City Comforts, the blog

Off the record at the White House? Then why announce it?

Email received yesterday from SustainableCommunities@HUD.GOV:

 

Friends:

On Wednesday, May 23rd at 4:00 p.m. EDT, please join us for a budget update call with Robert Gordon, Executive Associate Director at the Office of Management and Budget. 

We ask that you share this invitation with your networks and affiliates.

Please RSVP here to join us, and please be sure to dial in 10 minutes early so that we are able to start the call on time.

Thank you,

The White House Office of Public Engagement

WHAT: White House Update Call

WHEN: Wednesday, May 23^rd 

Start Time: 4:00 p.m. EDT 

Dial In: (800) 230-1951              
Passcode Title: White House Update Call

This call is off the record and not for press purposes. (emphasis added - DS)

Link found here as well:
White House Update Call - May 23 | The White House.

---------------

I fail to understand why "off the record", if Robert Gordon is offering any remarks at all. 

Sounds dumb to me. I may have subscribed to this "SustainableCommunities" but I may very well have placed on it because I have a blog. In any case, my reason for even being on the list is to -- in my own small way -- to act as "press," though in a very opinionated format.

Can someone (and I know it's not you but the White House) explain why they want to tell what I assujme is a large group of people but then not tell people? About sustainable communities? Is asking for "off the record" a way to generated more interest?

I can understand why privacy in government is reasonable, in different degrees, from pending military action and announcement of crop reports to policy-under-discussion but not approved. But in such cases one simply keeps it secret.

Any suggestions? 

Philippe Starck Fitness Equipment -- Is it functional?

When he's not finding ways to get you drunk in mere seconds, Philippe Starck spends his time designing some of the most beautiful everyday objects we've ever seen. From juicers, to hard drives, to now a set of stunning fitness gear including free weights and jump ropes.

Created for Italian brand Alias, the HGO collection—which stands for 'home', 'office', and 'gym'—also includes a tall rack designed to store the hollow sets of one and two kilogram free weights. And a luxurious folding mat with a leather finish that most users would probably be worried about sweating on.

via gizmodo.com

Who worked with Starcke on the design?
There are a host of functional requirements and it would be interesting to know the experience behind his design.
For example, his free weights look extremely smooth.
Is that what you really want when you are sweating and holding a heavy weight above your head or doing a chest press? You want non-skid. (The ones they appear to show are very light but I assume they will have more)


So it remains to be seen whether Starcke's designs are of any significance.

 

I left a comment

Read the post, Generations of Environmentalism, and the post to which it linked Don't call me an environmentalist and then here's my comment:

I am confused by this discussion — both Curtis’ post at Grist and then this one here at Lawyers, Guns & Money— and it’s not because I can’t read or know environmental history, having been part of it. (FWIW, I organized one of the very first "environmental fairs" anywhere, at the University of Washington in 1969.)

Honestly, I am not sure what Curtis is claiming but it sounds as if she is saying that environmentalists of the sixties didn’t care about transformation of the economy. Didn’t get sustainability? Right? Is that it?

Well if that is it, then she is misinformed. I can go on chapter and verse but I want to make sure I spend the time making sure I understand what she is saying. Specifically. Not just broad generalizations without any examples.

So what is she saying? And what is Loomis saying? Call me old and decrepit if you like. But I know my history and I was there and sustainability has been part of the story from the 1950s onward. Environmentalism (David Brower for example) was not just about saving charismatic species and landscapes.

Alas, the same old shibboleth

Another shibboleth still has life:

The totalizing mentality here hasn’t served urban spaces very well in the past. Urban renewal “could be implemented in other places in just about any context” too. I distrust anyone who claims to have a one-size fits all idea about creating cities. I may be overblowing this, but it definitely caught my attention. (italics added)

Urban Planning

ALL walkable neighborhoods are built with the same spatial DNA. In fact “one-size fits all ” very much describes all walkable neighborhoods. Just go look. Don't look at the awnings or the colors or the pavement; look at the relationship of 

• building 

• sidewalk 

• street

It's basically all the same everywhere you'd want to walk with only very minor variations, all on the same theme.

We Love Our Neighborhood So Much We Bought It!

Can you?

To the young people who just discovered urbanism, "saving" a neighborhood icon is big news. (For example: Melrose Building Sold, to Be Replaced By Seven-Story Development) Since I have heard about such impending catastrophes for at least 40 years I am a bit skeptical.

Nevertheless, Roger Valdez has proposed an interesting approach We Love Our Neighborhood So Much We Bought It! The gist of the proposal is to form a "Neighborhood Real Estate Invest Trust" to purchase and preserve "endangered" buildings. Roger offers an example of 1200 people putting up $1200 to create a $1,440,000 Trust. It's an interesting approach, putting aside the various SEC (?) rules on the number of investors allowed, etc etc the organizational costs (legal, mostly — such an entity will cost, I bet, a good $10-15,000 at a minimum. 

So I'd be curious to see a real world test — the economics of the very subject property in the first link. How much did the property sell for? Is it anything like $1,440,000? What are the numbers like? I suggest Roger should do a real world financial model.