« July 2004 | Main | September 2004 »
Block by Block, Access DeniedA historical view serves as a reminder that access doesn't really vanish overnight but disappears gradually, slowly erasing a city's flexibility and choice. Cities evolve, of course, but modern security concerns have prompted more teeth-gnashing than usual: There's an emotional cost as citizens are repeatedly told what to do and where to go.
Thanks, Eric.
...don't miss Will Ferrell - A message from White House West
***
And you know the funny thing is that Bush is enough of a good sport -- and that's why it pains me to have to say that he is a bad president -- to look at this parody and laugh along with it.
Project for Public Spaces suggests:
Tips on being a do-it-yourself criticHave a Sense of Entitlement
Designing buildings may be incredibly difficult, but understanding them comes naturally if you let your own judgment lead you. Feel entitled to have your say, because most people who use buildings are not professional critics.Be Self-Conscious
Observe yourself using the building. Does finding your way around feel intuitive? Do certain areas make you feel exhilarated, others frustrated or confused? Discern why specific elements of the building elicit such reactions.Stare at Others
Public buildings especially should be able to handle large volumes of people. Look at how other people react to the building. Can they comfortably engage in activities common to public spaces, such as conversing with others, sitting down for a spell, or waiting for friends to arrive?Gossip
When you've formed an opinion about a place, share it with people! The greatest service that professional critics have done is to popularize discussions about architecture. People with a passion for public spaces need to make their voices heard, whether it be at the dinner table, in the office, at a bar, or on the web.Five things you can do to influence your local critic
1. Start with the client
The clients behind some of the most important new buildings are public agencies that will listen to taxpayer concerns. Help your critic get something good to write about: Before and during the design process, contact the client and urge them to focus on the building's qualities as a public space.2. Write often
Respond to your local critic's column as much as you can by writing to the editors or directly to the critic. Your efforts will be appreciated even if you offer a dissenting opinion.3. Know your critic's voice
Familiarize yourself with your local critic's style and perspective. When you write, your ideas will be more powerful if discussed in terms familiar to the critic.4. Practice positive reinforcement
Don't just criticize. Let your critic know when you approve too.5. Start up some competition
Every day more people are starting up weblogs, also known as blogs, to publish their views on the web. If you start your own architecture blog, who knows what might result? You could soon become the most widely read critic in town.
...Michael Blowhard continually turns out such high-quality (& useful) post-age. For example, in my little arena of (supposed, claimed) expertise he offers a fine post (and not because he mentions me, honest) on "Paving America".
It's quite good.
Why do you put things in terms of "stupidity?"Posted by David Sucher at 03:49 PM, Wednesday, 25 August 2004
You're joking, right? At least I hope you are. Because it's Bush who has constantly been called stupid, as Taranto observes; yet the brilliant Democratic leaders blundered big-time when they let Kerry make Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. Ferchrissakes, they might as well have run Teddy Kennedy on his driving record in Chappaquiddick.
Posted by Alan Sullivan at 04:49 PM, Wednesday, 25 August 2004
I never jest.
Yes Bush may be stupid but I don't think you'll find that to be a reason that I view him with growing distaste.
Posted by David Sucher at 05:31 PM, Wednesday, 25 August 2004OK, I'm game. Why growing distaste, now?
Posted by Alan Sullivan at 07:32 PM, Wednesday, 25 August 2004
It's a matter of character. The guy has no gumption, self-confidence, core. No grace.
I thought (had hoped) that Bush would turn out to be one of those "idiot savants" (obviously not literally) who while basically dull have intuitive perfect-pitch in some aspect of state-craft. As I have written, (here on this CC Blog), I used to find him to have some personal charm, and I am not adverse to a muscular American foreign policy.
But his weak and confused response to the disgusting behavior iof the Swift Boat fools indicates his lack of character. And as he himself said, elections are to some large degree about character.
And this is not to shut off debate about anything Kerry has said/done. If you can claim from knowledge that he lied, then go for it. The point is that Bush doesn't have the balls himself to attack Kerry but leaves it to some supposedly independent groups and tries to distance himself from them while still taking political advantage of their attacks.
That's what bullies and cowards do.
I want a President with character. I recognize character. George Bush has no character.
Posted by David Sucher at 08:42 AM, Thursday, 26 August 2004
The initial post and the comments (including Alan's last) are at the usually intelligent and sometimes exasperating here at Fresh Bilge.
People have been aghast at the British "country house ban" here and here but I have yet to be able to find the exact text of whatever rule it is which bans new country houses in the traditional style or insists on a modernist style or whatever else it actually says.
As I wrote on Alan Sullivan's blog:
"I am enough of a skeptic that when it comes to things like this -- events which seems unbelievably stupid -- that I restrain myself from voicing an opinion until I have read 'the text' directly and unmediated by someone else's -- even so astute an observer as Massengale -- opinion. There was a story on Samizdata some time ago about a requirement of British local planners -- it was something to do with archeological sites, I believe -- that on further research didn't pan out one bit i.e. the story (of the idiotic planners' doings) was not accurate."So I am cautious when it comes to stories about dumb British planners and insist on reading the text myself."
There is no excuse in the digital age not to read the exact text oneself.
UPDATE: Got it. Through the magic of Google and all of 90 seconds effort, I found Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Now I just have to steel myself to read what I imagine is boring bureaucratese. (FYI, I found it here.)
UPDATE 2: Thanks Ian Bertram for finding the exact text. (It's in the comments.) My reaction is similar to yours except I think that the terms "innovative" and "ground-breaking" are simultaneously confusing and alarming. It's not clear what it means; and it could be interpreted to encourage 'precious object' houses from Koolhaas and Libeskind et al. Or it could simply mean houses which meet some high level of LEED. (That's an environmental sustainability measure for structures.) Most commentors so far seem to think it refers to the physical appearance, style and that it bans "traditional" mansions. (Because mansions is what they'll be in any case. No?) But lt could also mean that you can build a Georgian mansion but you have to make it adhere to some (British equivalent) LEED standard. No?
That's why it looks at first glance to be a poorly-written directive: it creates political contention when what is needed is practical direction.
Though I do tend to agree with Ian that the fuss about it appears to be a bit overblown; what it needs now is rewritng with examples etc etc
In fact all that would be required would be one declarative sentence..something like..."This policy shall not be construed to favor or prohibit any architectural style."
Not immediately, of course. But unless another source of energy, just as cheap, with just as high a ratio of "energy return on energy invested" (Eroei) is discovered or developed, there will be a gradual decline in our ability to generate the growth required to keep the debt-based financial system from collapsing.
I don't think so. But it makes a good story and raises general social anxiety and sells papers.
Everyone has something or some idea to sell. I've blogged on this "Running out of oil" issue before and so far as I can determine, the key issue is whether this assertion of mine is/will be true:
The downside of Hubbert's Curve is a slope, not a cliff.
One of the big promoters that the end is near is Jim Kunstler, whom I tweaked on this subject and who tweaked back cutely if cryptically (and very unpersuasively): Jim Kunstler responds:
David-- As usual, you draw the wrong conclusion. True, the oil depletion curve is a slope not a cliff. BUT, the systems breakdown occurs relative to tipping points, which are, in fact, cliff-like. Jim
Bush Campaign's Top Outside Lawyer ResignsThe Bush campaign's top outside lawyer, who said on Tuesday that he had given legal advice to the group of veterans attacking Senator John Kerry's Vietnam War record, said today that he was resigning from the campaign because his activities were becoming a "distraction" to Mr. Bush' re-election efforts.
Right. A distraction. Yes it's a distraction when people on your campaign -- uh, even your attorney -- go to jail.
And some people just continue to squirm about in a state of denial. How anyone with any experience in the world of business & politics could truly believe that the Swift Boat guys were acting independently of the Bush campaign...well, I have a bridge to sell them.
UPDATE: And the White House simply doesn't know how to answer a question. Wimps.
Sometimes you make deals with people you don't agree with 100% because the ones you'd like to do business with are just too dim, too incompetent. This is one of those times:
Vote for ChangeBonnie Raitt is excited to announce the Vote for Change concert tour. Vote for Change is a loose coalition of musicians brought together by a single idea — the need to make a change in the direction of our country. We share a belief that this is the most important election of our lifetime. We are fighting for a government that is open, rational, just and progressive.
"The upcoming election provides everyone an opportunity to change the direction our country is headed and to elect a government that is just, rational and respectful of the views and rights of the people it serves. This coalition of artists wants to be a part of that change," said Stone Gossard of Pearl Jam.
Artists participating in Vote for Change have merged their energies and talents to focus on states that are expected to have the closest race in the presidential election this fall. This unprecedented effort will include approximately 34 shows in 28 cities in 9 battleground states over the course of a week.
These concerts will feature Babyface, Jackson Browne, Bright Eyes, Dave Matthews Band, Death Cab for Cutie, the Dixie Chicks, John Fogerty, Ben Harper, Jurassic 5, Keb 'Mo', John Mellencamp, My Morning Jacket, Pearl Jam, Bonnie Raitt, R.E.M., James Taylor, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band and more. These and other artists will appear on separate bills on the same night in selected cities around several battleground states.
Vote for Change artists hope to accomplish a single goal through the tour: to get people to the polls on November 2nd to vote for a change.
The Vote for Change tour will be presented by MoveOn PAC, with all concert proceeds benefiting the work of America Coming Together (ACT).
Be sure to register to vote early and make your Vote for Change!
TOUR DATES for Bonnie Raitt/Jackson Browne/Keb Mo%u2019
September 27 Seattle, WA
September 29 Phoenix, AZ (also with Jack Johnson & special guests TBA)
October 1 Williamsport, PA
October 2 TBA
October 3 Grand Rapids, MI
October 5 Kansas City, MO
In a comment to a post below, I made the following comment of my own, but since I am genuinely curious about Starbucks as a social phenomenon, I thought I'd bring it up to top-level for better exposure:
I would suggest to John (Quiggin) that there is a third alternative: Starbucks is to coffee as Starbucks is to coffee. I mean that Starbucks does a very fine job and sets a reasonable standard. Is its coffee the very very very very best coffee? Who knows? Who knows what "the very best" means when it comes to food. Does it offer the Lafite Rothschild of coffee? Does such a thing credibly exist? Some people claim to favor certain smaller chains -- Peets in the Bay Area, for instance -- or individual roasters and scorn Starbucks. I don't believe it. I think that Starbucks coffee is more than just good enough (the Microsoft model) nor is it simply a bridge to something finer (the Oprah model.) I think it stands fine on its own.
As to design quality of the shops themselves, Starbucks should be acknowledged for helping to raise design sensibility. The Starbucks will have far and away the nicest interior in any typical strip mall or shopping center. They provide a real bit of urbanity even in the deadliest environments. I guess I just can't see much compromise, once one recognizes that it is a chain of thousands of stores and that any individual outlet will not/can not have the idiosyncracy available to a one-off. So while Starbucks is not perfect -- I'd prefer that they all had a "put-and-take" book-shelf, for instance, I think they do a pretty fine job and put in historical perspective, have a lasting & positive significance in terms of our American culture.
UPDATE: A personal note. When in Seattle, I rarely go to Starbucks . I go to one of my favorite inependents. It's not really even a choice; and it doesn't really undercut anything I've said so far. I used to go to one which was right by a big public pool because I knew a bunch of swimmers who met their early AM and it was pleasant enough. But while I admire S'bux,I just find S'bux a bit cool. And since there are so many alternatives, even here in latte-land, I take advantage of them.
I go to Starbucks only when I have to meet someone and they aren't familar with the neighborhood. Then I can say, "There's a S'bux at about X & Z. Let's meet there." And they have no trouble finding it.
Then again, I stop at S'bux when I travel because it is reliable, predictable, simple, easy, reassuring etc etc.
Most neighborhoods should be so lucky.
In an interesting (and old) post on McDonalds and soft power, John Quiggin discusses large global chains and he states:
The effects on American consumers are ambiguous, but arguably negative on balance. Although they benefit from having films and chain restaurants tailored precisely to their tastes, they have far fewer alternatives than before the rise of the chains, particularly if their tastes differ a bit from the mean.
With regard to the specifics of coffee that statement is simply not accurate and would demonstrate -- should it be made specifically -- rather blissful ignorance of the USA. There are more alternatives now with regard to coffee than before Starbucks. (I'd say food in general, but that is a larger debate.) There were virtually NO independent coffee shops before Starbucks. Period. QED. You can go ahead and cite (as actually, I am as able as anyone) a few places in Greenwhich Village in the 1950s and 60s. But they were indeed exceptions. The coffee house did not exist widely, much less as a mass phenomenon in virtually every shopping center. When I moved to Seattle in 1967 it had just about one coffee house, complete with Go board and black turtlenecks.
Starbucks created an industry in the USA. That is not a disputable fact. There were virtually no coffee houses -- third places -- where one could hang out before Starbucks. (In fact Starbucks itself simply stumbled on the business -- the very first Starbucks in Seattle had no place to sit.) It has of course vastly taken the lead but it has also -- to continue with the analogy -- broken ground for literally tens of thousand and thousands of independent coffee houses of various stripes. Now you can go into a small town in the far reaches of British Columbia and find a pretty nice place to hang -- and it may very well have WiFi, too.
American culture has grown enormously richer because of Starbucks though I realize that the pretentiously fashionable thing to do is to scorn it for being successful, an example of mass culture etc etc.
More interesting comments on this topic at Crooked Timber.
Unraveling the Greenhouse Riddle"Fahrenheit 911" may be the dominant campaign movie of 2004, but several other overtly political films have been making the rounds as well. My favorite is "The Day After Tomorrow," in which a climatologist tries to figure out a way to save the world from abrupt global warming.
In an otherwise unrelated post which properly scorns Bush for being an upper-class yachting and cheese-eating wimp, Yglesias also mentions that Bush owns a ranch-without-horses. Now I won't vouch that there are NO horses at the Crawford Ranch but I do wonder why we have never seen a photo of Bush on or even near a horse? Doesn't he know that they vote? (Or at least their owners vote.) Don't you think it's odd that Bush would buy (what is reasonably described as) a "campaign prop" ranch and never follow-through and even "mount" a horse, if only for a photo-op? I do. Especially if one is posing as a down-home cowboy. Another curiousity.
UPDATE: Btw, I don't meant to be saying that there is something wrong with buying a ranch and never getting on a horse. Nothing wrong with that. One can very well love the ranch life and detest riding a horse. Unlikely but not impossible. I am simply surprised that Bush has never posed himself on a horse or even NEAR a horse. And he is a poseur, someone pretending to be what he is not: in this case a fairly shrewd guy pretending to be a dunce.
UPDATE 2: Don't miss Will Ferrell's White House West Parody.
I am working intensely on a project which requires my full attention. I've decided that blogging is just too seductive and that in order to finish this effort, I will have to set aside blogging for a while.
Take care, you all.
...to consider this post Has urban architecture declined? and this followup: Declining Urban Exteriors.
But you know me well enough -- intellectually I am fairly predictable: Will I agree with Tyler Cowen and Matthew Yglesias? Do you?
UPDATE: It's interesting to read what intelligent well-meaning non-specialists see & say about the built environment. I'll spend a bit more time with their posts but I am tending to think that neither fellow places enough emphasis on the distinction between site plan and architecture i.e. between the way a building is placed on a plot of ground and the materials & finishes the builder uses to construct it. This distinction is the essential, fundamental one to understanding American cities and yet it appears to be underplayed as a factor by these two otherwise perceptive bloggers. In fact, if I read them correctly, they are not even aware that there is such a distinction.
The punch line in understanding an old district of a city -- and that can mean anything built prior, really, to 1950 -- is that it was not built for cars. Modern cities -- the ones which people find charmless -- are built around the automobile site plan. The problem (nasty cities) has little to do with the factors cited by Cowen and Yglesias and all to do with the manner by which people get around in our era -- the car -- and around which means of transportation we build each and every structure.
Of course you know that; you've read this blog before; in fact you knew it before you read this blog.
Other people taking note of this issue -- which is good news -- are:
Internet Commentator: Architectural Decline?
Foreign Dispatches: Declinism and Modern Architecture
Mike Linksvayer - Sturgeon's Architecture
Kalblog: More Wealth Equals Less Beauty?
The Rhine River: Old European Streets
Andrew Spicer's Weblog - The Decline of Urban Beauty
UPDATE 2: Please take note of Reid's excellent Comment; I couldn't agree with him more.
The Environment Game, Nigel Calder. Published in the USA as Eden Was No Garden
Journey To Ixtlan, Carlos Castaneda
Ashenden: Or the British Agent, Someset Maugham
•••
I am also looking to re-read a copy of Spelling and Proofreading for Adults.
Via Norm comes this inspring story of Woolly commandos.
...where sheep won't be fenced inIt's a hungry life on the Yorkshire moors once the summer sun has wilted the scant grass, so local sheep have perfected their version of the commando roll.
Determined to get at lush greenery in the valley gardens of Marsden, a former textile town on the edge of the Pennine uplands, flocks have developed a new way of getting over road grids installed to stop them.
"I've seen them doing it and they're clever," said an independent district councillor, Dorothy Lindley. "They lie down on their side, or sometimes their back, and roll over the metal grids until they are clear." (italics added)
That's the first thing I thought when I read this story:
Bush Planning August Attack Against KerryMr. Bush's advisers plan to cap the month at the Republican convention in New York, which they said would feature Mr. Kerry as an object of humor and calculated derision.
I'd be careful if I were a Republican "strategist." As ...an object of humor and calculated derision their guy is a pretty easy target, though the humor might be black.
"Did you hear the one about the President who didn't have the self-confidence (or curiosity) to ask his own father's opinion...?"
Or the one...
"Did you hear about the President who lead his nation to war but didn't know why?"
It's true. Read the Woodward book. As any reader of this blog will know, I have never disliked GW Bush, always thought that perhaps out of simplicity -- idiot savant perhaps? -- might come a good Presidency. Personality is destiny; remember the old saw about Franklin Roosevelt -- "A second rate mind in a first class temperament." I'd had hopes that Bush, by his own admission no intellectual, would substitute commonsense and a balanced disposition and be a good leader. How wrong I was. The epiphany for me came from the Woodward book when Bush admitted freely that he had never drawn upon his own father's experience -- a unique situation indeed -- in deciding whether to pursue this Iraq adventure.
What an indication of a man lacking in curiosity and the self-confidence to fail to ask a question on a matter which puts the entire nation -- not merely his own life -- at risk.
UPDATE: Joshua Marshall also takes note:
And Democrats would do well not only to be on their guard but consider applying this approach to the current president, who is more than a bit ripe for such treatment.
I don't think that the Democratic Campaign would be leading if it started making fun of Goerge Bush. It's just so natural. GW is a fun guy all by himself.
![[book cover]](http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/cities/cc-cover-100w.jpg)
