Risk Asessment slows innovation

[MSimon]

I love urban sprawl. In the 30s and 40s it was the American dream. A house, a picket fence. And a lot large enough for a serious garden.

You might like an old movie (comedy) based on that theme: "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040613/

Also dispersed living is better in terms communicable diseases or nuclear attacks. Not to mention terrorist attacks.

But you know what the chief cause of urban sprawl is? It is what people want.

Another cause is the high cost of building in cities. And what is one of the drivers of that? Union labor requirements and restrictive building codes. Don't even get me started on zoning boards. Zoning is another big driver of sprawl. Because it is impermissible to build housing in commercial/industrial zones. Before zoning laws cities used to be organic.

==

Did some one say oil deficits? There is a one word answer to that question: Congress.

[MirariNefas]

Also dispersed living is better in terms communicable diseases or nuclear attacks. Not to mention terrorist attacks.

And traffic. You can build houses up, but you can't build up the roads. I never appreciated the nice clear streets of suburbs until I moved to LA.

[gblaze42]

Let's talk big ticket. The moonshots. Have they proven profitable over time? Should we have done them or not?

Heck, let's talk really big... the interstate highway system. Was that "profitable?"

I think that we've done well as a country largely because we're willing to take risks, and absorb losses. Because we have the vision to realize that the personal fortunes that are "lost" are investments in the big picture. Win-win situations.

The internet, anyone?

Mike

If we are talking about anything like a "Manhattan" or "Apollo" type of project, it would have to be a Government initiative. Not many companies could provide the +$100 billion that these projects needed.

Anyway. this is different from what I thought we were discussing.

[Mike Holmes]

Well, that's my point, GB. If those endeavors have been profitable at all, they have to occur starting with government. Many projects can be started by businesses with reasonable risk assessment. But you don't get to the moon in the 1960s that way. That takes a risk assumed by all of us jointly. It's like the insurance industry - the wider you can spread the risk, the lower the cost is to the individual.

I think there have been costs and downsides to each of these projects. But in the long run, I think we're the most powerful nation in the world because we choose to do these things and the other things.

India landed on the moon last week. 40 years later.

Mike

[jmc]

The other issue is capturing the profits of the benefits to mankind that new technological research brings. All to often a company geared on researching a product gets it stolen by some generic company that can stand on the shoulders of giants and sell it at a lower cost because they don't need to recoup the money that was spent researching it.

Why should a select group of shareholders lose vast ammounts of money on a idea that benefitted mankind but bankrupted them? That's why companies often only engage in commercialising technology that it on the verge of maturity rather than developing it from scratch.

There's alot to be said for the government funding super-high risk research where profits are beyond the horizon, that way at least the risk is spread over the widest possible number of people. i.e. taxpayers.

[Mike Holmes]

Well... IP rights do exist. Patents, copyright, etc. Drug companies do have a period where only they can profit from their inventions, for precisely this reason. Which technologies are they to which you're referring? Or are you saying that IP rights should be held in perpetuity?

Mike

[StevePoling]

You might like an old movie (comedy) based on that theme: "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House"

When I saw this movie a long time ago, I thought, "Every project management student absolutely MUST see this movie to understand how a project goes out of control, overspends, and (God willing) turns out OK in the end." I can't believe how many times I've seen the anti-patterns exhibited in this movie play out in projects around me.

[MSimon]

You might like an old movie (comedy) based on that theme: "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House"

When I saw this movie a long time ago, I thought, "Every project management student absolutely MUST see this movie to understand how a project goes out of control, overspends, and (God willing) turns out OK in the end." I can't believe how many times I've seen the anti-patterns exhibited in this movie play out in projects around me.

So true.

To get things done on time and on budget the plans must be as simple as possible and you have to be utterly ruthless in sticking to them. In a big organization it also helps if you are way behind schedule when the plan is formulated. Then you can tell the "deviants" to take a hike with two simlpe words - no time.

[KitemanSA]

I love urban sprawl. In the 30s and 40s it was the American dream. A house, a picket fence. And a lot large enough for a serious garden.
But you know what the chief cause of urban sprawl is? It is what people want.

And as long as thy are willing to pay ALL the costs of getting it, more power to them. But... see below.

Another cause is the high cost of building in cities. And what is one of the drivers of that? Union labor requirements and restrictive building codes.

The primary driver of the high cost of cities is the subsidies the cities have to pay for suburban sprawl.
I'm a tweener. I live between the city and the suburban sprawl. I know how much I have to pay each time someone builds a "low cost" house out in the boonies. I have to pay to rebuild the roads that are just fine for the cities, but now need to haul their subsidized arses INTO the city to work. I have to pay for yet another school to support their new houseful of subsidized kids, and the school busses to haul their subsidized arses from their far flung houses to the brand new school that I just paid for. I have to pay for the new sewer system to stretch from their far flung, subsidized houses to the sewer station that I just had to pay YET AGAIN for the priviledge of not using. I paid for my own, now I have to pay for theirs. I have to pay for expanding the water utility to put water into piping that I had to pay for to pipe water to keep their far-flung sorry arses clean.
And I look inward and feel sorry for the poor folk in the city that probably had to pay for my ring of sprawl. Rotarian socialism anyone?
And what happens to all those subsidies? They get folded into the price of land and labor in the cities. No wonder things are so expensive in cities.
So, no, the Military and Interstate Highway System was NOT profitable except for those who like to make a buck off of taxing other to poverty.

[MSimon]

I love urban sprawl. In the 30s and 40s it was the American dream. A house, a picket fence. And a lot large enough for a serious garden.
But you know what the chief cause of urban sprawl is? It is what people want.

And as long as thy are willing to pay ALL the costs of getting it, more power to them. But... see below.

Another cause is the high cost of building in cities. And what is one of the drivers of that? Union labor requirements and restrictive building codes.

The primary driver of the high cost of cities is the subsidies the cities have to pay for suburban sprawl.
I'm a tweener. I live between the city and the suburban sprawl. I know how much I have to pay each time someone builds a "low cost" house out in the boonies. I have to pay to rebuild the roads that are just fine for the cities, but now need to haul their subsidized arses INTO the city to work. I have to pay for yet another school to support their new houseful of subsidized kids, and the school busses to haul their subsidized arses from their far flung houses to the brand new school that I just paid for. I have to pay for the new sewer system to stretch from their far flung, subsidized houses to the sewer station that I just had to pay YET AGAIN for the priviledge of not using. I paid for my own, now I have to pay for theirs. I have to pay for expanding the water utility to put water into piping that I had to pay for to pipe water to keep their far-flung sorry arses clean.
And I look inward and feel sorry for the poor folk in the city that probably had to pay for my ring of sprawl. Rotarian socialism anyone?
And what happens to all those subsidies? They get folded into the price of land and labor in the cities. No wonder things are so expensive in cities.
So, no, the Military and Interstate Highway System was NOT profitable except for those who like to make a buck off of taxing other to poverty.

The cities are corrupt. You ever live in a big one? In Chicago there is all kinds of unlicensed repair going on because you can't do it economically with unions and union mandates. However, if you build new in a city you can't escape the unions and union mandates.

Just as the auto unions are killing the Detroit auto industry so they are killing our cities.

Here is an example from a small town in California:

http://www.governing.com/articles/0811vallejo.htm

BTW I'd like to see an article on how the cities are subsidizing the suburbs. Around here there is a special tax on new developments that cover sewage, water, roads, and schools.

And don't forget the advantages for dispersed living re: communicable diseases. And pollution. Fewer traffic jams more trees. And don't forget safer neighborhoods.

In any case people should live where they want to. If cities don't want to subsidize suburbia (assuming that is a fact) they certainly have the clout to change the laws. Why don't they?

BTW the Interstate was a Federal Military Program. The purpose is the ability to move troops quickly from the interior in an emergency. They are also safer on a per mile traveled basis.

[KitemanSA]

BTW I'd like to see an article on how the cities are subsidizing the suburbs. Around here there is a special tax on new developments that cover sewage, water, roads, and schools.

Maybe your area is unique, but around here, the "special taxes" pay a small part of maintaining and improving the local infrastructure, but everyone pays for the feeder systems, even if we have already paid for a feeder system that worked just fine until the sprawl hit.

[MSimon]

BTW I'd like to see an article on how the cities are subsidizing the suburbs. Around here there is a special tax on new developments that cover sewage, water, roads, and schools.

Maybe your area is unique, but around here, the "special taxes" pay a small part of maintaining and improving the local infrastructure, but everyone pays for the feeder systems, even if we have already paid for a feeder system that worked just fine until the sprawl hit.

If it annoys you so much move to the sprawl and get subsidized. Otherwise it is just another cost of doing business.