6/22/2010 - "I'm back"

So, how did Mark's perspective strike you?

I shared with Mark, Vishal and I met with James and showed him our model and James' stated we "needed more density to make the numbers work".  I also shared with Mark, Vishal and I were working backwards to determine the cash flow needed to make it a viable venture and we may need to add a story or two for the residential piece.

Mark shares more of his perspective on the matter.  I quote from his email:

"For example, your comment of the owner that more density is required to "make the numbers work" is predicated upon an idea of income for quantity and not quality. "Cash flow" to be "viable" is quite clear indication that money is the primary, if not only, motive. It might seem un-American, certainly anti-Capitalist, to suggest that that's exactly the problem with the public realm and it's continuing degradation and precaution."

OK and fair enough.  One man's further perspective should be respected whether or not you share that perspective.  What do you think?

My response to Mark:

"Your world view appears clear to me and very much respected. Often those who do not share a “pluralistic mindset” may find it hard to relate to. Given this is a real estate development class whereby its students are more or less driven to an “achiever mindset” in that, success of the project is predicated on the ability to obtain equity and debt which require the students be cognitive of investor’s “return” and financial institution’s “debt coverage ratios” may cloud their mind to be open to a discussion which is counter to the objective for this particular class assignment."

Mark's response to me:

My belief is / was that any commentary regarding Architecture or design as a discipline was in addition to - to augment - your "success" scenario. To set a higher bar than ROI for an owner or the quick retirement of a bank's 'baby bird' hunger. As an architect concerned with integrity of idea and action, what else would I ethically talk about?

My thoughts back to Mark:
 
"Perhaps I have jumped to conclusions. I agree with your take on “addition to” and “to augment”. I must admit I failed to see it in this light initially and I appreciate you helping me see it in that way. In retrospect, design is an element the class assignment was told to consider and given “my” first hurdle of financing (not design), I obviously was one dimensional."
 
Why do I share this with you?
 
I think there is a balance developers and architects have to reach whereby there are mutually beneficial outcomes of ROI and integrity of idea and action.  Be aware of it.
 
Ponder that!!!
 
Deeply submitted,
J2M