Customer Reviews

From the Ground Up: The Business of Building in the Age of Money

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

For those interested in decision theory, the author does a sterling job of tracing the impacts that different approaches to decision-making, by different parties, has on the development of a complex and unique mixed use project:

"But like it or not, the power to make these final decisions rested with the various public bodies overseeing the compliance with the city's regulations" (p.106) "It was that an architectural decision had been made by a political body that appeared to care little about archictecture..." (p.105) "Still undecided, however, was the shape of the atrium. This delay was having troubling consequences for the entire construction schedule because the city refused to issue a demolition permit until it saw the final design drawings..." "The developers knew they were unhappy with the atrium but they did not know why" (p.154) "They bungled it because they wouldn't do anything without having three decisions" (p.184) "The debate over the colour of glass dragged on for months" (p.202) "Mancini said he would take the matter under advisement. He was not ready to make a decision on the spot" (p.209) "While Johnson applauded group decisions intellectually, he felt strongly that there was not always a 'right' decision for every dilemma" (p.229")

The book clearly articulates the dialogue between the different decision-making parties and makes for an interesting case study.

book is educational on how to go about completing a large multi-purpose development project from the management end, but is filled with many extraneous anecdotes.

My students - this was, for years, the best-liked textbook in Berkeley real estate courses - saw this well-written history of an actual commercial development as a sure-fire hit movie. We selected the cast - not too difficult: incompetent and corrupt contractors, sublimely ignorant city officials, totally dense bankers, a brilliant artist who got ripped off, shady lawyers, venal professors - well, they lost forty million dollars or so. Reporter Frantz covered the (subsiding) ground with hearty humor but without serious libel. The reader is supposed to do the numbers.