|
<< ...back
Developers rule the world
Behind the process of migration from city to suburb stands a well-organised space production system: market and marketing. Nowadays, the system is highly dependent on developers' aspirations and investments. Consequently they are highly ranked among parties involved in the business of urban development. However, rebuilding of cities is, by nature, enmeshed with complicated political, juridical, social and financial procedures, whereas tabula rasa suburban developments, being virtually free of such complications, are greatly preferred by developers. With rudimentary understanding of the housing market, lifestyle trends and money-flow, developers apply their influence to create living environments for specific target groups. And with the support of well-organised marketing tabloids, lifestyle magazines and the overall media, public opinion and high demand, even for a mediocre dwelling culture, can be manufactured. It seems that Functionalism, transportation and mobility, and progressive social concepts are the most influential heritage that determine today's city development. The reality, however, is quite different. As C. Davis claims: 'Developers rule the world.'
Delft, New suburban town extension near Hof van Delft. In the context of market oriented development, developers acquire land, cooperate with industry, create professional alliances, maintain a close relationship with the media, and both influence and adapt to the political rubric. They are shadow lords of the city-building business, not unlike in past centuries. In those days, the land speculators had been, directly or indirectly, influencing development of expanding cities. In London, for example, one of the most influential developers was Thomas Cubitt, a land speculator and developer of the palaces and housing estates for the upper middle class. Under the 'turn key' policy, he gave form to a large part of the city, including Belgravia, parts of Camden Town and Pimlico, parcelling out the land that he owned and adding it to the city. He personally exercised strict control over design, put up building prototypes, arranged open public space and had been more influential than other urban professionals or politicians. He did most of the projects himself and largely controlled the planning, zoning, by-laws, street maintenance, all services and even the local police, satisfying state agents and builders. Even Queen Victoria knew him personally though 'his services were never formally recognised'. Now, it seems that we have stepped into the new century under the mortgage of Cubitt's building strategy.
Still, in organised societies the public can keep control over the course of development. In these societies the roles of developers may have some positive impact. They increase production, address users' needs, give impetus to the market through competition and improve decision making by involving more participants in the city development process. At the same time, their objectives have crucial implications upon the realisation of political agendas. The state is not eager to be involved in the development processes as it had been before. The developer plays the active leading role in city building while the role of the state is more of a supervising nature. Moreover, in the present situation, they have a hybrid role. Besides their own particular interests, they are paradoxically responsible for the public interest as well. Following the conclusions of Kempen and Priemus about new Dutch housing policy, in the future, the housing corporations themselves could be the main actors in the field because 'the central government is increasingly distancing itself from the inexpensive segments of the housing market. This means that housing corporations themselves should try to preserve the advantages of the Dutch social housing sector.'
It is not a secret that the particular interests and ambitions of the developers are primarily financial. There is no basic difference between them in that sense. Profit is the name of the game. They are, in the first instance, eager to know what risks will be taken and what profits will be gained. In their vision, only particular models can guarantee a good return on their investment. In the American context, according to Garreau, the simple formula of 'Law of Four' is the main criterion that counts in every new development. It says: 'The house that makes a profit for its builder is one that sells for whatever the cost of the land under it multiplied by four'.
In other words, if a lot costs one Euro, developer must build enough housing on it to sell the lot and buildings for four Euro. If he does not follow this rule, he goes bankrupt.
A similar logic can be found in Europe as well. According to the Town Hall Annual Report (2001), in different parts of Amsterdam the square meter price of apartments in relation to that of their land followed a similar proportion. There was no difference between the peripheral and central parts of the city in relation to the proportion between these two values. The ratio of about 1:4 is fixed and the price per square meter of apartment and the price per square meter of land is dependent on the location. No less and no more.
Also, the lot sizes are fixed in relation to the class of houses to be built. According to common Dutch practice, a house of one hundred twenty square meters has about the same lot surface (net FSI of1.0). This spatial norm is not based upon an attempt to preserve landscape or to satisfy family needs, behavioural pattern or planting requirements. It is a result of a common financial pattern. Nevertheless, a great part of the urban structure has been determined in this way. Forms of clustering, block sizes, even shapes, and building typology are pre-designed by all these financial factors.
Townscape and elements of public space are also pre-designed by financing. It is a common rule that the proportion of a neighbourhood's total and parcelled-out terrain must be about three to two. If the total area of private lots sold is under sixty-five percent of the total gross neighbourhood area (including space dedicated to roads, infrastructure and public space) the venture becomes too risky. Additionally, if the total amount of paved open space including roads, parking places and playgrounds is above fifteen percent, the success of a development that also complies to all norms and regulations would be considered as doubtful if not impossible.
As Richard Harvey stresses, the opposite concern seems reasonable as well. His concern is that only the urbanised living environments of high density and inspired forms of urban design are the paths to a more ecologically sensitive form of civilisation. In such environments, people can organise themselves and better learn how to deal with the new type of nature. Contemporary environments have a new structure that surfaced through the transformation of an idealised version of nature. High pollution rates, interrupted ecological networks and extensive waste of resources have been continuously changing that ideal.
By all these preconditions based on simple mathematics, the living environment at large has been determined. Density, building typology, relationships between houses, public space character, and street patterns are in a broad sense, pre-designed by neither spatial factors nor urban planners. Therefore, it becomes apparent that this short mathematical analysis used by developers is among the primary forces that shape contemporary developments. The role of professionals is to provide the design within these limitations and deliver an attractive package to the market.
|
