City Comforts, the blog

Horrifying idea of the day

Architects want to move closer to the centers of power.

Architects are increasingly chafing at what they see as the political limitations of their profession.

Leading architects, including Thom Mayne and Rem Koolhaas, have been outspoken in recent months about trying to change that. They want to leverage their fame into clout and, by operating more strategically, move closer to the centers of power.

The horrifying part is not architects in politics; I'd like to see Andres Duany in office, for example. But Mayne and Koolhaas? On what basis? Have they ever said anything of wisdom about cities or their governance? Tell me.

Here's a funny phrase...

...at Housing Bottoms: Residential Investment vs. Existing Home Prices:

...based on the new Goldman Sachs housing forecast....

Uh...and what were these folks saying a year ago? Two years ago? And so forth? Why should we listen now? Do they have a track record worth considering?

Resonance about New Orleans

Folks are still talking about Doug Brinkley's article about New Orleans.

The problem I see with the Bush response is that he hasn't squarely explained that it is crazy to rebuild below sea level until/unless the levees and barrier island/wetlands are rebuilt, which may be 10-15 years at best even if we started today, (which of course we are not doing because it is too expensive and the $$$ are going to Iraq.) So that's why Bush deservedly gets static. He's not being clear. (Why I am not surprised?)

The commonsense political (and humane) compromise is to tell people that we won't help rebuild anything below sea-level BUT we will provide financial aid for people to relocate and for communities to welcome them.

(Of course the option of simply raising low parts of NO is still a good one; you know that as I have been writing about it here since Katrina. But judging the response i.e. zilch, most people probably thinkit too far out, even though it was done in Galveston a hundred years ago. At any rate,  As one commenter at Volokh aptly put it "Now what I have yet to see are some realistic estimates on the cost of pulling a Galveston on New Orleans. You cannot realistically rebuild a city in a bowl. Either change the bowl into a hill or be done with it.")

Of course humane commonsense is not in evidence in the White House so we get what we have: nothing.

As to why there is a Federal obligation: national housing policy allowed people to live below sea-level via FHA/VA mortgages  (and I am guessing on that one) and environmental policy dredged the Mississippi and allowed the destruction of the barrier island/wetland complex which facilitated the destruction. So the whole nation has some level of obligation.

Help. Do you get the logic?

Supposedly the White House knew that the levees were failing but (according to Chris Floyd's blog) simply didn't tell. I don't get it. Here is the story:

Why would the Bush Regime keep mum as the flood waters were cracking the levees? The answer, says Palast, is simple: Money. Loot. Scratch. Long green. From Palast's piece on Buzzflash:

Why on earth would the White House not tell the state to get the remaining folks out of there? The answer: cost. Political and financial cost. A hurricane is an act of God -- but a catastrophic failure of the levees is an act of Bush. Under law dating back to 1935, a breech of the federal levee system makes the damage -- and the deaths -- a federal responsibility. That means, as van Heeden points out, "these people must be compensated."

Can someone explain the dynamics? In any case the levees are about to fail and the damages — at least in human life — are likely to be higher if no one knows. So how does it serve the White House — and believe me I am ready to believe the worst about that group — to delay spreading the bad news? I can see stupidity in the White House. But intentionally keeping a secret which will be obvious in hours or days? Why? How does that work to help Bush?

UPDATE: Chris Floyd responds and explains the logic: Bush is a bad man. Maybe even a troll. Now I remember why the extreme anti-war left got so little traction: even when it was correct on the substance, it managed to make its explanations sound loony and demanded agreement on faith, as does Floyd, with no questions...because well you ask questions you must be a Bushie troll. Sheesh. I really do fear for our country.

Try taking this one to the bank

Forget the Bubble. Housing Shortage is the Real Crisis.

The rapid increase in national housing prices has spawned growing fears that a housing bubble is about to burst, which doomsayers claim will then drag the country into a recession and leave a glut of unwanted housing.

But concerns over a national housing bubble are completely overblown,

Sources?

Interesting (inflammatory, at least) article on The Peace Racket by Bruce Bawer which might be persuasive, credible if it had links back to the quotes so I could read for myself if the quotes were accurate, fair, taken in context etc etc As it is now it is just a series of claims without evidence.

Whatever happened to the "shortage of housing?"

Area Housing Shortage Worsening, Study Warns

Demand for new housing in the Washington region is outstripping supply and will continue to do so for 20 years, ratcheting up prices, spurring development farther into the geographical fringe and lengthening commutes, according to a study by George Mason University's Center for Regional Analysis.

Btw, I am not saying that there is no ongoing shortage. My point is that there is no discussion of this shortage in discussions of the housing bubble. The simple answer may be that both phenomena are true and they are operating in different parts of the market. I'd just like to see some integrated thinking on the issue.

Fantasy

Digby quotes (with approval) yet one more bit of hysteria about New Orleans: “…rezoned the entire area to push out the survivors in favor of high-end developers…”

That's not what your link says, Digby.

General (Not) Victor Davis Hanson

He wants the enemies to play by rules. He attacks a NYT  editorial which includes this passage:

2. “Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.”

General (Not) Victor Davis Hanson responds:

And there was a Pentagon postwar plan to stabilize the country, but it assumed a decisive defeat and elimination of enemy forces, not a three-week war in which the majority of Baathists and their terrorist allies fled into the shadows to await a more opportune time to reemerge, under quite different rules of engagement.

"...it assumed a decisive defeat and elimination of enemy forces, not a three-week war.."

Only one contingency plan for how a war may evolve? That's absurd. It's amazing that Hanson doesn't realize how damning his statement is. It's pretty scary to have such an incompetent leadership that it didn't have a host of contingency plans.

The problem for New Orleans is time, even if you have the money

Obama's Plan for New Orleans.

Strengthen the Levees: Two years after Katrina and despite a billion dollars spent to strengthen the levees, New Orleans is still not protected from a major storm. The levee rebuilding has been piecemeal and disorganized, and major sections of the city remain nearly as vulnerable as they were before the storm. As president, Barack Obama will ensure that New Orleans has a levee and pumping system to protect the city against a 100-year storm by 2011, with the ultimate goal of protecting the entire city from a Category 5 storm. Obama will also direct revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling to increased coastal hurricane protection.

Restore the Wetlands: Levees and floodwalls are not the only way to protect against a storm. Every four miles of wetlands can absorb about a foot of Hurricane’s storm surge, but Louisiana is losing an acre of wetlands – the equivalent of three football fields – every 24 minutes. Barack Obama will help the Gulf Coast restore the Printed in House Paid for by Obama for America wetlands, marshes and barrier islands that are critical to tamping down the force of hurricanes. He will work with local governments to develop the best strategies for protecting and expanding wetlands. As president, Obama will immediately close the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, which experts say funneled floodwater into New Orleans

Alas, Obama is not making sense here. He's got the science right but not the timing. Below sea-level parts of New Orleans should not be rebuilt until the floodproofing is in place and that will take many years even if we started tomorrow.

I am a big Obama fan but it is beyond reasonable hope to think that the barrier islands and wetlands at the mouth of the Mississippi can be rebuilt by 2011, which as far as I understand is a required element to protect New Orleans from a Category 5 storm. The levees can’t do it alone. It's not clear we even know how to do such a massive task as rebuilding and re-vegetating the wetlands & barrier islands on such a massive scale; there will certainly need to be lots of experimentation even if we have the basic principles down. As well, upstream politics are substantial. An element of rebuilding the delta is allowing the silt from upstream to flow out into the Gulf unhindered, which influenced how you manage upstream flow. (I'd better refresh my memory on the basic science.) But rebuilding the wetlands and barrier islands is a huge task that will take decades.

And it's hugely expensive. I have my doubts that it is worthwhile to spend the billions for the primary purpose of allowing people to live in a place that in a rational planning regime would never be allowed in the first place. But put the vast monies aside and assume that there is no limit.

The problem in New Orleans is timing. Any plan which suggests that we below sea-level areas should be rebuilt immediately puts the returning residents in danger. And since floodproofing the area will take far beyond 2011, what do we do? Are we going to rebuild the below sea-level areas and encourage people to move there? before the flood-proofing? where they can be flooded and drowned?

So you say let's rebuild and then they can move back. Is it realistic that people who have been forced out will wait in limbo ten, fifteen or twenty years until  it is safe? I think not. They will move elsewhere and settle in.

That doesn't mean we should help these displaced persons and the new communities to which they move. Better spend the money that way than on some scheme to make below-sea level areas flood-proof for residential use.

•••

A much more realistic plan, I believe, will also involve filling to raise the height of low lands to above sea-level so as to get rid of the problem altohether and not have to rely on maintaining levees. I have discussed that option on this blog: Thinking about "Rebuilding New Orleans." and Rebuild New Orleans but 'Floodproof" it first by filling and Raising New Orleans.

 

Impetuous begets ignorant

Anonymous poster — Kathy G. — follows in the irresponsible steps of Professor (and don't forget it!) J. Bradford DeLong with her own irrational attack on that mild blog post about a TV show that I wrote about here. Though she goes onto some wild tangent about pedophiles and "childfuckers" (yes that's her term) in personally attacking the author of the post, that's a side show as far as I am concerned. The issue is Islam and how it is viewed here in the USA. Good liberals should not allow any criticism of Islam — even Islam of the 10th century AD — because it will only justify an attack on Iran next month. Or whatever. I guess that's her view; it's hard to say for sure except that she sure makes it plain that she doesn't like Jenkins' review here.

She writes:

...Jenkins has been gracing us with his pensees regarding Muslim history. There's this, for example:

[T]he Arabs actually borrowed their much-cited "Muslim science" (the astrolabe and so on) from the Nestorians and other Eastern Christians...

I guess everyone else knows that it is absurd to state that "[T]he Arabs actually borrowed their much-cited "Muslim science" (the astrolabe and so on) from the Nestorians and other Eastern Christians..." because Kathy G. doesn't bother to state whether that fact is true or not. Read the post and you'll see, I think, that Kathy G. wants us to fill in the blanks and assume by her delivery that Jenkins has made an obviously false and Islamaphobic statement.

The unfortunate thing for Kathy G. is that Jenkins is basically correct and she is wrong. For what it's worth, Wikipedia says that the Astrolabe was indeed invented by the ancient Greeks, BCE and then further evolved by Islamic mathematicians almost a thousand years later. Jenkins gets it slightly wrong in that the Christians didn't invent the astrolabe themselves (if that's what he is implying) but acted to transmit Greek science to the Arab world in 5th century A.D.  (That was pre-Islam, of course.)

OK, so what's the big deal. You have a silly professor and an anonymous woman fucking over some guy because they think he has insulted Moslems.Or whatever their problem is. Big deal. Happens every day. Well, I think it's poisonous and a bad thing and that's why I am writing these posts so as to encourage Professor (and don't forget it!) J. Bradford DeLong and anonymous Kathy G to be a bit more responsible and not so sloppy. Both DeLong and Kathy may have the best of intentions to spread good-will and tolerance, But you can't do it by belittling and distorting what people say. There is absolutely nothing in Jenkins' post at TNR which anyone should find offensive. There may be some historical arguments (there are always are) but I am pretty sure that neither Brad nor Kathy have the expertise to discern them. There is nothing in Jenkins' post which should call forth such vitriol. They have over-reacted and should modify their impetuous and ignorant posts.

Way behind the curve

Debate Rages over Seattle Highway.

Not really.

It's self-deception to think that there is still anything to debate. There is no money for a Tunnel. No one wants a brand-new ground-up replacement for the Viaduct. And the Governor realizes that tearing it down so that can traffic redistribute itself onto local arterials and people can take buses is a faith-based enterprise, far too-risky politically.

That's why she has decided that the only reasonable compromise -- say over the next 15-20 years -- is to repair what we have. And that is exactly what the Governor has ordered done.

Serious Viaduct repair work starts this fall.

We'd adjust to closing I-5

A local pundit wannabe thinks it would be OK if we closed I-5 because we'd adjust.

The I-5 experience blows a hole in the gospel of endless road expansion. You can't argue that closing the viaduct would lead to disaster and then ignore the fact that eliminating half the lanes on a major freeway through Seattle actually made traffic better. And that's without any additional transit service from Metro, the main transit provider in the region. (Sound Transit stepped up service a bit, and still found itself with over-capacity Sounder trains.) Imagine how much smoother the commute on I-5 could have been with expanded transit to take another 20,000 or 30,000 cars off the road.

People adjust to impoverishment and to newfound wealth. People adjusted in concentration camps. We'd also adjust if The Stranger stopped printing. "Adjustment" is hardly a criterion.

Takes one to know one?

Professor (and don't you forget he served in the Treasury under Clinton!) J. Bradford DeLong calls someone by name a "psychotic creep" on his blog and with no explanation for such vitriol. Read his post and judge for yourself. (The comments are vapid, just guilt-ridden "me-toos".) His post made no sense to me. Yes, I got that DeLong doesn't like someone's review of a TV show. (Here's the review; I make no judgment on it as I haven't seen the show and I don't know much Spanish history but the review seems pretty mild.)

But DeLong doesn't make much of an argument why that assessment is wrong; in fact he makes no argument but simply sputters incoherently. That wouldn't be any big deal — the blogosphere is full of casual dismissals — except for his off-the-wall "psychotic creep" business, which I found bizarre, bullying and out-of-proportion. I left a comment on his blog but DeLong removed it, I assume because I raised questions about his judgments. Specifically, I called his remarks "intemperate" and wondered whether DeLong has sufficient expertise in Spanish history to offer an opinion worth considering, (as unless you know the history of Spain an opinion on the subject TV show is totally worthless.)

•••

Now I just read an interesting post on defamation at Butterflies and Wheels; it's about the legality of calling someone a "crackpot." The lawyer-author of those remarks (on yet another blog) says that calling someone a "crackpot" is basically OK as it is protected opinion because everyone knows that a term like "crackpot" is just "rhetorical hyperbole." But I wonder if "psychotic creep" (the ""psychotic" part, anyway) is also protected? I mean J. Bradford DeLong is some kind of Doctor. Right? Maybe someone would take his remark as a medical diagnosis? He thinks he knows about Spanish history so maybe he presents himself as knowing about crazy people, too. Huh? God forbid that a future Democratic administration would consider a man able to make such intemperate statements for a position requiring good judgment.

 

This chart means what?

Both Felix Salmon and Brad DeLong seem to think that this chart is significant but offer no explanation at all. Can anyone help?

I'm in

Tyler Cowen's on-line reading club will discuss Farewell to Alms, a book on what I believe is the big question in (recorded) human history: why did the west — and very small parts of it, at that — industrialize ahead of areas of the world which were far more advanced in science and technology and overall wealth?

Further Remarks on the "Blue Whale"

With reference to the aforementioned Blue Whale I have some further comments as to its merit in terms of urban design and "walkability."

Whether a building is a "good" "bad" or "indifferent" depends on the frame of reference and the standard by which you are judging it. So people can have different conclusions depending on their perspective. The only problem with that is that that there are some frames of reference which are more socially-desirable than others. Promoting "Walkable Neighborhoods" is of course what I think is most important. Of course what confounds me and what makes the whole issue more difficult is that there is no inherent conflict between "object" buildings like the Blue Whale and promoting walkable neighborhoods — if the designer and the owner care about making one.

The Pacific Design Center (the "Blue Whale") is in fact (ironically and tragically) in or at the edge of a walkable pedestrian-oriented neighborhood....a traditional built-to-the-property line "Main Street" neighborhood. And yet it turns away from the street. You can't see in because of the color (?) of the glass. It has a plaza in front to keep pedestrians at a distance.  It isolates itself from its community. It doesn't "talk" to its neighbors except to say "Go away, I am high design." Its primary mistake is its (lack of) orientation/connection to the street. Its designers should apologize and indicate some regret. To paraphrase Marlon Brando, "It coulda been a contender."

Here's a street-level shots from Google showing the Blue Whale:

Here's a shot showing Melrose Avenue a block or so west of the Whale:

See what I mean? Even better, Google to 8687 Melrose Ave West Hollywood CA and via "Street View" (click the little orange figure) see for yourself what the neighborhood is like.

(Click on photos above to enlarge.)

 

From a self-described "conservative."

The Cunning Realist talks about Lagos-On-Hudson:

Listen, I've never been a fan of those "we could build X number of schools with all the money we spend on Y" arguments. But it's undeniable: While we're pouring blood and treasure into policing a civil war, this country's critical infrastructure -- New Orleans, Minneapolis, New York, and who knows what next -- is crumbling around us. New York City can't even keep its transit information website up and running during a thunderstorm. Six years on, think we're ready for the next 9/11? It's outrageous.

Pretty weak reason

3quarksdaily has this to say:

I love the Pacific Design Center in Los Angeles but, generally speaking, I think it’s pretty underappreciated. Sure, people know it. They recognize it, it’s generated it’s share� of buzz (let’s be honest, mostly not very positive). It has won the hearts of post-modernists and ironic architecture-appreciating hipsters during its various oscillations on the so-wacky-it’s-cool spectrum. But I think where it really earns the most points is in its sheer lack of apology or regret.

"...where it really earns the most points is in its sheer lack of apology or regret."

That's the damnedest reason I have ever heard in defense of a structure. I think such a reason is meaningless. Beyond the anthropomorphizing, such a rationale could be used by defenders of the worst strip mall or seedy motel (or whatever) in LA. What difference does it make that the building (or even its human defenders) won't apologize or regret? Not apologizing or regretting does not in itself create a good building or even "design integrity."  And its designers should apologize and make amends and do better.

As an object, and for me only from afar, the Blue Whale is sorta interesting. As a piece of urban design, of "city," it's terrible. I was hoping I'd find some engaging and its absence of "apology or regret" and its refusal to admit a mistake.

Already plenty of good reasons

Digby has interesting discussion going about extreme income in-equality. The key sentence:

...that sense of dissatisfaction and anxiety so many of us feel is a direct result of the conspicuous consumption of the fabulously wealthy overclass trickling down through society and making it necessary for people to constantly buy more, even as they are earning the same.

I don't agree. There are an a lot of good reasons to be concerned about enormous income inequalities. I don't believe that the paragraph above captures them.

Feeling inadequate because you can't afford a $13 thousand barbecue grill (an example in one of Digby's links) is because one has a distorted sense of values to begin with — probably due to a poor education & upbringing etc etc -- and not because Bill Gates has one or can afford several hundred of them. When I read about people who spend $200 thousand or more on a wedding I feel sorry for them as it just seems so weird and such a sign of insecurity. (I don't mean that people shouldn't have a fine party to celebrate a marriage.) But the real super-rich live in a world so breathtakingly far away from mine that it doesn't impinge on me at all, (except that we have a screwed-up tax system which aids them.) At the personal psychological level I can't agree that my life is impacted by the buying habits of the super-rich or even just plain rich.

Most importantly, my objection to this view of enormous income inequality is that feels somewhat contrived to justify changes in tax policy etc etc  But there  are already plenty of good reasons for a certain amount of income re-distribution (e.g. to pay for health care so we don't have people dying on the street and as an aid to small business). I don't think we have to reach to what I see as condescending arguments to justify such re-distribution.

Even more to the point, I don't think it's a winner politically and is not one on which to base political change (e.g. electing a Democrat) as it plays into old images of progressives as haters of wealth.

•••

Btw, I am not saying that on occasion I don't personally feel a generalized "sense of dissatisfaction and anxiety." I do and it's for two very good reasons:
1. We have a very unwise President who has a lot of power and I am worried about what he may do in his remaining days in office
2. At 60 years old you start to feel the cool breeze of mortality.

An insight into why we will repair the viaduct

It's just too much trouble to do anything "big" and requires endless adjustments to the surroundings. Of course some people think that's a good thing i.e. to precipitate big and dramatic and unpredictable;e change.. But in the end, and luckily, they are not the ones who will make the decisions.

Things Fall Apart, but Some Big Old Things Don’t

“You cannot just replace the old stock with new stock, without changing a lot of stuff around it,” said Viren Doshi, a London-based consultant at Booz Allen Hamilton, who has studied the telephone and electricity industries. “So they keep on patching up the old stuff.”

Buying versus Renting

I can understand it with real estate. But with DVDs? Why?

Of course I wouldn't buy books either except for two things:

1. Access: It's hard/impossible to find some books in my local library.

2. Elapsed time: I don't read many books straight through i.e. I might read a chapter or so and then put it down; so I want the book available in a second. I have never watched a movie in parts so having it in my possession for more than a few days is not required. (And if I want to watch it over again, Netflix or my local video store works just great.)

"Reckless at home, Reckless at War." Is that too harsh?

Some interesting stuff in the NYT this morning in a story by Floyd Norris headlined  In a Credit Crisis, Large Mortgages Grow Costly — on the housing/credit problem. The story starts off with a terrifying bang:

When an investment banker set out to buy a $1.5 million home on Long Island last month, his mortgage broker quoted an interest rate of 8 percent. Three days later, when the buyer said he would take the loan, the mortgage banker had bad news: the new rate was 13 percent.

Wow! A buyer capable of a $1.5 million dollar house gets bumped from 8 percent to 13 percent. Scary! But then a few paragraphs later we have this:

The size of the rate increase he faced is unusual. But all jumbo lenders have raised rates. Bankrate.com reports that conventional 30-year mortgages cost about 6.23 percent now, less than they did a few weeks ago, due to a decline in Treasury bond rates. But the average jumbo rate is now 6.94 percent. The spread between the two rates rose from less than a quarter of a percentage point to more than two-thirds of a point.

So the investment banker's situation was unusual. So why lead the story with the anecdote? A lot of people won't get past the first para so they are left with very much the wrong impression. (That is, I don't think that a spread between loans you can sell to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and ones you can't of 3/4% seems like the sky is falling. Bad writing/editing.)

Then we have this para:

Now, however, many mortgages call for sharply rising monthly payments after a few years, and borrowers were given loans without regard to their ability to meet the higher payments. Lenders assumed the mortgage could be refinanced, and that rising home prices would assure repayment of the loan. It became common to offer homebuyers loans to finance the entire purchase price of a home.

I have no sympathy for a lender which didn't pay attention to the customer's exit strategy because his exit strategy is also the lender's. If letting such lenders fail had no impact on the economy at large I'd say bombs away.

Then we have the really incredible para:

In June, banking regulators ordered that adjustable-rate loans be given only to borrowers who could afford the rate at which it was likely to be reset, meaning that many borrowers would not qualify for refinancings even if their homes had not lost value. (italics added)

I understand that if such requirement had been there at loan origination then many loans wouldn't have been made. And the whole point of low-entry adjustable is to let people into the housing market who otherwise couldn't otherwise get a loan. But I think it is incredible that with all the statistics available — the mortgage market is very heavily regulated so lots of statistics should be available — the regulators did not require some sort of projection on how the loans would be kept current. There is a big distinction between the relative free-for-all of commercial loans and ones for homes. If we want to subsidize home-ownership (through interest-rate manipulation) we shouldn't be doing at the back-end as way to avoid a market meltdown, which looks to be the way we are going to get out of this mess.

Building on Ideas

Review of an exhibit in NYC:

To become an "ideas" architect, it is hardly necessary to have, say, an idea. You need only get out the word that you consider ideas important, that you decry the absence of ideas among your colleagues, and, before you know it, you're on your way.

I want one for my cat

He sits by the window looking out. I'd like to let him roam a bit but I see so many sad "lost cat" signs that I am scared to. (The old "inside" versus "outside" cat issue.) But maybe if he had a GPS collar like the ones available for dogs.

MANY dogs wear collars with ID tags. Now some collars also have Global Positioning System units, motion sensors or other additions to help owners keep track of their pets the high-tech way.

Is Obama politically astute?

I say "Yes."

This journalist think Obama has made a mistake with his foreign policy statements by rejecting the conventional wisdom that we shouldn't admit that we wouldn't use nuclear weapons against peasants in sandals in the mountains of Pakistan. The idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in what is essentially wilderness is not credible from the outset. And pointing that out (even if indirectly) is reasonable, politically.

Obama's comments have served him well. Until last week (and the "preconditions" issue) my attitude toward him was ho-hum...blah-blah-blah...more liberal prattling about "healing." BFD. But his statements on foreign affairs have gotten my attention in very positive way. He's correct on the substance. More important, politically, he has shown the voters that he has an independent mind and the courage to speak against the grain. The foreign policy establishment has gotten the country into the biggest blunder in the nation's history and people see it. Obama is correct politically to speak against the conventional wisdom and to meet criticisms boldly with terms like "ridiculous."

Via Marc Ambinder where you can read Samantha Powers' excellent memo which has obviously inspired much of this post.

Crying out to be an e-book

If ever there was a book crying out to be an e-book, here it is: Infrastructure: A Field Guide to the Industrial Landscape. I just bought it and it is wonderful, tells you about the omnipresent but invisible landscape of power poles and clover-leafs  the sort of book you'd want to pop into the car for a long drive. And after all it's subtitled a "Field Guide" and it is explicitly about all those weird, odd, big things you see in the landscape and never understood. But the book is big and awkward: 10" x 10" x 1' and about 4 1/2 pounds so you wouldn't even think about it unless on a car trip; and even then it's too big for most.  It would be great to have on a trip; it's a reference book, in a way, not the sort of thing you read in one sitting.

I'd love to see it reformatted for an eBook Reader (when one comes to exist — hey Steve Jobs!?)

•••

The NYT has a story today on ebook reading devices.

•••

There is much discussion elsewhere on the web about using the iPhone to read eBooks. For example, here. I think that the upshot is that besides a suitable device, ebooks will need to be re-designed for the small screen. Take the Infrastructure book (above), It's slightly larger than 10" x 10", You can't simply port that book over as a series of screen-shots. You have to redesign it for the small screen. Interestingly, my own book City Comforts is just about out of the last printing (100 copies left)  and I am not clear if I will ever reprint. It is ideal for ebook format and I am thinking about starting to work on the ebook version and foregoing the another printing.

Anyone have any suggestions on how to do it? Is there special software? Can I use Adobe's In Design? I assume it would end up as a PDF. I'd want hyperlinks in the text so that I can add details, caveats, cautions. They'd be internal to start but also set-up for web access, (which suggests the iPhone rather than the Sony Reader, which has no Wi-Fi card now.) There'd be a library of alternative photos for each detail. It would link easily to my my web site and/or blog so that the book can be a "supported book" in some ways similar to the way software producers support software. Any suggestions on how to transform the paper book into an ebook will appreciated.

Social resiliency

As society becomes more complex, with people increasingly emote from the means of production, the more we ought to be concerned with having infrastructure of resiliency. That's what I think about when I read stories about Flooding in the New York City Transit System.

Powerful thunderstorms swept through the New York metropolitan area this morning, tearing up trees and damaging cars and homes, and creating havoc during the morning commute....Subway stations were flooded, forcing commuters out onto the streets and into taxis and buses, and bringing traffic in many areas to a standstill.

We have floods in Seattle, too. Just one more argument in favor of above-grade mass transit such as... monorails.

Truly skeptical?

Eugene Volokh's mind is vexed by some seemingly crazy theory that it's better for the environment if you drive to the store rather than walk and of the great difficulty in sorting out the trade-offs involved in devising public policy:

This in turn makes me skeptical about demands that we, either individually or through government action, change our lives to improve the environment.

I hope he is not using the term "skeptical" as veiled anti-environmentalism. I hope he is as skeptical of the mirror image:

This in turn makes me skeptical about demands that we, either individually or through government action, do nothing to improve the environment.

For the sake of discussion

In the wake of the Minnesota Bridge tragedy there are calls to "solve the problem" by "privatizing" highways, bridges etc. I think the notion has far too many political and practical problems to be done except in rare circumstances. But it's interesting to consider in a mind-bender context.

The Minnesota Bridge Tragedy and the Seattle Viaduct

One of the problems with the indecision around Viaduct is that it has now delayed repairs which were needed (due to the damage done by the Nisqually quake of February 2001) for more than 6 1/2 years. As a community we spent so many years fantasizing and dreaming that we didn't deal with the problem right in front of us. I hope that the Minnesota Bridge Tragedy has set us right. The Governor et al will see that the only reasonable choice — at least in the 10-20 year range — is the one they feel may have been forced upon them but in fact is the wisest course: fix it.

•••

As Kent says in comments: "Regardless of what you ultimately do with that transportation corridor, seems like you still repair the thing in the meantime."

Sure seems like it — unless you really don't take the scare-talk seriously. That's the only rational explanation for a 6 1/2 year delay in starting serious repair work.

I am impressed

The interviewee finished Yale Law (after having been, ahem, a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford) and then moved, voluntarily, to Newark, New Jersey, where he is now Mayor. It's a pretty impressive conversation with an impressive person, who as a black American educated in the most elite venues could have pretty-much moved anywhere. See it here:  The City: 2012 — Corey Booker.

(It's not quite as convenient but you can download this video (and others from The New Yorker Conference) from iTunes Store and get a much better quality video.)

•••

Not nearly as impressive is Paul Goldberger's interview with Zaha Hadid. It's not Goldberger's fault; he does a decent job with the meager material with which he has to work. Even on her own terms as a purveyor of archi-spectacle, Hadid is a bore who says nothing, even if you agree with her architectural outlook i.e. that what's important about a building is the building itself and that the space around it is totally secondary. I don't agree with such object-oriented anti-sidewalk approach; but surely there is something to say for it. Hadid came close to getting across the idea that her starchitecture, along with that of Koolhaas and of course Gehry, could be defended as modern-day bread-and-circuses for under-privileged masses. But she couldn't even conceptualize that much.

In fact my first question — after about 3 minutes of the conversation — was why would an astute urbanist like Goldberger waste his time and ours with Hadid? She is a complete lightweight who has just about nothing to say. For shame, Paul. Your audience deserves better.

•••

Of course it's quite likely that, as conferences go, Goldberger had no choice and that the  organizers simply paired him with Hadid and said "She's yours." In that case I'd offer Goldberger the constructive criticism to be quite a bit more aggressive in his questioning. His criticism will be remembered long after Hadid's architecture is forgotten. He could have said — and still well-within the bounds of civil discourse —

"OK, Zaha. A lot of people say that you are a 'starchitect.' "

(No one can be offended by being referred to as a star.)

"And that your work is bread-and-circus spectacle which has little to do with creating a more urbane and walkable city....that you are more out of the era of Robert Moses and super-blocks rather than of Jane Jacobs and streets scaled for human conversation. How do you respond to such a criticism?

No doubt she has a glib answer and it would be fine to let her glibness show. But if she rose to the occasion and said something of value, let her run with it:

"So Zaha, can you see a way to reconcile the two? Combining the truly urban and also the truly 'spectacular' and 'dazzling?' "

I do wonder what these starchitects would say if confronted directly and forcefully with the fact that they don't know how to build "city" but only isolated "object." But there is a third way for those special situations where you do indeed want some dazzle.

She's not sure?

A woman of 25 asks:

I am in love with two men. I'm 25, and they are both 30. I met each of them three years ago, and dated both before choosing the one who is my current partner....I love my boyfriend. He is happy, gorgeous, intelligent, ambitious, and caring. When I was diagnosed with a serious illness, he nurtured me back to health. At the same time, we have always been one of those couples who go to a restaurant and have nothing to talk about. His two interests are basketball and making money, and I often go to the theater alone because he finds my type of entertainment boring. Additionally, he keeps wanting to change me. He would like me to wear more makeup, buy flashier clothes, and visit the spa more often. Then there's the other guy. We recently rekindled our friendship, seeing each other every two months or so and having the best conversations of our lives. He's intelligent, intellectual, and caring, and I'm incredibly attracted to him. I can't be sure if our relationship would be good if we had one, but I would really like to try. I wish my boyfriend would break up with me, so I don't have to feel guilty about this. He's truly a nice guy, and nice guys don't deserve to be dumped. I want to do the right thing, but I don't know what that is. (italics added)

Maybe it's the rain? Maybe it's the rain?!

Jonathan Raban wonder why Forks is not becoming Silicon Valley:

It’d be nice to report that nature-hungry telecommuters and Internet starter-uppers are homing in on Forks as the new, green, wired place to be, but so far there’ve been few takers. Maybe it’s the rain (around 120 inches a year)... (italics added)

Think so?

Hard times are here

The headline reads No Money Down Disappearing as  Mortgage Option.

Of course that's not quite what the article actually says:

"It used to be that we would finance a loan up to $1 million with no down payment for a first-time home buyer," said Daniel H. Aminoff, a senior loan consultant at Washington Mutual Home Loans in Alexandria. "But as of March, we will only finance a loan of $417,000 with no down payment." (italics added)

Yikes! Only $417,000?

Here's part of the future of "the book."

I don't mean the web; I mean the emerging dynamic book which being constantly updated and corrected by its authors. Here is an example from a book titled Rule the Web. The author has a page devoted to

Updates and Corrections

In writing Rule the Web, I worked very hard to ensure that my information was correct and up-to-date. But the Web changes incredibly fast so, in order to keep the material fresh, I'll be posting corrections regularly here on the site.

If you find something in Rule the Web that needs to be fixed, please click the button for a form to submit your correction. Updates and corrections posted here will be organized by page number, so check back if you find a link that has expired or a site that doesn't work as described in the book.

"The book" is constantly being tuned and improved.

Think of the next step: a special subscription fee for extra "support." The book starts to float away from the publisher.

And here is precisely why the Democrats do look weak:

Democrats Feel Pressure on Spy Program.

Under pressure from President Bush, House Democrats on Saturday grudgingly prepared to clear the way for approving changes in a terrorist surveillance program despite serious reservations about the scope of the measure.

With time running out before a scheduled monthlong break and the Senate already in recess, House Democrats confronted the choice of accepting the administration’s bill or letting it die. If it died, that would leave Democratic lawmakers, who have long been anxious about appearing weak on national security issues, facing an August fending off charges from Mr. Bush and Republicans that they left Americans exposed to terror threats.

If you agree that it's really a matter of national security, don't take a vacation. And call the Senate back if you need to. And if you don't like the idea of not having a full vacation in time of national crisis — the crisis being the current President — don't run for re-election. But rolling-over for a President who will go down as the very worst in the history of the nation doesn't seem like the way to project "toughness." The irony of "toughness" is that even people who disagree with you will give you admiration (at least grudging) if they perceive you as a fighter.

But the cost for such maintenance is never indicated

How Do You Know When a Bridge Needs Attention?.

How do you know that a bridge needs attention? You know from the very first moment the bridge goes onto the drawing board, while it’s in its planning stages. That the bridge will require periodic maintenance is no surprise. A maintenance schedule can be drawn up and budgeted for from the very outset. Of course, our system doesn’t work that way. (italics added)

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a bond issue for capital projects which indicated the future and already scheduled maintenance budget? I doubt it. No politician or senior bureaucrat wants to talk about future maintenance. They'd rather present a fait accompli with subsequent demand to ante up or let it leak.

How many troops are they volunteering to send?

U.S.'s Arab Allies Warn Against Quick Iraq Exit