Driverless Cars: breaking the fundamental rule of real estate | Paige Marie Pitcher | TEDxOgden
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 07. 2024
- We are building cars without drivers and cities without parking. Property, the world’s largest asset class, is poised for disruption. Everything we know about real estate is about to change in the coming autonomous revolution. And it starts with 2 billion parking spots.
Paige is an urban planner, developer, and community advocate. Her mission is to combat displacement, empower connection, and inspire people through placemaking. By the age of 23, she co-founded a pioneering planning and development firm. At the helm of a startup company, she conceived and executed affordable, mixed use, and transit oriented projects totaling over $80 million. Her efforts have produced 500+ housing units designed to stabilize neighborhoods and transform lives.
Paige graduated Magna Cum Laude with a BS in City and Metropolitan Planning from the University of Utah. This year she will complete a Masters of Real Estate Development at MIT. As a Fellow of the Samuel Tak Lee Real Estate Entrepreneurship Lab, she researches the leaders, products, processes, and technology disrupting the built environment. Her goal is to join these changemakers in building balanced communities ready for the 21st century and creating tectonic shifts in the commercial real estate industry.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
2017: By 2020 FULLY AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
2021: Uh yeah give us a few more years to fix it up.
I lost vision in 2003, I have been involved with computers since the mid 80s, most people back then had No need for a computer I had an older friend that I wanted to build a computer for and she told me she did not want one of those dam things in her house 10 years later around 95 she ask me to build her a computer. people don't like change until it happens then they find they need it
WOW that's an extremely interesting perspectives.
Planned cities! Now that's funny. Sprawl is the only plan I have seen.
The future is here..
the video broden my view wildly
Two questions: 1. What are you going to do for all the people who love to drive? 2. How are you going to handle all the unemployed men who used to drive? Most men.
The classic job debate haha. If so, in the long run that is only 1 generation in which either 1) if they are older they will retire soon anyways, or 2) they are young enough to find a new job.
1. Same thing they did with the people who loved to ride horses... 2. New opportunities will open up as the tech progresses.
I don't know why so many people assume you'll still have a car. No one is going to have a car to drive to work. Car ownership will be like horse ownership.
Remote work wasn't even in the equation Pre-Covid. Reducing the need to travel can be a solution to congestion.
...and then 2020 said, "Nothing's happening this year. Or probably even the next."
I already got a 10% raise by leaving the Mormon church.
Oh, please! We're at the beginning of this... Let's name the cars "self-driving cars," not "driverless cars."
whilst i agree with much of what she said i think automated vehicles will affect real estate prices less than other emerging technologies like hyperloop and eventually orbital rings.
Your AEV (Autonomous Electric Vehicle and no, I'm not married to that name) drives you from your house to the Hyperloop. Maybe it even drives aboard. Then you get whisked at 1,500 KmPH to wherever and your ERC (Electric Robot Car and no, I'm not married to that either) drives off of the Hyperloop and to wherever in that other city you want to be. You never had to get out of the DEC (Driverless Electric Car and no...), unless you wanted to.
2021 is here, sorry, but I have to tell you ...
I'm all for new technology and I'm super excited to see self-driving cars in my lifetime. However, I'm curious to see what sort of unseen emergent phenomena will result from the prevalence of automated vehicles. I remember when the Internet was about to become public, there was so much talk about how it would "change the world in so many positive ways". But, anyone who has been online for even a short amount of time can easily see how many not-so-pleasant things emerged that nobody had the foresight to see coming. So, I'm very curious to see what unexpected things emerge from the "dark side" of automated vehicle culture. We shall see... ;)
Thank you, future Karen!
So we will save a lot of energy by rebuilding cities without parking? Dear Pitcher, complete that thought.
What does the current model necessitate? It necessitates MORE cars than are needed, for many reasons, 1) cars are not dynamic and have to be stationary for longer, i.e. more parking, which means more space consumed, which means extensive development (sprawl), which means decreased walkeability and density, meaning households need to make more trips 2) because car trips are not dynamic (even with existing initiatives such as ride sharing) a single car cannot maximize its utility, therefore people invest in more cars, which once again feeds back into the existing point, more cars have to be housed somewhere.
When trips become efficient, and this won't simply be because of dynamic trips, but more importantly because of how the road is utilized (cars will be able to travel faster and closer to each other, with better adaptive cruising), less energy is being expended, and the existing infrastructure can be reclaimed...which can be used for new developments and functions. If you free up space, you consume less, it's that simple.
There is the issue of induced demand, but I don't think that is as problematic as one might imagine.
I think this is the third video I saw about this topic but she's pretty close to what I feel is the net effect of such technology on real estate, which is, that it is a paradox. First, the ideal of not having a car due to autonomy might not happen. Policy will not allow cars to move on their own without a qualified driver or passenger in it unless in a city with designated areas for pickup/drops similar to buses.
Second, since the driver/passenger will not have to do any driving task except for monitoring the health of the car or roads, the person will be able to do something else during the commute such as working/entertainment in the car. This ability is enough to make a person choose a home that is even further away than what is acceptable today to save on real estate or rent. The savings can also be used to buy a bigger property for the installation of more solar panels to live in luxury of cheap, redundant power for the house and car.
First, fully driverless cars are coming. For a while they will be 'self-driving', and then once the tech has been shown to be effective cars will be available without direct control interfaces, or control interfaces that fold into the dash. Level 5, if you will. What this will probably do is not make less people buy cars, but have people buy less cars. Two car households will be a thing of the past when the car you use for a commute can be a service car at a fraction of the cost.
Second, to an extent I agree, I would prefer to live on the water but it would make my daily commute unbearable so I choose to have a daily nice commute by bike rather than having to waste that time driving and need to leave earlier and get home later, 5/7ths of the days in a week. If I could work in the car on the way to work, then that might change that equation somewhat.
But consider also that land is expensive in a city, and if we can free more of it up for business and residential then that should put downward pressure on prices without having to sprawl.
Any gains in space will be negligible compared to increase in roads needed to accommodate the driverless cars. Traffic will be 3X worse than it is now.
Love driving my cars. Hate driving in cities. Actually, don't like cities very much.
What she is really talking about is density. As home prices rise and land becomes scarce there will be pressure to make homes smaller and increase the number of homes per acre of land. In a perfect world worker's would live in subdivisions surrounding their place of work. Instead workers are located in areas away from the place of work based on affordability. Poor planning on a macro scale. Placing the burden on the worker to travel to work instead of living in close proximity of their workplace is a cop out by the city planners. Every large employer should have housing a part of its environmental impact design rather than catch as catch can invention of self driving cars..Consider what happens when in thirty years our kids lose the skills to drive a car. They will be utterly dependent on a government car to take them anywhere. By that time everyone will have an implanted chip that gives access to all government services, and if you cross the government they turn your chip off and you can walk to the demonstration....Driverless cars are merely robots that will put millions of people out of work. This young woman needs to be schooled in real world realities before she advocates a drive down a road surrounded by dangers to our freedoms and to the Constitution.
I agreed with you right up to the conspiracy theory half way through. Why is learning to drive a car important, today? Self mobility. That still exists in an automated car world, you just can do something else whilst being transported.
Why would you be dependent on a government car? This doesn't preclude you from owning one, it just makes it non-necessary. Many people will be able to get rid of their second car, and have more money to spend on their family or home or holidays.
They will certainly put many people out of work, but so did the industrial revolution... oh wait, no it didn't, they just retooled and found different jobs.
And I was with YOU right up to "they just retooled and found different jobs." Easier said than done.
The problem is that the people shoved out of jobs often don't have the skills for the new jobs opened up. "Just retool and find a different job" is a little like saying, "just become an astronaut." That would be really cool, but is beyond most people's capabilities and means.
But yeah, I agree on the Alex Jones type stuff. The leap was from "driverless car" to "government car." No reason a driverless car has to be a government car, though I suspect that most government cars will be driverless.
Millions of truck driving, taxicab/Uber jobs will disappear. Whole segments of the economy will collapse while we weait for the economic benefit to someday arrive.
Yeah, we need to put some thought into that. We need to get over the idea of "working for a living." So Twentieth Century.
For every job lost 10 new ones will be created. This argument is no different than defending the stable-masters and buggy drivers of the 10's and 20's.
Is 2019 and these "self-driving" cars can't even drive in snow yet so don't worry to much about it.
What am I missing? Driver-less cars is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. First it will not help with traffic. There would be too many human driven cars to jack that up. Second we have split the atom, gone to the moon, but may never be able to program a machine to do something as well as I can teach a 16 year old over the weekend. It is today's Alchemy. A fools errand. The discussion needs to move to how will vehicles be fueled. How many's accident's will you save or people will you make independent and cities inclusive when the planet cannot support any life? How's the economy working out for ya when you're extinct. We need to focus on changing out our fuel from Gasoline to Methanol. We need to talk about super cheap and very high quality good for you vegan fast food. It's the only way we can get off of beef and stop our largest source of green house emissions and consumers of water. We need to flood solar and wind with tax money for more projects and plants. We need t update the grid to the engineer's anticipated demands. The solutions to these problems already exist. They're solved. But not implemented. Year after year we fail to act. Perhaps America's greatest combat General said: "Failure, in the entire history of warfare, can basically be summed up in just two little words. . . . . . Too Late. We used to lead the way on spotting these opportunities. What happened.
What are you missing? Necessity is the mother of innovation. Driverless cars makes much of the change you want to see more of a reality.
what she's saying is fine, but how she says it is kind of annoying
I hope her friend in a wheel chair can make it to work so he can help figure out what to do with the millions and millions displaced from trucking industry to insurance agents to police officers to lawyers. All the mom and pop shops in between cities where truckers stop to rest and eat will all go out of business with no one to stop and spend money because, you guessed it, machines don't need to eat or sleep! Yay! Sounds wonderful. I hope those 10-20 million people knock on her door first for food when they're starving! Have fun!!
A lot of your point is valid but (a big but) people were saying the same as you in the early 1900s, scared at what might happen with the 46% of US people working in agriculture and related industries, fearful of machinery and automation destroying their livelihoods.
@@miguelurdaci7884 For the first time, robotics and automation can replace purely cognitive jobs. It would be nice if our concerns about mass unemployability turn out to be overblown, but right now, we don't know how it can be overblown.
There is so much fallacy in this speech about cars I just don't even know here to start. Three percent of the economy? That's dealers only. Add manufacturing, service, suppliers to OEMs and it's #4. Tesla's "AutoPilot" is merely Level 2 and cannot enable self-driving - a huge misrepresentation.
Not so fast as more money is available prices will just go up. She makes it sound like it is a good thing, but it is going to put millions of people out of work. California (who was a huge supporter) has taken a huge step back. It is easy to control a few cars, but Tesla has already killed people with their driverless cars. Also insurance companies are going to step in because they face loosing millions. They have a lot of control on the laws that are passed. Just something to think about
steven porter other cars have killed much more so forget it.
Also, Tesla does not make driverless cars.
Not yet they don't.
First
"uploaded 3 minutes ago"
What's about her that I want to unfriend her on facebook?
So location in the end, just that transport will change and this will make some location better
But she don't understand the real implications to our place in society, the better the AI we as unefficient beings will lose value day by day till we will become the next monkey species
A future were will will be too lazy and too afraid to take risks so will put our destiny in the hands of superAI
pretty much all of this horrifies me ... i LIKE driving ... i LIKE space ... my nightmare is having them removed and replaced by work or more population density ... i dont want it ... how can i stop it ?... don`t say i can`t ... i won`t have it
Maybe the economy will crash, a wave of nostalgia will sweep over society, and by the time the big changes come you'll be dead. So will tens of thousands of people a year in the US alone, lives which self-driving cars could have saved, but hey, at least you can feel in control.
Or you can accept that it isn't the Twentieth Century anymore and when you feel the need to do your own driving you go to the track. Just like if I want to ride a horse I go to a ranch.
you can´t stop it , change isn´t gonna stop , because its driven by innovation accept it or not . density you say , let me ask ya , do you live in the US ? if so then you have no idea what density feels like , try germany or the netherlands too see what that feels like , or worse tokio .
thing is we can't all have as much space as we want, and our population is growing faster than ever. therefore higher density population is not only the only way, but the best way. best because scientifically speaking it has more pro's than con's in comparison to areas with urban sprawl, or the country side.
Don't listen to these other yahoos. True, you cant stop innovation. Autonomous cars will create an incredible amount of value for everyone. Population growth is slowing though, not accelerating, and in the US there will always be plenty of space. You can always live in rural country. I bet there will even be big-wide suburban sprawl towns that appeal specifically to the "old-timers" and people who just generally like to drive everywhere. It will most certainly not remain the standard though. Because its not sustainable in any way.