Comments on: risk

By: Public vs Private – Mammoth Blog Quote | Local Sid

Public vs Private – Mammoth Blog Quote | Local Sid — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 03:19:08 +0000

[...] risk – mammoth // building nothing out of something: “We learn public infrastructure projects are usually beholden to the demand of constituents (voters, special interest groups, chambers of commerce, etc). This generally leads to comprehensive (‘fair’) coverage, yet often inefficient or unreliable operation, as there isn’t much redundancy built into the system because its goal is to cover the most possible constituents at the lowest cost. In contrast, privately developed infrastructures are virtually always in response to market demand (though they may transition to constituent control at some point in their future). Competition among providers will often result in redundant, more reliable networks (as seen in the layout of New York’s subway system, and the overlapping cellular networks in Los Angeles), but access can spread more slowly, with increased coverage occurring in synch with profitability.” [...]

By: markets, constituencies, and infrastructure – mammoth // building nothing out of something

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:59:01 +0000

[...] this set of cost/benefit trade-offs between public and private infrastructures is why we’ve argued in the past that, when discussing the creation and operation of infrastructure, using ‘development for [...]

By: architects without architecture – mammoth // building nothing out of something

Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:43:22 +0000

[...] that light, although I’m tremendously sympathetic to projects like Roger Sherman’s game theory urbanism as a way of operating within such highly complex environments, the lack of a larger approach within [...]

By: public landscapes of distribution – mammoth // building nothing out of something

Wed, 11 Aug 2010 04:00:56 +0000

[...] probably recognize Roger Sherman as the author of the chapter before “Distribution”, “Count(ing) on Change”. In “Duck-and-Cover” Sherman proposes both an architecture and a business plan, [...]

By: Cell(s’) Structure(d) for Counting (on) Change, through sufficient looseness « Thoughts on Everything under the Sun or I am a guilty Secularist

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 02:05:39 +0000

[...] an interesting video to come across, just in time for my contribution to Mammoth’s book club, discussion on Cell Structure and Counting (On) Change chapters of the Infrastructural City. Particularly [...]

By: Mark Hogan

Mark Hogan — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:54:35 +0000

I think the most common way to deal with risk in an architectural project is to be somewhat vague in the drawings but very specific in the specification. This, of course, can always lead to unfortunate unintended consequences. New methods of more collaborative project delivery could lead to better consequences if architects and contractors had a better and more productive relationship that was focused on solving problems and creating outcomes instead of always trying to shift liability off on the other. Inevitably, the designers will probably have to take more risk but there is also the possibility of seeing greater profits.

By: reading the infrastructural city, chapter nine index – mammoth // building nothing out of something

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:00:24 +0000

[...] A pair of posts related to Roger Sherman’s “Count(ing) on Change”: [...]

By: From Tianguis to Capitalized Urban Space in L.A. « dpr-barcelona

From Tianguis to Capitalized Urban Space in L.A. « dpr-barcelona — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:41:32 +0000

[...] —– This post is part of The Infrastructural City blogiscussion, now reading Roger Sherman’s “Counting (on) Change”. [...]

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 17:30:18 +0000

yeah, I think this is absolutely right. I’m becoming more convinced that some of the most exciting (speaking personally) firms of the future will be, among other things, experimenting with radical new strategies of risk management.

I think it’s key that we learn not only how to gauge (and accept) risk to our own firms, but also how to accurately quantify and counter risks (perceived and real) to other parties in the deal. We can never inherit, for example, the risk of increased traffic to neighbors after the completion of an urban infill project, or the risk of experimenting with a new construction technique unless we become contractors as well. But there has to be a better way than adding on the standard 20% contingency price to loans and construction pricing, or increasing the cost of insurance, or just not doing the project at all. I think this is important regardless of who the developer is, whether designer or designer’s client.

By: “anchors in a mutable field” – mammoth // building nothing out of something

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:42:31 +0000

[...] home // hide asides // links // index.archive // contact us // about « risk [...]

By: rholmes

rholmes — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:41:02 +0000

In addition to the link between attitudes towards the management of risk and different resulting urbanisms, I also think there’s a strong connection between risk and agency. In order to expand agency, one must accept expanded risk. We — architects, landscape architects — often step back from expanded agency, because it would increase our financial or legal liability. This is not an absurd decision (the risks of, say, assuming some of the burden of the developer, are real), but it does have consequences (we cede parts of projects which we might have important things to say about) which are not always positive.

By: Tweets that mention risk – mammoth // building nothing out of something -- Topsy.com

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:00:55 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ethel Baraona Pohl, Stephen Becker. Stephen Becker said: self link | http://m.ammoth.us/blog/2010/07/risk/ | #mammothbook [...]