Nature
and Size of Opportunity |
| I
use an image of the Earth for the masthead because
the subject of this piece is about the nature and
scope of the opportunity of the postUsonian Project. |
| The
nature of the opportunity is to rethink
how we create habitat on this planet. The postUsonian,
alone,
will not solve this issue in its entirety. It is
an application of architecture to a fairly narrow
spectrum of the global housing challenge. It can be,
however, one example
of a more affordable, sustainable and
human
way. The scope is global in two ways. First,
the need is global and the postUsonian solution will
be able to address this need in a variety of climes,
conditions and places. A successful postUsonian design
and delivery system will generate projects all over
the world. Second, at the heart of it, the postUsonian
Project is about
launching
a
new
way of doing business in the realm of housing. Although
the postUsonian will address the housing opportunity
of a miniscule
number
of the global population - not, however, insignificant
in the aggregate - what can be learned from this
experience can be
employed in the solutions related to a far greater
number and types of applications. The model being
employed here is that innovation often comes in projects
for educated people with steady not necessarily great
incomes. This is the history of the Usonians which
were “middle
class”
houses.
What is learned can be applied to
other income situations including “affordable housing.” |
| The
opportunities created by the postUsonian Project
go across the entire ValueWeb. There are opportunities
for Investors: social, profit and non-profit; Producers:
designers, architects, manufactures, contractors,
services and suppliers; and, for Customers: clients,
owners, renters and hospitality businesses. These
opportunities, however, will be exercised within
a new covenant
which will
create
a level playing field and a new game aimed at removing
the exploitive aspects of development that now drive
up risk and costs. |
|
| There
are many, diverse members in the INVESTOR NETWORK.
These, in the existing organizational model, do
not always see themselves as having common cause.
Governments, representing civil society - national,
state and local - are all investors in any building
project. There is always legitimate debate as to
the proper role and scope of government in housing
but the fact is that society at large is an
investor (and beneficiary) and has to be be treated
as
such. Those that put capital, in any form, at risk
are investors. This happens at many levels and
in many forms in the construction of a building
and includes capital from the owners themselves
(which has market value), organizations like Fanni
Mae [link],
local banks, savings and loans, and now a myriad
of mortgage entities. There are investors in the
Producer entities. At the moment, the Investors
in the housing arena do not make up an efficient
market. The postUsonian Project is not going to
take on the whole housing industry. It does aim
to create a LEAN system for a single segment
based on the Usonian vision. This will mean distributed
information, fewer risks, fewer failures, lower
costs and reasonable profits equal to the value
provided. Investment costs will remain variable
because of fluctuations in the capital markets,
they will not be as volatile, however, because
of the usual uncertainties in real estate development [link].
In a properly constructed ValueWeb, the enterprise,
market and “local” economy are the same thing. |
|
| If
you eliminate those who want to design,
build and sell houses just to “make”
money; if you build a network of those who have
a passion
for
the
work and desire to produce art and get paid reasonably
for the results; then, the postUsonian Project
offers opportunities that are very rare indeed.
It will offer few attractions for those who think
they work for money. Creating great architecture
is not easy. The existing system is full of economic
disincentives. The designer and builder do the
greatest amount of work, take the largest risks
and long ternm liabilities, and get paid the
least for their efforts. They are not paid for
value created but a percentage of the costs.
To take cost but not value out of a house means
to do more work at less pay. If you look at the
life-cycle costs of a house, the design and build
fees pale compared to developer margins, mortgage
fees and interest, realtor fees and what the
owner can make by turning the home into an act
of speculations and selling it. Do you want to
know why cliche design rules and why R&D and
innovation is almost non existent? A system and
market has to be created that pays based on value
created and where value can accrue steadily
over time and be insulated from ad-hoc speculative
grabs. This can be accomplished by contract and
conditional ownership. The objective of the
Usonian was to create HOMES not objects
of speculation. The Usonians have an exemplary
record of ownership; they stayed in their families
for multiple generations at a time that Americans
traded houses like cars. However, over a long
period of time, they have become costly
possessions or museums. Depending on local markets,
their conditions and other random factors, few
today fir within the economic range of their
founders. Building home equity has been and will
remain a means to financial security for many.
There can be room for this in a system that also
fairly rewards all that create value
and keeps rampant speculation, boom and bust
out
of the
equation. The Renascence Home Ownership Program [link] will
be one of many mechanisms available to accomplish
these ends. |
|
| A
Usonian or postUsonian is not for everyone. There
are many legitimate life-styles and other circumstances
that demand a wide variety of housing types.
All of these can be wonderful architecture, affordable
and sustainable. All contribute to the social
landscape. This is why it is important to understand
what the essence of the Usonian concept
is, to verify if it is valid today, and - if
so - build
to exactly that specification for those
that it truly fits. This is why the CUSTOMER is
so important to the process and why it is important
for the customer to select in carefully [link].
This is why it is important to know if the customer
demand is for 10 a year, a 1,000 or ten thousand.
The market of Investor, Producer, Customer has
to be kept in balance. This is the process of
Mass Customization. The size of the
market is not what is important - fitness is.
There is a threshold of size that will lift
the postUsonian market out of the realm of custom
design to a level of production efficiency that
will provide significant economic benefits. There
are two caveats, however; first, this production
should be on the modular and component scale
allowing for an endless variety of individual
design solutions
- in other words, a grammar that will permit
many poems. The second caveat is that the concept
of “economy of scale” be understood in context
of a distributed network system in which information
is shipped and many things are made locally and
lean methods are at play. It is not the old centralized
mass production market that I refer to here -
the scale that makes an economy of scale
is very different in a cybernetic market. |
|
| As
described [link],
the postUsonian project will evolve from project
to organization to fully functioning
ValueWeb. This requires a SYSTEM INTERGRATOR [link] to
facilitate this process. |
|
post_usonian_opportunity_summary |
| The
purpose of a ValueWeb is create wealth and distribute
it equably as a certain community defines it [link].
ValueWebs grow two ways [link].
First, by expanding the number of
individuals and organizations in the Investor,
Producer and Customer Networks. Second, by creating
more transaction possibilities between these nodes.
If all of the effort that exists today, globally,
aimed at creating house in the spirit of the Usonian,
were accounted as a single system it would be seen
as a large enterprise. It is not because it is
made
up of
a series of
one-off, ad-hoc attempts. A great deal of this
work is of high quality yet is far more expensive
than necessary because of this fragmentation. The
business opportunity for all members
of the ValueWeb is to bring systematic effort,
shared knowledge and some, where appropriate, economies
of scale to an integrated Enterprise without
destroying individual freedom and initiative. If
the existing interest and efforts that can be called
“Usonian” can be integrated into such an enterprise
far more effective results will be achieved. This,
in turn, will open up a far greater market. An
IDENTITY based on a kind of habitat
and a way of
life will be created, thus, making a movement that
can enjoy increasing returns [link]. This “brand” equity
based on the product, how it is made and how it
is maintained, will accrue to the benefit of all
who are engaged in the Enterprise. |
| If
sane, affordable, sustainable and brilliant architecture
can be created within this one niche it is certain
that a number of principles, methods and means
will prove to be transferable to other housing
challenges.
The human, ecological and economic benefits of
doing this are almost without measure. The consequences
of
not creating better ways of housing, as the development
of the planet continues, are potentially catastrophic
[link]. |
| The
continium of opportunity made possible by the postUsonian
project is vast. There are many reasons for a
diverse number of individuals to get involved.
What are now competing interests in a fragmented
market can be made compatable. Increasing returns
of a positive kind can be achieved. Individual
good and social good can be one. Economy/ecology
can be defined and demonstrated as the same thing.
The ART of archietcture [link] based
on a way of
living can become available to a greater number
of Earth’s
population. Real wealth can be created
[link].
And, the act of doing it can be far more fun and
enlightening than what is provided by the array
of distractions that now pass for recreation and
entertainment. |
| Fred
Stiff, today, set me a link of some interesting
work going on down under [link].
It will be worth while following this effort. |
|
|
|
| Return
To postUsonian Index |
|
|
|
|
| Return
To post Usonian Prototypes |
|
|
|
|
Matt
Taylor
Elsewhere
May 22, 2004
|
SolutionBox
voice of this document:
VISION • PHILOSOPHY • PROGRAM
|
posted
May 22, 2004
revised
December 4, 2004
• 20040522.44123.mt • 20040523.666600.mt •
• 20041205.566221.mt •
(note:
this document is about 45% finished)
Matt
Taylor 615 525 7053
me@matttaylor.com
Copyright© Matt
Taylor 2004
|
|
|
