I sometimes wonder – what do we really give people? When we walk away at the end of a project, we have spent years planning, developing, designing, financing and building something. We may pause at that point to celebrate the milestone, but what is our true legacy?
By this I mean, how does the property or precinct really work for the people who live and work there every day?
Whilst at some stage in our careers we may be lucky enough to work on true landmarks – the sorts of places remembered and known for the right reasons – there are many other projects that are not standouts as projects, but which people happily occupy and customise for many years.
I recently attended a party in a small flat in a Harry Seidler-designed building in Sydney’s Elizabeth Bay, still with its original early-60s kitchen cabinets. The owners were devotees of the modernistic sensibilities expressed in their building, complete with small car spaces protected by concrete latticework, tiny balconies and blank street façade. With the owners’ lovingly restored Parker furniture, the apartment had withstood the test of time and was still truly enjoyed and celebrated by its inhabitants.
Australia Square tower in Sydney still looks great and works well on any level, but the quirky wedge-shaped lifts and unusual shower facilities refer to a pre-exercise obsessed era, and as for bicycles – well you’d have to have the folding variety. Nevertheless, it is a landmark building and its occupants generally have affection for its quirky layout. The public domain too is well utilized, as anyone who has tried to have a drink there on a Thursday or Friday evening will attest.
Any of the grand late 19th century buildings in Australia’s cities are a treat, offering good light from beautiful windows, high ceilings, stylish entry lobbies and stellar thermal properties with their thick stone walls. It makes you wonder if our current urban design will provide such a strong legacy in 150 years.
But never mind 150 years, it always pays to take a walk around a site soon after initial occupation. To see people enjoying landscaping that perhaps was a bone of contention between developer and council, or to feel the buzz of a new alfresco eating area, is reward in itself.
All around Australia it is possible to see where spaces like this have hit the mark. I recently had the pleasure of speaking with someone who, unbeknown to either of us up to that point, had recently moved into a building that I had overseen. It was extremely gratifying to hear all the positives about natural light, great working environment, cafes, and other aspects over which we had spent so many hours deliberating. Equally. however, I am sure we have all experienced at some stage the disappointment of empty shops and unfriendly wind tunnels – testament to where we may have done better.
But what about inside? Commercial offices are a mixed bag. Often the things which most delight workers have little to do with the base building. Is it really possible for a typical tenant to express satisfaction with air quality? Or lift speeds? Or are these things just taken for granted? It is more likely to be interior architects and fitout specialists who take the credit for the success or otherwise of a commercial office through their choice of carpet, furniture or even art hanging on the wall.
While we can all draw conclusions around single projects, or make our own judgments, few industry players are good at, able to, or even bother to follow up with the intended occupants. Property post-occupancy reviews tend to focus on contract-based criteria or pre-publicised standouts such as energy efficiency or traffic flow.
Anyone working in residential development, especially inner-city apartments, would probably be the most connected to their market, particularly as this segment tends to deal directly with people spending their own money as opposed to say commercial, where the occupants are often simply the workers in a larger organisation and the decision to remain or move is not in their control.
In residential, there is nearly always an involved retiree who makes it their mission to supervise the defects period, and who is fully engaged in resolving operating and ongoing issues. These people are able to galvanise support from all residents, and can really test the mettle of the developer or builder.
Equally though, those same people can become the greatest advocates for their development. They may love the views, community or facilities and, properly harnessed, will be a wonderful supporter for years to come.
Perhaps an industry standard post-occupancy measure that looks at a range of things, not just whether the owner got what they asked for, but also whether those who use the space thought it measured up, would provide something objective to compare ourselves to – although, even those opinions are by their very nature subjective.
Major projects tend to receive public commentary either in newspapers, especially letters pages, or in conversations at social gatherings. How many times have you been involved in a meeting in an office that looked out at another building and used that property’s merits or otherwise as an icebreaker? These conversations go on daily on privileged executive floors around the city. It’s a sobering thought when you consider that our clients are part of these conversations, and our brands are very visible on hoardings and cranes.
Without an accepted industry-wide measure in place, it is left for each of us to do our own research. I advocate taking the time to walk around and talk to people living and working in your past projects. Who knows, you may even get some insights which solve a current issue for you.
And what to do if you hear something bad? Definitely don’t hand out your business card!
Tina Tang is a project director at Brookfield Multiplex.
Tina Tang |
Wednesday, 30 April 2008 7:00 AM |
The anecdotal, statistical and social evidence proffered on the debate about the generation divide has been recounted in popular media, at dinner parties, pub talk, staff review sessions and so on, time and time again. Whatever the objective or clinical out-take on the generation debate, and whatever the definition of the age bands, it’s interesting to observe how these groupings have made it convenient to categorise behavioural characteristics. The story lines and themes that develop have a ring of familiarity.
Here’s my take on it so far.
The pre-war crowd, now all aged over 60 and numbering about 3.4 million, is shrinking at a fast rate. They have done their bit in the work stakes. They are our retirees shifting about the place in Winnebago style motor homes, on motor bikes, sea or tree changing in the accommodation context. They have a sense that everything shouldn’t be so hard. They have seen it all – depression, wars, Menzies and the rest. For most, technology is too hard – all a bit of a fad. It’s not how things were done in their day. The Cat Stevens song Father and Son says it all.
Next is the lot that seemed to start the debate – the baby boomers. There are over four million of them, with the bulk aged between 50 and 60. They see themselves as the true leaders, the portals of wisdom. Their life experience, invariably self described as tough, has witnessed cyclical change but somehow perversely, it’s deemed perfect, like having mixed good and bad, innocence and experience and they want things to stay that way. Why can’t those that follow see that, they muse? But to those that follow, things aren’t the same. The rules have changed and the baby boomers have a lot to answer for.
Generation X number 4.3 million or so and have zoomed past 30 years-old. They are flexing their muscles, although they haven’t had it too easy either. They have witnessed the boom to bust sequence, prosperity to recession and back again – the dreaded economic cycle. However, for many Xs, things are often just beyond reach and they grow impatient, doing things new ways. The baby boomers have crammed them for space; blocked their way. Boomer way is not the only way – and never mind if it doesn’t work out, there’s the family fortune to inherit.
Generation Y, the younger ones in the 15-30 age bracket at approximately 3.9 million, are the stay-at-home generation. They have well and truly sprouted, yet some behaviour patterns suggest they refuse to buckle down to the task and choose to do things only their way and only when they feel like it. They risk destabilising entire economies, or so we’re told. They’re difficult to motivate; either won’t sit still or won’t move; lack the exposure to TV shows like Hey Hey it’s Saturday and Seinfeld and instead crave reality TV experiences. Technology and their contact with it, of course, is to blame. The prodigy successors of Walkmans (invented by baby boomers) have a lot to answer for!
Generation Z, so far a batch of around 3.9 million, are yet to really get past their teens. Their parents, mostly Xs, cram them for a good education. The Zs are emerging as ultimate consumers. Of course you need a mobile phone, Ipod, DS, Wii, i-toy, lap top, broadband and overseas holiday by the time you’re 10! Well why not if mum and dad want to spend their money that way? In reality, the Z jelly isn’t properly set so it’s difficult to tell the true damage they will reap. However, there will be a price to pay for entertainment driven by technology and virtual continuous after school experiences!
Emerging through these characteristics is the notion that every other generation has it easier than another. It’s shades of the Monty Python Yorkshire men sketch – you know “you were lucky” and “luxury” and having to “wake up before yea went to sleep” – all part of life and spoken of course in thick Yorkshire accents. However, the converse to this ‘truism’ is as old as life itself.
That is, the ‘universal’ belief within each generation that, not only is there after burn from the previous generation, but if their own lot had been in charge of things when the former had the reins, life would have been so much better. The lyrics to the Mike and The Mechanics song The Living Years reflects “every generation blames the one before and all of their frustrations come beating on your door” captures a part of this sentiment in a wider context than why the song was written, but I’m sure you all comprehend.
Understanding the underlying motives and structure of the generations gives us fuel to plan economies and adjust to consumer fashions. As property people, this translates to different forms of accommodation and floor space – making a product the market will actually want.
As a society though, generational differences seem stressful. They are a barrier to those seeking to achieve homogenised outcomes. Ultimately, we all still have our own definitions of nirvana – we sometimes don’t want to know about anyone else’s!
And as each of us reminisce and speak about what was, should or might have been the last words go to the Python Yorkshire men: “just try and tell that to the kids these days and they just won’t believe you.”
Bob Hawes is development partner at Buildev and chairs the Property Council of Australia’s Hunter Chapter.
Bob Hawes |
Wednesday, 30 April 2008 6:00 AM |
