The Real Estate Market Crash: When and how will it End?

While many people are focused on the Dow Jones Industrial Average, wondering if their 401K will climb back up, perhaps an equal number are pondering the question of when their home values will regain what they have lost. In previous entry I blogged about the real estate crisis we are currently in and who is to blame for our situation. This week I chose to continue in looking at the blogosphere to find out what opinions commentators are offering on when and how the real estate market will return to its previous level. Many opinions differ as to when the housing market will turn around. Most analysts think that we have not yet hit bottom while others seem to think we might be close. One of the keys in solving this puzzle is fixing the problems that put us in the debacle in the first place. Fortunately things are slowing improving and responsible lenders are approving loans to buyers with jobs, good credit and a down payment. Now the public can recognize that home ownership is generally not a good short term investment. Another contributing factor which will help improve the market is if sellers who do not really have to sell would keep their homes off the market. When searching for relevant blogs I chose two in which both bloggers offer solutions to what they feel will help pull the economy out of this slump faster. The first blog I commented on, titled “When Will Real Estate Values Begin to Appreciate Again?” written by a man names Aubrey and his theory is for Americans to reinvest into America like they did in the earlier years. The second blog, “10 Reasons Why California is Years Away from a Housing Bottom: Rebuttal to Those Calling for a Bottom for California Housing” written by a group called Dr. Housing Bubble and they propose ten reasons as to why the real estate market will not the bottom. Each of my comments can be found below for your convenience.

“When Will Real Estate Values Begin to Appreciate Again?”
Comment:
Aubrey, thank you for taking the time to write on an interesting topic that many want answers to yet only time will tell. You bring an interesting opinion to the table when you say Americans need to reinvest back in to America relating it back to the 1930’s and 40’s. However, those newlyweds back then, that so called made the “American dream” was able to make the investment into their home because banks were able to back them up, given their financial situation. Today and at our current time, lenders are becoming more conscious of people and will not give those loans such as a mortgage for a house unless they have a decent job with a well paying income and good credit score. Young people today who become married and want to save enough money for to put a down payment on a home might not have the credit score a lender wants to see. You are right on the other hand; people today have become obsessed with credit and making their money liquid.


What I am trying to get at is yes Americans need to start reinvesting into real estate but many do not have the criteria lenders are looking for and therefore we are asking the ones who are financial sound to help bring back up our economy. On another note you say it will not take Wall Street in doing so to help the housing market out. I disagree, if Wall Street is up people will earn their money lost and will be able to invest in real estate and therefore bring back the old America you talked about. Until then you are correct no one can predict the end to this slump only time can.

“10 Reasons Why California is Years Away from a Housing Bottom: Rebuttal to Those Calling for a Bottom for California Housing”
Comment:
Dr. thanks for the ten reasons as to why California is far from hitting the bottom. You managed to very persuasive arguments to the discussion with great backing facts. I agree with you that our economy as a whole is far from a housing bottom because today prices are slowing increasing and we are beginning to climb back up. Many might think otherwise but we are in no slump. There are many external factors that will not allow for us to hit a housing bottom. Even today such as the new development of L.A. Live this will demand an increase in sales prices for condos, apartments in the downtown area because entertainment is where people want to be. The metro areas are helping out our economy. Even with the real estate prices at 10% less than they were last year, many of the metro areas in the nation are still experiencing price increases. This is largely due to first time home buyers who can still afford to purchase properties and retiring homeowners who are selling their homes and then either moving into a retirement community or purchasing smaller properties. Another important factor is buyers are at a great position to purchase real estate and people do not want to drift away from that. The credit crisis is already is easing. Yes, your credit has to be good to get a good loan from a lender, but loans are available. And the loans are cheaper. As you mention, home prices continue their decline but that will only fuel a turnaround once the market picks back up. Lower prices and lower interest is where it is at now ask yourself what more can a homebuyer want?

Los Angeles Live: The Time Square of the West

Finally, the time has come. Move over Hollywood- L.A. LIVE is now the new focal point of Los Angeles County. Located in the center of the entertainment capital of the world, the 5.6 million acres in downtown Los Angeles, may soon become the primary hot spot and event center Southern California. People seeking entertainment, music, dining and sports will now intersect in this new urban development project spanning six blocks of downtown Los Angeles. For the first time in perhaps decades, people can now wander the city’s downtown area streets, and feel satisfied yet safe, while enjoying a completely new atmosphere and experience. The 2.5 billion dollar project has its managers referring to their new vision as the Time Square of the West” Their goal is to revitalize downtown Los Angeles and this new vision has become the most talked about real estate development project in Southern California. Once completed it will be the largest development in the City of Los Angeles. Although some critics believe the project will benefit only a few wealthy developers and cater to only the affluent, while ignoring the needs of the economically disadvantaged who live nearby, L.A. Live has the potential to improve the lives of everyone in the city, including those in the neighboring communities, by bringing people and thriving businesses back to the downtown area, and by regenerating investor and consumer interest in Los Angeles.

L.A. Live is the focal point of a sports and entertainment district which surrounds Staples Center and Nokia Theatre. The development features sports and music venues, night clubs, restaurants, a bowling alley, a museum and movie theaters. Intended to be premier destination for live entertainment in the city, and the subject of much anticipation, L.A. Live will be the missing link for LA. Now downtown will have the fire which it has been missing for years. Everyone always talks about the night life in cities such as San Francisco, New York, New Orleans and Atlanta. But with this project Los Angeles will be a new hot spot for nightlife and tourism. L.A. will provide what everyone here wanted but didn't have before.

The first phase of the project has been open to the public since October of last year, and included the Nokia Theatre, a 7,100 seat concert and awards show venue, as well as the 40,000 square foot outdoor Nokia Plaza, and six 75-foot towers, along with the addition of 1,500 parking spaces. The second phase is in the process of being completed and already there are twelve restaurants, including some big names such as Lucky Strike Lanes and ESPN Zone, which will radio and TV broadcasts on the top floors. Predicted to be complete in 2010 is the last stage currently under construction, which will include a quality hotel adjacent to the Convention Center surrounded by entertainment. The 54-story hotel development will be a two part JW Marriott hotel, a Ritz-Carlton hotel and 224 condominiums offered by Ritz-Carlton. The project will also have an additional 1,001 total rooms and 77,000 square feet of meeting space, which has already been booked for two years of conference room meetings. "Under-Construction L.A. Live Books 25 Conventions to 2024" The hotel will be a big hit for visitors because there will be plenty to do when they aren't wandering the halls of the convention center. L.A. Lives’ bars, restaurants and shops, combined with its entertainment venues and the promise of nightlife, will provide something for everyone, and draw more and more people back to L.A.. A new generation of young people, including college students, are already adopting the idea of a ‘downtown L.A. night life.’

Critics of L.A. Live are not hard to find. Some have called it “a tragic waste of city land, time and money.” They believe that the development will not enhance the city for anyone but the wealthy, and will contribute nothing to making life better for those on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. “So, all we are doing is letting the billion dollar developers and their international financial backers profit on the building of the affordable housing, as well as the high-end, five star, luxury stuff!”

Others charge that the development is sucking away state money, including funds from voter approved bonds for affordable housing, from needier and worthier areas in order to make the area around the development more suitable. According to the LA Times, “State officials passed over nearly 100 requests for needy neighborhoods to recommend $30 million for improving the area around the L.A. Live entertainment complex.”

Still others complain that it is promoting too much of the wrong kind of activity, and that large video screens, bright lights and security guards will dicourage aSpace The problem is not just that the space is primarily aimed at visitors to L.A. Live's concerts and restaurants rather than local apartment- and condo-dwellers; it is that it actively discourages any of the activities we traditionally associate with the use of collective space in a city: talking, reading, sitting under a tree, even pausing with a friend for a cup of coffee.

While there may be some validity to these and other complaints, there is no reason to believe that in the long run the entire City, including those needier and economically depressed areas, will not achieve a significant benefit from the presence of L.A. Live. Estimates of its economic potential vary, but according to the media press kit L.A. LIVE is projected to produce an economic impact of over $10 billion, create more than 25,000 jobs, and produce more than $18 million in new annual tax events/room rights revenues. Over 13.5 million visitors are expected annually. Additionally, drawing a number of large scale sporting and entertainment events to the area should create new jobs, additional developments and increased tax revenue. ‘AEG President and CEO Tim Leiweke Opens Up on the Project He Has Been Working on for 14 Years’

Perhaps these numbers are ambitious and inflated, particularly in these economic times. However, the new development is sure to draw more and more people back to downtown. Too many urban centers in America have decayed because consumers abandoned them for the suburbs. Bringing them back will not only improve existing nearby businesses, but it will encourage more investment, and more new business and development across the city. As people rediscover downtown L.A. it just may become a hub of social and entertainment activity, and a source of civic pride, and maybe this revitalization will spread to the areas that need it the most. Maybe this is an overly optimistic viewpoint, but it is worth trying, and certainly preferable to allowing downtown L.A. to become stagnant and lifeless.

Although our country may be going through an economic crisis, this bold development will not only create jobs, but it will generate cash flow and opportunities that will benefit the surrounding community. Yes it is flashy, and yes, maybe a little too commercial, but they have done a lot with very little space, and it is a user friendly environment in terms of access, parking and getting around, and there is something for everyone. L.A. Live right now is single handily one of the best things that could happen for this city given our country’s current situation. For years people have been wanting downtown Los Angeles to be a fun outgoing and inviting place, free from crime and violence. Now things are turning around, and people are actually fleeing to L.A. in search of a new exciting and entertaining life. Personally, I can not wait for L.A. Live to open. Along with more jobs, more business and less crime, there will be more choices for food and entertainment, more parking, and more fun.

The Mortgage Meltdown Blame Game: Consumer Greed, Hormones, or Plenty of Faults to go around?

In previous posts, I have expressed an interest in unique and novel real estate development projects and their impact on the environment as well as surrounding communities. I have been fascinated with finding new ideas and methods for architecture, building design and land use around the world, which have the potential for improving the quality of life and protecting the environment. However, this week I explored the blogosphere on a much talked about issue that is currently affecting millions of Americans. One would have to be living in a cave not to realize that the biggest issue in the world of real estate development right now is the mortgage crisis. The circumstances brought on by the decline in real estate values, combined with the shortage of funding available will make it difficult for developers to take risks with new ideas and untested technology. The stock market is plummeting and global financial markets have been in turmoil for weeks. Is the housing market going to crash? That is the million dollar question which many want answered. The bigger question that needs to be pondered is who is to blame for this crisis we are trying to tackle. Although just about everyone is in agreement that a significant factor in the current economic meltdown is the hundreds of billions of dollars in bad real estate loans sold to homebuyers who cannot afford to pay them, there is no real consensus on who is to blame. Some blame the lenders and mortgage brokers who were so quick to sign homeowners up and refinance them regardless of their ability to pay. Others blame wall street investment bankers who packaged the loans for sale to investors. Still others blame the government for not stepping in to regulate the industry. I searched the blogosphere to see who is blaming whom and why, and came across two different perspectives, both of which caught my attention. The first is on a blog by Geneva Lakefront Realty LLC. By an individual who only gives his name as “David.” His entry “Who’s to blame for the Housing Crisis?” is from someone in an industry which stood to gain by subprime loans, and he takes a very conservative stance, placing blame squarely on the American consumers, who he believes were reckless and taking advantage of banks. I thought this was an interesting viewpoint in that it places no fault whatsoever on any industry or institution. The second, “Are men to blame for our economic crisis?,” is by Shahreen Abedin at CNN.com in their ‘Medical News Unit.’ She presents a novel hypothesis for the economic crisis as a whole that testosterone leads men into taking more risks, causing them to make irrational decisions. My comments addressing these two blogs can be found below with their respective links.

Who’s to blame for the Housing Crisis?
Comment:
After doing some research, I could not agree with you more that American consumers should be blamed for the housing crisis. I agree with what you said about the lack of personal responsibility being the cause. However I don’t believe you can pin it all on the American consumer and say there was not some complicity or fault on the part of the industry or institutions. At first, I thought the banks should have had the majority of the blame, but now I believe that it is safe to say it was a tag team effort. The banks and the investment houses that bought up those loans were also taking risks when they knew better, and they were doing it with other people’s money as well. Banks knew their borrowers had bad credit and could have predicted the consequences. Nevertheless, I would agree that most of the blame should fall on the people who took out these loans and knew, or should have known, they could run into trouble. These borrowers were assuming debts they knew they could not pay, and they continued to act irresponsibly and add insult to injury by living beyond their means, taking out second mortgages, refinancing their homes, and using that money to purchase consumer goods. Unlike normal, responsible people who gradually work their way up and save their money, these people gambled with money they did not have, and frequently, when it came to borrowing money, many lied about their income. Others were just flat out rolling the dice, and being financially reckless, taking out interest only loans and hoping they could refinance as home values rose. The bottom line is that unless this type of behavior is curtailed there will always be a potential for these gamblers to ruin themselves and the economy. The government may want to bail them out along with the banks, but this is not going to solve the problem unless the people at the bottom rung put their finances in order and stop taking out loans they are incapable of paying back.

Are men to blame for our economic crisis?

Comment:
First off, thank you for your interesting take on the current global economic crisis. This is the first time I have heard that men are to blame by reason of their hormones. However, if someone is going to really sit back and blame this entire mess on a man’s testosterone I think someone needs to do a little more research. Preliminarily I would point out that in the world of economics and finance risk-taking is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, without the entrepreneur who is willing to risk his (or her) capital in business, the economy would not function. As you point out, it can be argued that men are more successful money makers because they do tend to take greater risks compared to others. It is irresponsible risk-taking that can lead to disaster. I also wonder if you leaving the impression that women played no role in the current crisis, which is very much related to the mortgage crisis brought about by risky lending practices in subprime residential real estate loans. It is clear that this situation is caused by American consumers and their inability to fully understand and live within their means. Yes, banks did play a tremendous role in putting us into this mess, but our government is also considering bailing out thousands of people that acted stupidly. These consumers did irrational things in order to purchase residential property they could not afford, and took irrational risks as well. Now that the bills are coming due the bubble is collapsing. I would also suggest that a significant portion of home buying and refinancing decisions are made by married couples whose combined incomes are used to purchase residential property, so it might not be fair to blame male testosterone as the sole cause of the global financial meltdown. I am curious as to your thoughts about whether women should share some of the responsibility as well, or do you think financial irresponsibility is only a male trait?

Moscow City: Reveling Anything Can Happen After Dark

Moscow City, sometimes referred to as, “a city within a city”, has a new ambitious multibillion-dollar project aimed at creating a financial district along the lines of the city. Plans unveiled less than a year ago to build a glittering new neighborhood of apartment towers, skyscrapers, schools, parks and shopping malls on the west side of Moscow, believing that their new project will create jobs and open new construction development ideas. However, despite the new project geared towards helping the economy and creating a better night life, many key arguments have risen and plans have come to a halt due to the financial crises happing around the world.

Designed by U.S. architects KPF Associates (Kohn Pedersen Fox) envisions that the new city will have a total of 1,800 apartments in twenty buildings. Ten towers of up to twenty-four stories each will be located directly along the river, while ten smaller, "European-style" buildings will be scattered throughout the complex, which will include several office buildings. With that being said these plans will have a combination of restaurants, retail, a movie theater, loft-type offices or studios, and residential apartments.

Today, developers are beginning to design new architectural icons, on enormous scales to symbolize Russia’s new wealth, drawing from their mass amount of natural resources. According to National Geographic, “there are more billionaires in Moscow than in any other city in the world”. Millionaires they say are as common as “pigeons”. These Moscow planners and developers are trying to prove to the rest of the world and to Russians themselves that this country can compete with anyone. Moscow’s new ambitious plan, hopes for a more popular night life, free from violence, drugs, and prostitution. Creating their own Las Vegas sort of speaks. One aspect the developers face is time and money, and with the world’s current situation, money is a very important factor.

Although there are many advantages to this new development, there will always be some skeptics, who claim there are a number of serious disadvantages as well. For example, the key question that arises is can Moscow drift away from the violence that goes on after dark? In comparison, Las Vegas has the lowest crime rate in the world. You ask yourself why that may be. One can sum up the argument that there are so many witnesses around it would be hard to get away with such violent acts. In Vegas, people do not sleep at night; therefore there is constant awareness around the city. Moscow however, around two in the morning, Moscow stands still, the vast majority of people who are out partying are either heading home or where they need to be at the end of the night. The coming and going of travelers and people are hidden and the only people roaming the dark streets are drunks, homeless, and the ones selling themselves for sex. It is common for street kids to engage in gang activity battling for shelter. Prostitution on the other hand has a reputation for breaking clonidine pills into powder creating a date rape drug by spiking client’s drinks. This then causes the clients to pass out getting robbed of all their possessions and with a still corrupt militia they can do nothing.

Looking at the other factor keeping this development from being built is the impact of the crisis. It is clearest in real estate construction, which happens to be one of the fastest growing segments of the economy over the past few years, but also one of the most heavily dependent on bank loans. With credit disappearing, other developers have joined in announcing plans to halt construction around Moscow. Currently, Russian developers have begun to slow further expansion on their new project and have started projects to raise cash for financing towards their development. For the first time, these Russian based development companies will decide by the end of the year on whether or not to sell market shares to the public in order to help finance the new project. The one thing these big developers have is good credit history which will be seen by banks and in the long run they will be backed up.

Will the new plans for Moscow be the future of this dark city? Will these new construction buildings be the symbol of Moscow’s wealth? Or will it be another opportunity for violence to pick up at night? Admittedly, Moscow has a great opportunity for their economy but the main issue is their history and the fact they live in a black and white picture. Their history is very straight forward and it seems they are gradually trying to create color for the people. However, there is no reason to assume that they can not establish a Las Vegas type city with the money they have. One thing is certain the world is in a tough situation financially and Moscow has to deal with a lot of issues from keeping them from continuing their progress. Maybe Moscow can overcome all the negative consequences that happen in the night and truly begin a new future that is lively and everyone can come together and have a system that is not corrupt, Moscow has the money they just need time.

Trump Teeing Off in Scotland: The Ongoing Clash between Developers and the Environment

In a previous entry, I blogged about the latest in innovative designs for real estate development in large cities, with an eye toward improving the environment. Italian architect David Fisher has proposed the novel concept of large residential and commercial towers with independent floors capable of being mechanically and individually rotated. In addition to enhancing the appearance of city skylines and the view for occupants, the towers would generate their own power as well as enough electricity for several surrounding buildings, through the use of wind turbines and solar cells. The first of these skyscrapers is scheduled to be erected in Dubai by 2010, and this rare combination of a net production of clean energy with aesthetic benefits could transform cities of the 21st century. With natural resources becoming a vital issue in today's global economy, architects, planners, designers and real estate developers are becoming increasingly sensitive to environmental concerns. This week I explored the blogosphere for new developments in the world of real estate, and particularly those which have raised controversy about their effect on the surrounding environment. A recurring question which is being asked is: will a proposed development be beneficial to the surrounding land or will it have a negative impact on the environment? With the effects of urbanization, suburbanization, and sprawl, cities are increasingly requiring developers to incorporate environmental measures in new land development. Along with this pressure, many developers on their own are seeking to build greener developments to meet the market demand from environmentally conscious buyers. Recently, billionaire Donald Trump has been involved in a feud with Scotland natives over his plan to develop the "world's greatest golf resort" in Scotland, a one billion dollar project which includes two championship golf courses, a five-star hotel and hundreds of houses. The essence of the dispute is that the land he has chosen is a three-mile stretch along the coast which has not been touched for centuries, and which is considered by many to be sacred. Critics of the proposal claim that the development would have tremendous adverse consequences on the surrounding environment. For example, local residents and conservationists point out that one of the golf courses proposed in an area known as the Foveran Links, is a stretch of shifting sand dunes that is home to some of the country's rarest wildlife, including skylarks, kittiwakes, badgers and otters. Proponents counter that with proper planning and relocation the adverse effects on the environment from actual implementation of the plan may be minimal. Moreover, they argue that the environmental impact must be balanced against the positive impact the proposed development would have upon the local and national economy, and that Trump's resort would create much needed employment in a depressed economy, as well as a significant rise in revenue to the area from increased tourism. I became fascinated with this issue which is apparently much debated in the press, but there is very little in the blogosphere. While there has been much written in news articles over the last few years on the proposed resort, covering the specifics of both sides of this debate, it was difficult to locate any blogs which addressed the issues raised. I finally found two, both of which were against the project. The first post I commented on, “Trump Golf Resort Delayed: Birdies Have the McDonald Bogeyed” by Trenton Flock. Here Flock is more than skeptical of Trump’s claim to be concerned for the environment, and it is clear he is not fond of the developer. I found another post entitled, "Trump an Environmentalist? You’re Fired," which written by Marc (last name unknown), a young man with a passion for environmental issues and 'rural culture issues,' who publishes a blog with other authors entitled "In One Ear...Out the Other." He too is apparently firmly convinced of the negative impact Trump's plans will have on the environment. I posted my comments to each of the blogs, but for the convenience of the reader they are set forth below, along with a link to each.

“Trump Golf Resort Delayed: Birdies Have the McDonald Bogeyed”
Comment:
I would like to thank you for your post and I enjoyed reading your comments about the environmental issues raised by Donald Trump’s proposed resort. First let me say I appreciate your concerns and that I agree with you that Mr. Trump’s statement about people not wanting to play on a course that is environmentally harmful is a pretty weak argument. But your post leaves the impression that this is his only argument. The actual extent of the project’s effect on the environment is the subject of much debate. There are methods of minimizing the impact of the development upon the environment, including preserving species by “translocating” them to similar locales where they can thrive as they do in the affected area. I do agree with you that the project may ultimately end up being scaled down. The major controversy appears to be that the project will affect what has been called “one of the few remaining mobile dune systems in Britain.” Opponents of the project want the project to be scaled back to eliminate the nine holes proposed for the dunes. However, according to Trump’s project director, "What we're talking about doing is simply planting grass, which would stop this highly mobile sand from traveling northerly, where it has essentially been gobbling up farmland like a giant sand slug," I am curious as to what you think about the merits of his argument in this regard. Also, one aspect of the issue that you do not mention is the question of the positive effects of the proposed development on the economy and the people of Scotland. This billion dollar project is not just about courses according to the Seattle Times, the project calls for two championship golf courses, and a 450-room hotel, in addition to 500 villas and 1,000 vacation homes. It is estimated that this will add an additional $400 million immediately into the local economy and up to $100 million a year thereafter. There are many local residents who believe that Scotland may not see another opportunity like this in the near future. Do you believe trade-offs such as this type of economic benefit merit consideration in weighing the merits of a proposed development of this magnitude?

"Trump an Environmentalist? You’re Fired"
Comment:
Thank you for you post about Donald Trump’s proposed development in Scotland. I appreciate your concern for the environment although we appear at first glance to be coming from opposing perspectives. I note from your bio that you have a passion for environmental and rural culture issues. On the other hand I am a real estate development major. I am concerned about the environment as well, but I also believe that economic benefits have to be considered and sometimes trade-offs have to be made when discussing whether a particular use of land is appropriate and in the best interests of society. Most of the arguments on this particular proposal seem to focus on non-issues such as Donald Trump’s ego. However, very few are addressing the real issues such as: What are likely to be the true effects of this development? Are the objections of the critics legitimate? One commentator makes a compelling argument that the true character of the land as sacred ground that must be preserved at all costs is debatable. “The three miles that Mr. Trump would like to commandeer constitute but a tiny and deserted percentage of the total. Since he took an interest, however, they have acquired a new nomenclature. No longer just sands, they are described as “unspoilt dune ecosystems”, or “mobile dune vegetation”, the “crown jewels” of “our most precious habitat”, even “a benchmark test of environment legislation”. Moreover, very few critics of the proposal seem to consider the economic benefits of the development. According to one article, the plan has overwhelming support from leaders of the local business community, who believe that the “global Trump brand”, they mention how this development would help raise the region's status and bring more business to its existing clubs and help address the shortage of housing and hotel accommodation in the region. It is estimated that the benefit to the local economy alone would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I am wondering what your thoughts are on the economic side of the equation, and how you view trade-offs in terms of benefits to the economy against potential negative environmental consequences. How do we determine at what must be preserved and when development should be stopped?

Dubai's Rotating Towers: Visionary Monument of the Future or Future Monumental Failure?

When it comes to real estate most people would probably consider a great view to be high above everything else, with the ability to see in all directions at all times. For a citybound high-rise resident, watching the sun rise from one's living room in the morning, and then watching it set from that same room in the evening that same day would be the ultimate. That may become a commonplace occurrence for many people in the future if the dream of Italian architect David Fisher becomes reality in the Middle Eastern city of Dubai. Already home to the world’s tallest free-standing structure, Dubai is considered to be on the cutting edge in terms of ambitious architecture and novel innovative real estate development. The latest and most unique project, and scheduled to begin construction soon, incorporates an extreme and revolutionary idea in the world of skyscrapers. The Dynamic Tower is a single high-rise structure with individual stories that are able to rotate independently of the building’s central core. Each floor will rotate approximately once in about ninety minutes, changing not only the view, but also the shape of the building and its appearance. Although the untested technology of dynamic architecture is sure to have setbacks, and will undoubtedly encounter obstacles in moving off the drawing board into the real world, its cultivated and functional design, combined with the prospect of producing inexpensive and environmentally clean energy for cities, may radically alter and enhance life in the cities of the future.

The Dynamic Tower will be an 80 story building. Plans call for the top 10 floors to be used for luxury style apartments, below which will be another 35 floors of apartment accommodation, followed by hotel rooms, with the 20 lower stories be used as retail space. With the rotation of individual floors occupants and visitors will enjoy a 360 degree view from wherever they choose. According to one designer “It will be continually in motion, changing shape and giving residents the ability to choose a new view at the touch of a button. The form of the building would constantly change as each floor rotates separately giving a new view of the building as it turns.” Rotating Wind Power Tower to begin construction in Dubai Mahesh Basantani;The Tower was designed by David Fisher of Dynamic Architecture, who hopes to be a trend-setter for cities of the future, and is planning to adapt his tower for sites in London and New York. According to Fisher, “Today's life is dynamic, so the space we are living in should be dynamic as well, adjustable to our needs that change continuously, to our concept of design and to our mood, buildings will follow the rhythms of nature, they will change direction and shape from spring to summer, from sunrise to sunset, and adjust themselves to the weather, buildings will be alive….From now on, buildings will have four dimensions, the fourth dimension is ‘Time' to become part of architecture…”

A second Dynamic Architecture tower is set to start construction in Moscow, by the end of 2008. A unique aspect of this first building in motion is in the construction itself; each floor will be prefabricated in a factory in Italy, and then be shipped directly to the site. Dr. Fisher believes that floors will be then able to go up as quickly as one every seven days, allowing for the tower to be built in about 18 months. With the prefabrication of modular structures elsewhere, the core of the tower will be the only piece that needs to be built, conserving on-site workers and pushing more of the construction off-site and into the factories. Fisher believes assembly of the Dynamic Tower will require only 80 technicians, thereby saving tens of millions of dollars on a building with a price tag of $700 million. In addition to the architectural beauty and purely aesthetic value to occupants and residents of the city, as well as the economic benefits of off-site assembly, Fisher claims that the design will have a structural advantage in the event of an earthquake. “According to Fisher, the building ensures a very high resistance to earthquakes as each floor rotates independently.”

While the beauty of such a building along with the functional benefits for anyone wealthy enough to live in one are all arguments in favor of Fisher’s vision, the most striking potential benefit is environmental. The building is designed not only to produce enough power for its own needs, but for surrounding buildings as well. The design will utilize the high winds which surround large structures, as well as the large surface area of the building. The Dynamic Tower is intended to be a true green power plant, using wind-powered turbines as well as photovoltaic cell technology to collect power from sunlight. The tower will be powered by roof solar panels and cells placed on the top surface of each floor, along with 79 wind turbines located between each of the rotating floors, which will be capable of generating 1,200,000 kilowatt-hours of energy from each level. If all goes as planned the building will create 10 times the energy it needs, giving the ability to produce energy for other nearby buildings as well.

While the revolving tower’s creator makes many promises, and there are many people who praise its potential, there are still questions about whether it will deliver. Is the revolving tower even technologically feasible? Will it be killed off by cost overruns and unexpected problems? One major criticism is the expense involved for the first building in Dubai. Some detractors raise the question of whether the tower will benefit only the wealthy. For example, writer Alstair Donald, of Spiked, a self-described "independent online phenomenon dedicated to raising the horizons of humanity by waging a culture war of words against misanthropy, priggishness, prejudice, luddism, illiberalism and irrationalism," calls it “a seven-star hotel compound for the rich serves to magnify the gap between rich and poor; the workers who build these compounds and service their inhabitants are confined to encampments on the edge of the city.” However, the more compelling arguments and criticisms focus less on societal implications and more on feasibility. The implementation of the concept may prove to be much more difficult to achieve. Will a combination of unproven technology and overly ambitious goals render the design unworkable or too costly? David Fisher’s creation is essentially a gigantic machine with innumerable moving parts, and yet he is not expecting anything to go wrong. Critics are quick to point out that he has never designed a skyscraper before, and argue that the as yet untested technology will present insurmountable technical problems. "Dubai 'shape-shifting skyscraper' unveiled"

Will the revolving tower go the way of failed inventions of the past which were acclaimed as the wave of the future? Will the revolving tower become a symbol of complete failure and blind ambition? Or will it be the first building of the world's future? Admittedly, if the critics are correct, many of the technical and engineering aspects of the dynamic tower concept create problems which have apparently not been tested or worked out. However, there is no reason to assume they will be insurmountable, if there are men and women with the vision and the patience to find solutions. Nor is there any reason to believe that even failed attempts at making this idea workable will not inspire others to seeking alternative solutions to accomplish the same goals, including clean low cost energy and self-sufficiency. One thing is certain. We cannot keep doing business as usual as our resources dwindle and global energy demands increase, and mega-cities continue to grow all over the globe. Maybe the Dynamic Tower is an idea whose time has come, and if not, perhaps its vision of environmentally clean and economic energy production will inspire other designs and other technologies which will ultimately help transform the cities of the world to a better future.