Post(s) tagged with "futures"

The Great Senior Sell-Off Could Cause the Next Housing Crisis - Emily Badger - The Atlantic Cities ⇢

This scenario won’t happen, because the urban flip-flop is already in progress, but read it anyway:

The Great Senior Sell-Off Could Cause the Next Housing Crisis - Emily Badger

According to data from the American Housing Survey, from 1989 and 2009, 80 percent of new homes built in that era were detached single-family homes. A third of them were larger than 2,500 square feet. And most startling – “I checked my numbers over and over again,” a bemused Nelson says – 40 percent were built on lots of half an acre to 10 acres in size. Now, he says, 74 percent of new housing demand will come from the people who bought these homes, now empty-nesters, wanting to downsize.

A vast majority of today’s households with children still want such houses, Nelson says. But about a quarter of them want something else, like condos and urban townhouses. That demand “used to be almost zero percent, and if it’s now 25 percent,” Nelson says, “that’s a small share of the market but a huge shift in the market.” And this is half of the reason why many baby boomers may not find buyers for their homes. “Even if the numbers matched,” Nelson says, “the preferences don’t.”

Demographics will further complicate this picture. We’re moving toward a future in America when minorities will become the majority. But given entrenched educational achievement gaps, particularly for the fast-growing Hispanic population, Nelson fears that the U.S. is not doing a good job educating the “new majority” to make the kinds of incomes that will be required to buy the homes we’ve already built.

As the Hispanic population expands, and more baby boomers retire, the gap between the two groups in the housing market – expressed in unsellable houses – will only widen.

“That’s going to hit us,” Nelson says. “Not right now. But my guess is that about the turn of the decade, that number will become a real number. It’s only a few percentage points now, but it’s like a glacier, and if it keeps moving and building and growing, it’s going to be a big number in about 2020.”

Roughly 7 percent of over-65 households move each year, and as people get older, their likelihood of moving from owning to renting gets higher and higher (it’s about 79 percent for households over 85). By 2020, there were will be around 35 million over-65 households in the U.S. That year, Nelson calculates, seniors who would like to become renters will be trying to sell about 200,000 more owner-occupied homes than there will be new households entering the market to buy them. By 2030, that figure could rise to half a million housing units a year.

“Between changing preferences and declining median household income because of poor education – because we’re not willing to spend money on education,” Nelson says, “that means we can predict the next housing crash, and that’ll be in about 2020.”

In that environment, he says, there will be two classes of seniors in America: those “aging in place” voluntarily, and those “aging in place” involuntarily because they can’t sell their homes. Nelson is critical that “aging in place” will really be feasible for many seniors.

“It’s romantic for the first 15 years when you’re turning 65 and retired,” he says. “But aging in place among 90-year-olds? 95-year-olds?” Many of these people, he predicts, won’t realize that they can’t mow the lawn or pay for repairs until they’re really elderly, and the market for the their homes has collapsed even further. “My suspicion,” Nelson says, “is that many hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of those households in the 2020s to 2030 and beyond will simply give up the house and walk away.”

Why won’t this happen? We’re undergoing a huge urban flip-flop. Empty nesters and hipsters are moving into the city core, displacing the urban poor. Those former city dwellers are moving to the near suburbs, and Exurbia is emptying out.

Rather than a straight drop in the next decade we’ll see a downward slide of exurban populations, and a demographic switch in core cities and near suburbs.

The wealthy seniors will have moved to hacked office buildings in the former financial district, the hipsters will live in the lofts of what was once Chinatown, and the poor oldsters will live across the river in what used to be the prosperous commuter town, now with aging strip malls turned into old age communities, and unwalkable neighborhoods populated with immigrants waiting at bus stops to commute to hotel and restaurant jobs in the city. Out in the former exurban fringe, back-to-the-landers are building a circle of farms, and growing produce, cattle, chicken, and goats, turning abandoned car dealerships into greenhouses and Dairy Queens into barns.

world-shaker:

1993 View of the Future by AT&T

It’s kind of spooky just how accurate this is. 

(by jsrambler)

Except for the outsized antenna on the tablet, it’s like today. Except AT&T has dropped out of everything in the ad except renting bandwidth.


futurescope
sorry, no skyscrapers with trees in our future
From io9:

When we imagine the future of environmentally sustainable cities, it’s common to depict them asforests of skyscrapers with, well, forests on them. But environmental writer Tim De Chant says that architects and futurists need to get real. Skyscrapers will never support trees:


There are plenty of scientific reasons why skyscrapers don’t—and probably won’t—have trees, at least not to the heights which many architects propose. Life sucks up there. For you, for me, for trees, and just about everything else except peregrine falcons. It’s hot, cold, windy, the rain lashes at you, and the snow and sleet pelt you at high velocity. Life for city trees is hard enough on the ground. I can’t imagine what it’s like at 500 feet, where nearly every climate variable is more extreme than at street level. […]

[read more @Tim de Chant]

futurescope

sorry, no skyscrapers with trees in our future

From io9:

When we imagine the future of environmentally sustainable cities, it’s common to depict them asforests of skyscrapers with, well, forests on them. But environmental writer Tim De Chant says that architects and futurists need to get real. Skyscrapers will never support trees:

There are plenty of scientific reasons why skyscrapers don’t—and probably won’t—have trees, at least not to the heights which many architects propose. Life sucks up there. For you, for me, for trees, and just about everything else except peregrine falcons. It’s hot, cold, windy, the rain lashes at you, and the snow and sleet pelt you at high velocity. Life for city trees is hard enough on the ground. I can’t imagine what it’s like at 500 feet, where nearly every climate variable is more extreme than at street level. […]

[read more @Tim de Chant]

Source: io9.com

I wanted all the toys to come true someday. I want there to be a transportation system that doesn’t emit toxins into the atmosphere. And the newspaper that updates itself… The Internet is watching us now. If they want to. they can see what sites you visit. In the future, television will be watching us, and customizing itself to what it knows about us. The thrilling thing is, that will make us feel we’re part of the medium. The scary thing us, we’ll lose our right to privacy. An ad will appear in the air around us, talking directly to us.

Steven Spielberg, interviewed by Roger Ebert in 2002 about Minority Report

And, okay, I admit it. Even though we very modern futurists (who pooh-pooh “predictions” as the stuff of astrologers and TV pundits) are loathe to admit it, getting it right is a thrill. Laying out a forecast that, in the subsequent years, maps to an emerging reality is neat stuff, especially when the forecast includes various social components yet to show up. Add a catchy name and… well, you have the makings of a nice bullet point for the always-inevitable “hey Mr. Futurist, what predictions of yours have come true?” question.

Open the Future: #ifIhadglass (Jamais Cascio)

The business community focuses on managing uncertainty. That’s actually a bit of a canard. In an increasingly turbulent and interconnected world, ambiguity is rising to unprecedented levels. That’s something our current systems can’t handle.

There’s a difference between the kind of problems that companies, institutions, and governments are able to solve and the ones that they need to solve. Most big organizations are good at solving clear but complicated problems. They’re absolutely horrible at solving ambiguous problems — when you don’t know what you don’t know. Faced with ambiguity, their gears grind to a halt.

Uncertainty is when you’ve defined the variable but don’t know its value. Like when you roll a die and you don’t know if it will be a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. But ambiguity is when you’re not even sure what the variables are. You don’t know how many dice are even being rolled or how many sides they have or which dice actually count for anything. Businesses that focus on uncertainty actually delude themselves into thinking that they have a handle on things. Ah, ambiguity; it can be such a bitch.

Dev Patnaik, cited by Robert Safian in This Is Generation Flux: Meet The Pioneers Of The New (And Chaotic) Frontier Of Business

We are in the Postnormal now, where volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity have reached unparalleled heights. We are constantly in a strategy fog, unable to see very far ahead, to plan, or even think about problems and solutions. We live in a time defined by dilemmas: unsolvable situations that can only be coped with, balanced against.

Like a martial artist who knows she may be attacked at any time, by any opponent, with any weapon, the most productive approach is to practice, speculatively, but remain fluid in mind, and unfocused on any specific techniques.

This is why I counsel speculative design as a discipline. Instead of trying to imagine a future world, instead imagine an imaginary appliance of that future world, and its use by the denizens of that future. Then consider the implications of those interactions. That is the equivalent of a karate-do doing kata: we are sparring with the implications of our speculations.

The future is rational only in hindsight.

  Matt and Gail Taylor

The World in 2050 | Delivering Tomorrow ⇢

I watched a really awful video about so-called futures from DHL called The World in 2050 | Delivering Tomorrow

My comments are awaiting moderation, but here they are:

This isn’t futurism, it’s propaganda. Where is the discussion of governance? With the exception of the one scenario — the one that suggests the rise of protectionism and nationalism is totally negative — the implication of these projections is that the extension of postmodern neoliberalism and globalism is the only option. Perhaps those old white men up there to the right have a difficulty imaging truly different worlds, ones in which the post WWII consensus about the dominance of free trade and corporate exploitation of the worlds resources aren’t a given.

Science fiction isn’t just thinking about the world out there. It’s also thinking about how that world might be—a particularly important exercise for those who are oppressed, because if they’re going to change the world we live in, they—and all of us—have to be able to think about a world that works differently.

Samuel Delaney (via likestepsonthemoon)

Source: likestepsonthemoon

Zeerust

via TV Tropes

Zeerust: the particular kind of datedness which afflicts things that were originally designed to look futuristic.

Something — a character design, a building, whatever — used to be someone’s idea of futuristic. Nowadays, though, it ironically has a quaint sort of datedness to it more reminiscent of the era the work came from (or imitates, in case the zeerust is deliberate). Also sometimes called “Retro-Futuristic.”

Sometimes the datedness is a bit more subtle. It’s possible that the prediction turned out to be technologically or aesthetically correct (or at least on the right track), but the prediction still fails because of the would-be prophet’s implicit assumption that social values will be the same in the future as in his or her own time (as demonstrated in the page image).

The datedness behind Zeerusty designs lies in the attempt of the past designers to get an advantage over the technology of their time, only to find out that more mundane designs are actually far more efficient if advanced engineering and craftsmanship are used on them.

Gets its name and definition from The Meaning Of Liff by Douglas Adams and John Lloyd, a book of neologismsnote  concocted by the two. Not to be confused with the South African town of the same name (Adams and Lloyd mostly used actual place names for their words).

Source: tvtropes.org

About

Web anthropologist, futurist, author. My focus is the future, and the tectonic forces pushing business, media, and society into an unclear and accelerating future. more.

Working on longer format projects, Sign up for the newsletter.

GigaOM Research analyst and curator.

Also writing beaconstreets.com.

Contact me. or ask me a question.



My Vizify profile.

Socialogy

  • John Hagel | John offers up some great insights, like the fact that passion is lower the larger that businesses get.

  • Euan Semple | A chat with my old pal, and the author of Organizations Don't Tweet, People Do

  • Will McInnes | The author of Culture Shock and managing director of Nixon/McInnes

  • Jennifer Magnolfi | An interview with the woman who said, 'Work is not a place you go, it's a thing you do'.

  • Hot Now

  • What Drives Us? | A draft chapter of my book, discussing motivations, Maslow's hierarchy, and fluidarity.

  • Socialogy: Interview With John Hagel | I Speak with Joh Hagel about the innovation at the edge.

  • Complex organisation arises from webs of interaction among causal factors | So, it turns out that DNA is, in fact, a great metaphor for business culture, but only after you realize that DNA is not a few hundred off-on switches, but instead a universe of unknowable complexities, that we can interact with, and understand at some abstract cartoonish level, but not control, and never fully comprehend.

  • Bitcoin May Be the Global Economy’s Last Safe Haven | Paul Ford

  • Innovators Get Better With Age | Companies make a mistake by relying too much on the innoations of the young, because Nobel laureats don't come into their prime until their 50s.

  • Oldie

  • Infodemics | 2009 | Passing incomplete or inaccurate information about some risk event can make people take actions that increase the damage of the event itself.