Two things about development

that I learned this morning, from Jon DeVries and
Jennifer McNeil Dhadwal who spoke at an APA session:

(1) The commercial real estate market in recent times is dominated by the demands of national companies, who have their own very specific requirements for space. DeVries mentioned this in the context of market research, which thus can be simpler because one need only ask the prospective tenants what their requirements are. But I think it also implies that the big tenants can put some of their risk onto the developers; if their requirements change, the developers are stuck with projects that might be difficult to market.

(2) “Modern [office] buildings require less space per worker due to structural efficiencies and workflow changes.” For years I have been saying that office buildings require more space per worker than fifty or a hundred years ago. The old office involved row upon row of desks occupied by typists or clerks, with no space for computers, xerox machines, etc. And today more work is done by telephone, requring some space for sound insulation. One implication is that, if the amount of office space in an area does not increase, then the number of office workers will decrease.

Dhadwal’s source seems to be ULI, so I shall have to look into what studies they’ve done (which unfortunately are likely to cost real money). Maybe the trend cited is a reversal just within the past five or ten years. I suppose that just the replacement of CRT with LCD computer monitors could save some space, but there must be other factors too.

These speakers also mentioned that typical densities for manufacturing employment are 300-400 square feet per worker, and for distribution/warehouse at least 1600 square feet/worker.

The other highlight of the session was David Stamm’s description of the redevelopment of the former Kennedy/King College site.   He noted that the site, in Englewood, didn’t have much potential for a lot of uses.  For instance, you couldn’t build a drug store, because of too much competition nearby.

Economics course as video game

The University of North Carolina/Greensboro’s   Economics 201 “is now a fast-paced video game.”  You were supposed to register by March 14; I guess it’s over now.  More about the course here.

Is this effective and/or appealing to gamers?  I have no idea, but if I were one I would want to try it.  It’s micro, not macro, so probably not too much overlap with Georgist concepts.

Casual dress encourages exercise

I’d always thought that wearing suits and ties was a bad idea, and now I’m glad to find some scientific support.

After analyzing the data, researchers found that workday physical activity levels increased when casual clothing was worn. In particular, study participants took an average of 491 (or 8 percent) more steps on Jeans Day than on days they wore normal business attire.

New report from the Sightline Institute on how Measure 37 has made life difficult for Oregon property owners. Thanks to Eric Bruun for passing it along.

I guess the main point here is that the main purpose of thoughtful land use regulation is to increase land values or land rents.  In the absence of such regulation, individuals may be able to claim windfalls, but it will be at the expense of their fellow owners.

Of course thoughtless land use regulation may have a different result.

A Commonwealth of Thieves

Fine book by Thomas Keneally, whom I hadn’t heard of but is a prolific Australian author (dozens of books including Schindler’s List and The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith).

I had wanted a history of Australia, which this really isn’t. It just covers the initial European settlement, 1788-1792, with quite a bit of before & after context. I knew that Australia was initially settled by convicts sentenced to “transportation,” generally an alternative to the death penalty but also a way of solving prison overcrowding in Britain. The overcrowding was largely due to the enclosures, which created a mass of poor landless many of whom turned to crime. Initially, prisoners were “transported” to the American Colonies, where they became indentured servants (and, if they had affluent friends, could buy the freedom immediately).

After the American Revolution, there were attempts to send prisoners to Canada, and eventually most were just put on hulks in British harbors, where conditions were terrible. Australia having been discovered just a few years earlier, it was decided to transport prisoners there. Of course ship crews and military had to go along. Once landed, they had to deal with the existing population of aboriginal people.

Apparently most of the convicts had been found guilty of either of minor crimes (such as might lead to probation today), or crimes due to their poverty.

Separation of prisoners from the nonprisoners was of course much less than in England (or probably anywhere else). In fact, when it was eventually found necessary ot have a “night patrol”, (the closest thing to a police force at that time), it was staffed by prisoners. And when a locksmith was required, it was a prisoner who had the needed skill.

Arthur Phillip, a Navy Captain, was Governor General and seems to have done a superb job under the circumstances, working in virtually complete isolation from his government in Britain. (When the initial fleet of ships departed back to Britain, they took the sentencing records, so among Phillip’s difficulties was that he had to rely on the convicts to tell him when their sentences expired.)

I am not going to write a proper review of this book, but I recommend it for those interested in the subject. As for learning about the history of Australia, I am turning to a very different work, John C. Weaver’s The Great Land Rush & the Making of the Modern World. Australia is just one of the case studies Weaver uses. I’ve just started and shall plow thru it (unfortunately it’s in an academic style that would benefit from Drake-i-zation) but it’s a serious analysis of an important topic. Thanks to Bill Batt for recommending it.

Privatizing the “War on Terror”

Of course it’s already been turned into a bonanza for many corporations, but it could instead be privatized in a costless and, perhaps, effective way.  Here’s Fred Foldvary’s suggestion. (undated, but apparently from several years ago)