….people zig, you gotta zag. Buddy of mine lives in Cincinnati on Zig Zag Road, that’s where I should live, I had plenty of that.
I think it’s always helpful to see how other people think; why they do things…I had hopes it might inspire someone…but when they get to the fountain part they are going gasp in horror.
Wait what's immoral about it? He went to each city member and asked what do you want to see? That's not immoral that's just figuring out what they want. The contrast is there is a developer here in San Diego who is developing an abandoned school on beach front. City said they want X footage of park, developer tried to satisfy it by giving a little slit of green grass along the perimeter and be like "here's your park." Not gonna fly and gives the community ammo against the project. So what's immoral? Secondly notice how this is a lecture on being successful at developing, nowhere once was "get a good architect" mentioned. We need to work on our value.
^ it was a little beyond the point where the city said they wanted a fountain on the corner and he agreed to provide one….it was when a bank came along and wanted that corner for a branch bank and the developer said…”I’ll sell you that corner if you agree to build a fountain”….it’s a chain of pandering, starting with the developer handing out candy to get zoning votes then making the bank pay for the candy…it is a reality, I just think that most architects would find that a very distasteful way to comport themselves.
^ the bank undoubtedly factored the cost of the fountain into the price they were willing to pay for the corner - meaning the developer probably ended up paying for the fountain anyway in the form of reduced income. It was an acceptable economic determination by the bank, the developer kept his commitment to the city, the city got what it wanted. I'm an architect and I don't find any aspect of this transaction to be distasteful at all.
Being "pragmatic" is not the same as being "immoral".