City Comforts, the blog

I was there

Gordon Price's email announcement of the upcoming Stewart Brand on New Urbanism event in Vancouver BC reminded me of something I’d long ago forgotten. Gord wrote that Brand

“…thought the image of our planet might be a powerful symbol, so in 1966 he campaigned to have NASA release the then-rumoured satellite image of the entire Earth as seen from space. He distributed buttons — for 25 cents each — asking, “Why haven’t we seen a photograph of the whole Earth yet?” In 1968, a NASA astronaut made the photo public, and in 1970, not coincidentally, Earth Day began to be celebrated. Brand explained that the image “gave the sense that Earth’s an island, surrounded by a lot of inhospitable space.”

I remember the button vividly (At least the event of the button.). I was a student and someone (presumably Stewart Brand) was standing at the corner of 116th and Broadway (main entrance to Columbia) and gave me out one. I don’t remember having to pay for one, though I may have. Nor of course did I have any knowledge of the guy who (presumably) gave me out the button. It was only decades later did I — “BINGO!” — see the connection between Brand’s the button and the Whole Earth Catalog.

I also recollect that I was stumped by the question — I was a teenager and it was too allusive and obscure for me. But I do absolutely remember receiving one — it was striking — and considering the time and location, the button was freighted with sinister government overtones of something to hide.

I’ve emailed to my old roommates asking if they have any memory; I wonder if the button came up at our vigorously-debated dinners and what it meant.

The truth?

The truth about the sinking of the Titanic - Telegraph.

'Titanic was launched at a time when the world was moving from sailing ships to steam ships. My grandfather, like the other senior officers on Titanic, had started out on sailing ships. And on sailing ships, they steered by what is known as "Tiller Orders" which means that if you want to go one way, you push the tiller the other way. [So if you want to go left, you push right.] It sounds counter-intuitive now, but that is what Tiller Orders were. Whereas with "Rudder Orders" which is what steam ships used, it is like driving a car. You steer the way you want to go. It gets more confusing because, even though Titanic was a steam ship, at that time on the North Atlantic they were still using Tiller Orders. Therefore Murdoch gave the command in Tiller Orders but Hitchins, in a panic, reverted to the Rudder Orders he had been trained in. They only had four minutes to change course and by the time Murdoch spotted Hitchins' mistake and then tried to rectify it, it was too late'

Believable? Credible?

Are you sure?

Rumsfeld to Release Memoir in January, Name it After Incoherent Quote

This quote:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know," Rumsfeld said. "There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."

And au contraire. Rumsfeld was a poor Secretary of Defense etc etc but he spoke very coherently on that question. Think of it this way:

known knowns -- the temperature this very moment in a given location, possible

known unknowns -- what the temperature will be tomorrow, impossible

unknown unknowns -- we have no idea that it even exists yet much less any specifics i.e. we are not even aware that "it" exists

And just if it makes anyone feel better, Rumsfeld did not invent the scheme but recognized. 

 

The Anosognosic's Dilemma: Something's Wrong but You'll Never Know What It Is (Part 1) - NYTimes.com.

With an"unknown unknown," I don't even know what questions to ask, let alone how to answer those questions.

 

Let Charles be Charles | Planetizen

Let Charles be Charles

Something I wrote.

I never buy first run best sellers in hardcover

But this time if I can, I will:

Pentagon tries to buy entire print run of US spy expose "Operation Dark Heart"

How the NYT sees bikes on Broadway | Analysis & Opinion |

How Felix Salmon see it.

Pessimistic? really?

A Pessimist Manifesto

First of all things are not going to work out. You are going to die. Your friends and family are going to die. Everything you care about and everything you ever worked for will be destroyed. This story, our story, only has one ending and it is death and destruction.

Could just as well be realistic and freeing one to be here now.

Tony Judt: R.I.P.

Tony Judt: An Intellectual Journey

I have my own tiny anecdote about Tony Judt.

His article "Europe vs. America" (NYRB Feb 10, 2005) opened with a critique of Starbucks' coffee and that the company had "encountered unexpected foreign resistance."

As a fan of Starbucks and with a great interest in "third places" I questioned Judt's assessment of Starbucks— in the USA I think it has been of significant cultural value and he totally misunderstood it. I further questioned the factual basis for his assertion (that Starbucks was not doing so well with European consumers.) In fact there were no facts. His riff on Starbucks was total assertion and without even an attempt to be reality-based. I am not exactly sure what I asked him; it might have been as bald as "Where are your facts?" 

He responded and I recollect it was a courteous email. But he mentioned something which, contrary to supporting his argument, actually undercut it.

I then wrote back and asked him whether I could quote him (on my blog.) I am pretty certain that I had told him in my first email that I had already quoted him:  The centrality of coffee?

Judt refused briskly. Of course as a matter of courtesy I accepted, though with some misgivings as I had made clear that I was micro-media (so had given him fair warning) and more importantly, his response was so juicy.

Alas, I wish I could remember exactly what he said as I no longer have the correspondence.

To tear down the Viaduct — and then not tear down the Viaduct

Four powerhouse teams named finalists in central waterfront design elicits one fabulously humorous comment:

I think it would be really incredible if the design included demolishing the top level, but keeping the lower level of the viaduct (which is not by itself seismically threatened), using it as a promenade for walkers,etc. with several connections to 1st ave. This allows a view over the top of the water front buildings

My comment:

Ruffner (the commenter) et al.

Can you spell "Irony?" "Humor?" "Peels of laughter?"

I take no other position on any design as it will not happen, so why bother. And your idea about keeping part of the Viaduct may well make design sense.

But don't you folks see how absurd, stupid, asinine it would be to spend mucho $$$ billions to tear down the Viaduct — and then not tear down the Viaduct?

Give me a break, folks -- no matter what your view, don't you see the absurdity? Laugh.

Plus ca change....? The world starts when we remember.

Several days I commented on the statement "Ten years ago, when the urbanist movement was in its infancy and supporters were few and far between..." and in return was challenged by BeyondDC in a comment.

Now it's not an essential question but an interesting one: if, how and to what degree has the "urbanist movement" changed, grown (in numbers or quality of thought) since 2000 and from a low level to much higher? 

Obviously, what are the metrics? On his own terms "few and far between" is about numbers though let's broaden it to the breadth of thinking, too.

It will depend on judgment and the priorities. For me, "walkable urbanism" is the sine qua non and sums up the question.  And certainly there has been some progress. The state of the built environment shows some progress and there have been some excellent (both large and small) urbanism. (The massive development in downtown Evanston, IL 

Some of the intellectual threads: There is no question that certain elements have grown to very little or to even nothing and there is a tangle of intertwined initiatives: urban agriculture (locavorism,) congestion pricing, peak oil, demand-responsive on-street parking payment, dismissal of starchitecture, green roofs have become a focus of discussion…but help me out...what else has happened in the past ten years?

So yes those (and perhaps more) are interesting and perhaps even significant.

Now if it's a matter of raw numbers, then maybe so. There are more people who are aware. But so far as I see. the key major threads in urbanism long pre-date 2000: environmentalism in general, sustainability, energy issues, Jane Jacobs and new urbanism in particular and very specifically the knowledge of how to build walkable urbanism. None are new and all are logical outgrowths (correct or not) from urban thinking of the past 40 years; and none, sadly, are especially well-practiced. (I cite Seattle Sheraton Hotel's pathetic 7th Avenue urbanism as an example of our having learned little.) There are some breakthrough into experimentation: application of traffic-calming in mid-town Manhattan is big and to be applauded. The ideas of traffic-calming were not new (though not very old, also -- maybe the early 1990s) but I assume that political support (in NYC) has grown. So some change, yes. But a lot? Look at how we squandered our wealth in the past ten years through our enormous suburbanization. I don't see that whatever "urbanist movement" we have is much beyond its infancy. Too much moralizing. (e.g. James Howard Kunstler.) Too many gimmicks. ("Green everything.") Not enough sheer fun in citiness. Alas.
 

What do you think?

Maybe it's mostly about when we, as individuals, become conscious; and I became conscious well-before 2000. 

But there are historic discontinuities, eras when things changes, when people start to think differently. The long decade from 1960 to 1975 might well be one. I don't see 2000 being such a marker.