OK, OK I know Denmark is not a state. It's a country, the ancestral home of my mom, etc., You want more details? I have enclosed Wikipedia's page on the country that does more than share its name with a breakfast pastry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark
But permit me an esoteric reference to the Bard without involving a lesson in geography.
The reason I am writing about Denmark is that I came across a really interesting article about how incredibly "green" Denmark is. I don't mean green like how Iceland is really green and Greenland is really, really icey, but in the environmental sense of the word.
There was a good article in the March 16, 2009 edition of TIME magazine entitled, "the Gutsy Superpower. How Denmark's green energy initiatives power its economy" by Bryan Walsh http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1881646,00.html#
I used to think that TIME magazine was kind of old and stogy, but they've had such good articles (of personal interest) lately that I'm seriously getting a subscription. Either that or I'm getting old. Eh.
Anyway, I've always considered the Danes honest, hardworking folk who don't seem to get all uppity over anything or demand more than their fair share of the global pie. I knew that my mom's family is from there and that's about all I knew.
However, I found out that Denmark is the world's leader in wind power. According to Wikipedia it is the 10th greenest country in the world, which is also good. Denmark is also home of Vestas, a manufacturer that has become the top producer of turbines.
This didn't just happen due to good luck and great timing. The Danish government made a commitment to producing and improving their wind power technology, including involving the utility companies to "purchase wind energy at a preferential price- thus guaranteeing a customer base." (-Bryan Walsh, "the Gusty Superpower,"TIME, March 16, 2009, 42-43) Like Field of Dreams, "if you build it, they will come."
This was due, mainly from the 1973 oil crisis. Denmark relied on petroleum, almost all of it imported. Sound familiar? Realizing that they were causing their own problems, they set about to fix it before it happened again. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. . .
We could stand to take a lesson from their book. I know that President Obama is super busy right about now, but this is why great leaders delegate! No time like the present, so let's learn from our friends who don't hate us.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
the New Venice?
I realized that April is almost over, and I only have one posting credited to the month of showers and spring flowers.
I attribute it to my mattress that is trying to kill me, rendering me with excruciating back pain (between the shoulder blades no less) that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, if I had enemies. I say a life well lived is the best revenge.
Therefore, I decided to post a little something something so that come fall when I am at USC (yay my #1 choice !!!) people won't think that I'm a pretentious idiot who just says that she has a blog, which she hasn't touched since 2007- that's my other blog- youneedaninja.blogspot.com, which has, like 3 recipes on it and that's about it. I don't even remember which e-mail it's tied to.
I have been thinking a lot about this whole economy (and how we got here), new urbanism, and Detroit, all of which will merit their own postings. But I had to share this bizarre concept that I discovered in an article from Wired's February 2009 issue called, "Live Free or Drown"
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/startups/magazine/17-02/mf_seasteading
There is an entrepreneur named Patri Friedman who is the executive director of a non-profit called, the Seasteading Institute. The Seasteading Institute has big plans to start a new society on water. Yes, water. Mr. Friedman is a former software engineer who worked for Google, but wanted to pursue something much bigger. (in full disclosure I do process some health insurance claims at my current position for Google) Mr. Friedman is also the son of libertarian legal theorist David Friedman and grandson of free-market economist Milton Friedman, who won the Nobel Prize (facts from Chris Baker's article)
I'll spare you the political ideology behind this idea. Suffice to say it'll be both laissez-faire (let do, literally > let things take their natural course) and laissez bon temps roule (let the good times roll)
Wired covered this story, not only because it's unusual, but also because the concept is supposed to be like a platform in the same sense that Linux is a platform, which can expand and build upon itself. This is definitely out of my depth, but the author of the article, Chris Baker, does an excellent job explaining it. If you know anyone who's a tech nerd/sociologist this may intrigue them.
My dad, though I love him dearly, sometimes entertains rather "unusual" thoughts about separating from the government, libertarian ideals, etc., But this concept takes the cake, past the people in Montana who want to succeed from the U.S. (good luck with that. . .), past the hermits and the recluses, even the Unabomber seems "normal" to a relative degree. These people and their motivations are interesting, no doubt about it, but they are seriously out there, both literally and figuratively.
I did think, however, that though there is technically a definite absence of any need for planners- what will they need people to help plan make sure that the world's first floating Wal-mart doesn't affect the quality of life of these post-libertarians- it draws striking parallels to the city of Venice, which I had ruminated on in my posting Ah Venice!. . .is sinking? (February 20th, 2009)
It's the same basic concept- people seeking freedom above all- from politics, social norms, etc., and constructing a new society on er, water. And it hasn't been done for hundreds of thousands of years, not counting the people who live on houseboats. People build new sub-divisions all the time, but a new society?! I mean a brand-new society! Far out man.
A short history of other entrepreneurs who attempted to build their own freestanding societies is included in the article.
I do doubt that the occupants of this new society will feel the need to steal treasures from other cultures, like the Venetians did by stealing the horses during the Crusades, most probably from the Hippodrome in Constantinople, though their point of origin remains in dispute.
You have to hand it to the people who believe that this really can work. It's like the kids that really grew up to be the astronauts and firefighters that they said that they wanted to be.
Or like the incredibly poetic line from one of my favorite works, the Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster, one of society's overlooked philosophical tomes as it masquerades as a children's book,
"Now and then, though, someone does begin to grow differently. Instead of down, his feet grow up toward the sky. But we do our best to discourage awkward things like that."
"What happens to them?" insisted Milo.
"Oddly enough they often grow ten times the size of everyone else," said Alec thoughtfully. "and I've heard that they walk among the stars."
I attribute it to my mattress that is trying to kill me, rendering me with excruciating back pain (between the shoulder blades no less) that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, if I had enemies. I say a life well lived is the best revenge.
Therefore, I decided to post a little something something so that come fall when I am at USC (yay my #1 choice !!!) people won't think that I'm a pretentious idiot who just says that she has a blog, which she hasn't touched since 2007- that's my other blog- youneedaninja.blogspot.com, which has, like 3 recipes on it and that's about it. I don't even remember which e-mail it's tied to.
I have been thinking a lot about this whole economy (and how we got here), new urbanism, and Detroit, all of which will merit their own postings. But I had to share this bizarre concept that I discovered in an article from Wired's February 2009 issue called, "Live Free or Drown"
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/startups/magazine/17-02/mf_seasteading
There is an entrepreneur named Patri Friedman who is the executive director of a non-profit called, the Seasteading Institute. The Seasteading Institute has big plans to start a new society on water. Yes, water. Mr. Friedman is a former software engineer who worked for Google, but wanted to pursue something much bigger. (in full disclosure I do process some health insurance claims at my current position for Google) Mr. Friedman is also the son of libertarian legal theorist David Friedman and grandson of free-market economist Milton Friedman, who won the Nobel Prize (facts from Chris Baker's article)
I'll spare you the political ideology behind this idea. Suffice to say it'll be both laissez-faire (let do, literally > let things take their natural course) and laissez bon temps roule (let the good times roll)
Wired covered this story, not only because it's unusual, but also because the concept is supposed to be like a platform in the same sense that Linux is a platform, which can expand and build upon itself. This is definitely out of my depth, but the author of the article, Chris Baker, does an excellent job explaining it. If you know anyone who's a tech nerd/sociologist this may intrigue them.
My dad, though I love him dearly, sometimes entertains rather "unusual" thoughts about separating from the government, libertarian ideals, etc., But this concept takes the cake, past the people in Montana who want to succeed from the U.S. (good luck with that. . .), past the hermits and the recluses, even the Unabomber seems "normal" to a relative degree. These people and their motivations are interesting, no doubt about it, but they are seriously out there, both literally and figuratively.
I did think, however, that though there is technically a definite absence of any need for planners- what will they need people to help plan make sure that the world's first floating Wal-mart doesn't affect the quality of life of these post-libertarians- it draws striking parallels to the city of Venice, which I had ruminated on in my posting Ah Venice!. . .is sinking? (February 20th, 2009)
It's the same basic concept- people seeking freedom above all- from politics, social norms, etc., and constructing a new society on er, water. And it hasn't been done for hundreds of thousands of years, not counting the people who live on houseboats. People build new sub-divisions all the time, but a new society?! I mean a brand-new society! Far out man.
A short history of other entrepreneurs who attempted to build their own freestanding societies is included in the article.
I do doubt that the occupants of this new society will feel the need to steal treasures from other cultures, like the Venetians did by stealing the horses during the Crusades, most probably from the Hippodrome in Constantinople, though their point of origin remains in dispute.
You have to hand it to the people who believe that this really can work. It's like the kids that really grew up to be the astronauts and firefighters that they said that they wanted to be.
Or like the incredibly poetic line from one of my favorite works, the Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster, one of society's overlooked philosophical tomes as it masquerades as a children's book,
"Now and then, though, someone does begin to grow differently. Instead of down, his feet grow up toward the sky. But we do our best to discourage awkward things like that."
"What happens to them?" insisted Milo.
"Oddly enough they often grow ten times the size of everyone else," said Alec thoughtfully. "and I've heard that they walk among the stars."
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Men of the World You Have Been Warned!
OK, as you all know, I try to keep this blog fairly academic. However, my friend at work sent this to me and after I picked myself up off the floor, having fallen out of my chair from laughing so hard I knew I needed to post this. Plus, I got into my school of choice- go Trojans!!! So I feel a little "safer" posting less than cerebral stuff every once in a while.
I also work on a computer all day and at the end of the day I don't want to be anywhere near a keyboard, but as my blog has been a little sparse these past few weeks I'll rectify that this weekend. In the meantime- enjoy!
NINE WORDS WOMEN USE -
(1) Fine: This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up.
(2) Five Minutes: If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the house.
(3) Nothing: This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in fine. (see #2)
(4) Go Ahead: This is a dare, not permission. Don't Do It!
(5) Loud Sigh: This is actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to # 3 for the meaning of nothing.)
(6) That's Okay: This is one of the most dangerous statements a women can make to a man. That's okay means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.
(7) Thanks: A woman is thanking you, do not question, or faint. Just say you're welcome. (I want to add in a clause here - This is true, unless she says 'Thanks a lot' - that is PURE sarcasm and she is not thanking you at all. DO NOT say 'you're welcome' . that will bring on a 'whatever').
(8) Whatever: Is a woman's way of saying Screw YOU!
(9) Don't worry about it, I got it: Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a man asking 'What's wrong?' For the woman's response refer to # 3.
I also work on a computer all day and at the end of the day I don't want to be anywhere near a keyboard, but as my blog has been a little sparse these past few weeks I'll rectify that this weekend. In the meantime- enjoy!
NINE WORDS WOMEN USE -
(1) Fine: This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up.
(2) Five Minutes: If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the house.
(3) Nothing: This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in fine. (see #2)
(4) Go Ahead: This is a dare, not permission. Don't Do It!
(5) Loud Sigh: This is actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to # 3 for the meaning of nothing.)
(6) That's Okay: This is one of the most dangerous statements a women can make to a man. That's okay means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.
(7) Thanks: A woman is thanking you, do not question, or faint. Just say you're welcome. (I want to add in a clause here - This is true, unless she says 'Thanks a lot' - that is PURE sarcasm and she is not thanking you at all. DO NOT say 'you're welcome' . that will bring on a 'whatever').
(8) Whatever: Is a woman's way of saying Screw YOU!
(9) Don't worry about it, I got it: Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a man asking 'What's wrong?' For the woman's response refer to # 3.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
I Would Not, Could Not In a House, I Would Not, Could Not, With a Mouse!
I recently returned from a trip to L.A., which I still love with abandon and will be going back to next week for a school- yep school! related event next Friday. Ah, the world-weary traveler! *Hand stapled to forehead*
But I was thinking about where I have lived and where I want to live and where I thought I wanted to live.
When I was young and spending the majority of my formative years in the Midwest I wanted to move to Chicago when I grew up. But somehow I went to college in Savannah, grew bored with the sleepy Southern town's lack of a nightlife, and set my sights on New York City. I even threatened to transfer to Columbia, but never got around to filling out application papers, much to my best friend/roommate's relief. It would have saved me from a rather overwrought and drawn-out, angst-filled relationship. But I imagine that there are equally "broken" boys in the Big Apple.
In a strange twist of fate I actually spent my first few years out of college living in Chicago instead of New York. 9-11 happened on my first day of classes in college (feel free to do the math to determine exactly how old I am), but it was more the appalling lack of real estate in NYC coupled with astronomical rent prices that made me not want to pursue it more doggedly. This was while the lower East Side and the West Village were getting gentrified and developers were starting to look to Williamsburg with an avaricious glint in their eye, but most true Manhattanites considered Brooklyn faaaaar too far away from their island. "I'll have to move. . .to Brooklyn!" -You've Got Mail
Serendipity intervened and Chicago turned out to be the perfect city for me. I always say that it's like the kid brother of the super slick, super popular, super successful investment banker older brother NYC and the less chic, though infinitely more hipster than its glamour-puss of a cousin, platinum blonde, or is it Marilyn blonde-? L.A. Chicago is confident in where it stands in the world and it doesn't want to strive to be what it's not. Sure its shoes may not be Jimmy Choos, but Converse low-tops are A-OK. OK it may never have the super riches of New York, but it also doesn't have to work killer hours to pay the rent. (Chicago does have the Gold Coast and some verrrry cushy sections, but rich isn't usually the first word people associate with Chicago, and if they do, they've never been there.)
However, my scorching case of ambition motivated me to seek a high paying job in the suburbs and after burning out there I moved to California, which I'd missed ever since I'd moved away in sixth grade. Having two weather-related car accidents helped motivate me as well.
For the longest time I'd scorned L.A. I though it was just as fake and as plastic as a Barbie. And while this is true of some parts of L.A. It's not true of everywhere. I love hanging out in Hollywood, not the movie star Hollywood, but the real location, whom the movie studios abandoned for the aptly named, Studio City. I love walking down Melrose, driving down La Brea, hanging out in Santa Monica. Yes, there are a few people who have been airbrushed out of existence or are more silicone than skin cells, but not everywhere is it a shiny, happy city. There is a lot of grit and a lot of people who look like you and me.
L.A. will probably never be New York, or even Chicago in terms of its "culture"- you know, the artsy fartsy stuff. C'mon people, I have a degree in this stuff, I can say it! But its real estate is still more reasonable than NY and the weather is a significant improvement over Chicago. However, it has much more planning challenges than Chicago, who has done a relatively awesome job, and therefore I see less job opportunities for me there. Though stop gentrifying every single neighborhood in Chicago that remotely has a whiff of bohemian chic! We do not want your Pottery Barns and Baby Bjorns! "Where am I to go if doublewide strollers follow me everywhere?" asked mediajorgenyc in response to an article about the gentrification of Red Hook, Brooklyn in New York magazine. Indeed sir, indeed.
Hanging out with my friend/old roommate from Chicago reminded me of all the fun that I'd had in Chicago and in a perfect world I will move back there some day. My other friend, the best friend/roommate from college now lives in L.A., but is an East Coast transplant and sometimes thinking of her reminds me, by association of all that I love about New York. But would I want to live in New York, though it used to be my dream? I've thought about it and the answer is, probably not. You do not get any bang for your buck when it comes to rent, though another more lewd term may be used. New York has amazing theater, street food, and culture. But so does Chicago for a lot less price-wise (sortof).
Where will the road take me? I don't know. I am also interested in helping cities plan smart growth and Colorado, Atlanta, and Charlotte were all growing like crazy before the recession, so I may set my sights somewhere totally else. One thing I know, it won't be boring.
But I was thinking about where I have lived and where I want to live and where I thought I wanted to live.
When I was young and spending the majority of my formative years in the Midwest I wanted to move to Chicago when I grew up. But somehow I went to college in Savannah, grew bored with the sleepy Southern town's lack of a nightlife, and set my sights on New York City. I even threatened to transfer to Columbia, but never got around to filling out application papers, much to my best friend/roommate's relief. It would have saved me from a rather overwrought and drawn-out, angst-filled relationship. But I imagine that there are equally "broken" boys in the Big Apple.
In a strange twist of fate I actually spent my first few years out of college living in Chicago instead of New York. 9-11 happened on my first day of classes in college (feel free to do the math to determine exactly how old I am), but it was more the appalling lack of real estate in NYC coupled with astronomical rent prices that made me not want to pursue it more doggedly. This was while the lower East Side and the West Village were getting gentrified and developers were starting to look to Williamsburg with an avaricious glint in their eye, but most true Manhattanites considered Brooklyn faaaaar too far away from their island. "I'll have to move. . .to Brooklyn!" -You've Got Mail
Serendipity intervened and Chicago turned out to be the perfect city for me. I always say that it's like the kid brother of the super slick, super popular, super successful investment banker older brother NYC and the less chic, though infinitely more hipster than its glamour-puss of a cousin, platinum blonde, or is it Marilyn blonde-? L.A. Chicago is confident in where it stands in the world and it doesn't want to strive to be what it's not. Sure its shoes may not be Jimmy Choos, but Converse low-tops are A-OK. OK it may never have the super riches of New York, but it also doesn't have to work killer hours to pay the rent. (Chicago does have the Gold Coast and some verrrry cushy sections, but rich isn't usually the first word people associate with Chicago, and if they do, they've never been there.)
However, my scorching case of ambition motivated me to seek a high paying job in the suburbs and after burning out there I moved to California, which I'd missed ever since I'd moved away in sixth grade. Having two weather-related car accidents helped motivate me as well.
For the longest time I'd scorned L.A. I though it was just as fake and as plastic as a Barbie. And while this is true of some parts of L.A. It's not true of everywhere. I love hanging out in Hollywood, not the movie star Hollywood, but the real location, whom the movie studios abandoned for the aptly named, Studio City. I love walking down Melrose, driving down La Brea, hanging out in Santa Monica. Yes, there are a few people who have been airbrushed out of existence or are more silicone than skin cells, but not everywhere is it a shiny, happy city. There is a lot of grit and a lot of people who look like you and me.
L.A. will probably never be New York, or even Chicago in terms of its "culture"- you know, the artsy fartsy stuff. C'mon people, I have a degree in this stuff, I can say it! But its real estate is still more reasonable than NY and the weather is a significant improvement over Chicago. However, it has much more planning challenges than Chicago, who has done a relatively awesome job, and therefore I see less job opportunities for me there. Though stop gentrifying every single neighborhood in Chicago that remotely has a whiff of bohemian chic! We do not want your Pottery Barns and Baby Bjorns! "Where am I to go if doublewide strollers follow me everywhere?" asked mediajorgenyc in response to an article about the gentrification of Red Hook, Brooklyn in New York magazine. Indeed sir, indeed.
Hanging out with my friend/old roommate from Chicago reminded me of all the fun that I'd had in Chicago and in a perfect world I will move back there some day. My other friend, the best friend/roommate from college now lives in L.A., but is an East Coast transplant and sometimes thinking of her reminds me, by association of all that I love about New York. But would I want to live in New York, though it used to be my dream? I've thought about it and the answer is, probably not. You do not get any bang for your buck when it comes to rent, though another more lewd term may be used. New York has amazing theater, street food, and culture. But so does Chicago for a lot less price-wise (sortof).
Where will the road take me? I don't know. I am also interested in helping cities plan smart growth and Colorado, Atlanta, and Charlotte were all growing like crazy before the recession, so I may set my sights somewhere totally else. One thing I know, it won't be boring.
I Am Officially Old
I was walking home from work today and a kid, about eight or nine years old, came zooming by on his bike. The sun was shining and he was pedaling like the hounds of Hell were nipping at his heels.
Watching him speed away I realized that, at that age, being on a bike is about the fastest speed you're able to obtain legally under your own steam. You're way too young to drive, sledding down an iced-over hill is out of the question in most parts of California and only viable for a few months out of the year in other areas of the U.S. Even dirt bikes and four wheelers are usually reserved until you're a little older too.
But a bike? As soon as you're old enough not to instantly fall off of one, the world opens up. And I realized that there is a glorious, almost nirvanic kind of freedom obtained riding high on your two wheeler. Your mom can't micromanage your behavior, you can go where you want, (within reason), you control your destiny. Pretty awesome.
When I was a kid, my mom, being the good parent that she was, would force me and my brother outside when we came home from school, instead of letting us veg into front of the TV, our brains turning into tapioca. At the time it felt like cruel and unusual punishment- I mean TV or nature? No contest!
But now that I am old(er) I realize that some of my best times were outside, on my bike, riding around the neighborhood with my best friend, nipping down to the local grocery store to buy some candy, etc., While I enjoyed the TV shows of my youth I can't honestly say that some of my best memories were spent basking in the cathode rays.
For an event related to the grad school I am attending (USC!!!) I was supposed to compose a mini biography about my academic and career achievements. I chirped on and on (with a 120 word limit) about wanting to save the environment and use sustainable materials, etc., I realized that I also want to make this place a little better than I found it, be it in post-industrial downtowns or even in the suburbs.
This includes fostering environments where kids can safely bike, which is harder than it sounds. When I was a kid SUVs hadn't been invented. Hey, like my title said I Am Officially Old :) I bring this up not to sound like an old curmudegon, which I am in danger of becoming, but because , back then, yeah, in the good ol' days, it was easier for motorists to see a kid on a bike. Now in the age of the Excursion children's mortality rates are increasing and disease is not the only guilty party. I'll blame people talking on their cell phones too, though no mobile ever demanded that you use it while operating a two-ton vehicle at the same time. Just saying. . .
There is debate on what really are effective "traffic calming measures"- narrower streets, speed bumps, flashing signs, banning the use of cell phones while operating as the driver of a vehicle, etc., But regardless, whenever you are behind the wheel please drive defensively, especially in residential neighborhoods so that the little boy that I saw today and other kids can enjoy riding their bikes just as much as I did.
Watching him speed away I realized that, at that age, being on a bike is about the fastest speed you're able to obtain legally under your own steam. You're way too young to drive, sledding down an iced-over hill is out of the question in most parts of California and only viable for a few months out of the year in other areas of the U.S. Even dirt bikes and four wheelers are usually reserved until you're a little older too.
But a bike? As soon as you're old enough not to instantly fall off of one, the world opens up. And I realized that there is a glorious, almost nirvanic kind of freedom obtained riding high on your two wheeler. Your mom can't micromanage your behavior, you can go where you want, (within reason), you control your destiny. Pretty awesome.
When I was a kid, my mom, being the good parent that she was, would force me and my brother outside when we came home from school, instead of letting us veg into front of the TV, our brains turning into tapioca. At the time it felt like cruel and unusual punishment- I mean TV or nature? No contest!
But now that I am old(er) I realize that some of my best times were outside, on my bike, riding around the neighborhood with my best friend, nipping down to the local grocery store to buy some candy, etc., While I enjoyed the TV shows of my youth I can't honestly say that some of my best memories were spent basking in the cathode rays.
For an event related to the grad school I am attending (USC!!!) I was supposed to compose a mini biography about my academic and career achievements. I chirped on and on (with a 120 word limit) about wanting to save the environment and use sustainable materials, etc., I realized that I also want to make this place a little better than I found it, be it in post-industrial downtowns or even in the suburbs.
This includes fostering environments where kids can safely bike, which is harder than it sounds. When I was a kid SUVs hadn't been invented. Hey, like my title said I Am Officially Old :) I bring this up not to sound like an old curmudegon, which I am in danger of becoming, but because , back then, yeah, in the good ol' days, it was easier for motorists to see a kid on a bike. Now in the age of the Excursion children's mortality rates are increasing and disease is not the only guilty party. I'll blame people talking on their cell phones too, though no mobile ever demanded that you use it while operating a two-ton vehicle at the same time. Just saying. . .
There is debate on what really are effective "traffic calming measures"- narrower streets, speed bumps, flashing signs, banning the use of cell phones while operating as the driver of a vehicle, etc., But regardless, whenever you are behind the wheel please drive defensively, especially in residential neighborhoods so that the little boy that I saw today and other kids can enjoy riding their bikes just as much as I did.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
To Live and Dine in L.A.
I am headed down to L.A. to catch up with my old roommate from Chicago and my old roommate from college (and potentially another one of my other bfs from college!?) in mid-March and being the slightly anal-retentive person that I am I'd like to have a basic itinerary sketched out so that maximum fun will be achieved.
So one can imagine my surprise and delight when two of my favorite publications Esquire and GQ both published articles on not only the most important meal of the day, but also great places to grab a bite in the City of Angels.
I'm also a DIY kind of girl when it comes to food, but I will shell out my hard-earned bucks for some greasy bacon, eggs over hard, and a waitress that calls you "hun," as in "What can I do ya for, hun?" ***Sigh***, though that may be limited to the Midwest, especially at George's Grill, the Milwaukee equivalent of a Waffle House.
However, though I probably won't have a waitress who looks like she could drop an engine in a built-from-the-garage-floor-up hot rod, my waitress will probably look like she is about to drop dead from self-inflicted starvation in hopes of a movie producer just happening to discover her, L.A. is apparently the best breakfast city. Or so says Devin Friedman in his (-?) article with the same name in GQ's March 2009 issue, page 202.
"To visit L.A. is to act like you wear $300 chinos and drive a black Range Rover and wear sunglasses that would otherwise embarrass you. And to wake up in L.A. is to pretend that you don't have a job and eat breakfast at 10 a.m. L.A. is a breakfast town. Breakfast at ten in Cleveland or Houston is a lonely affair, where you'll meet the kind of people who steal Sweet'N Low and talk to their lottery tickets. In L.A. though, if you eat a scramblette at Toast or some raspberry and lemon pancakes at Griddle Cafe, you'll be surrounded by people who seem famous even if they're not. Plus- there's the food- killer coffee at Kings Road (see page 203 [Kings Road Cafe 8361 Beverly Blvd., corner of Kings Road and Beverly 323-655-9044] omelets with caramelized onions at the Chateau Marmont, huevos rancheros basically everywhere, and all that great produce (never have breakfast in L.A. without at least one avocado). It's a breakfast town where people actually eat breakfast, at restaurants, every day of the week, where there are dedicated breakfast spots instead of lame brunch places. And it's one of the few locations where there' no shame in ordering the egg-white omelet with veggie bacon. Because L.A. is a place where, in general, there is no shame."
We haven't decided where we shall be dining, but a review to come.
Possibilities include:
Griddle Cafe, 7916 W Sunset Blvd., (btwn N. Fairfax & N. Hayworth Ave) Los Angeles, 323-874-0377
John O'Groats 1056 Pico Blvd., (at Patricia Ave.) West Los Angeles, 310-204-0692 ogroats-restaurant.com (very positive review at menupages.com and I love me some gentrification)
http://losangeles.menupages.com/restaurantdetails?restaurantid=25415
Kings Road Cafe, 8361 Beverly Blvd. (at the corner of Kings Road and Beverly), Los Angeles, 323-655-9044 (GQ's Editor in Chief Jim Nelson's pick)
Nate 'N Al, 414 N. Beverly Dr., Beverly Hills, 310-274-0101, natenal.com
Toast, 8221 W 3rd St., (Btwn S Harper Ave & S La Jolla Ave) Los Angeles, 323-655-5018
or some hole in the wall place that serves huevos rancheros
Oh, and if you're in the South, stop in at a Waffle House, it ain't exactly Le Bernardin, but it's a definite slice of life. There are 3 of them, I kid you not in a 5 minute driving range in Augusta, GA.
So one can imagine my surprise and delight when two of my favorite publications Esquire and GQ both published articles on not only the most important meal of the day, but also great places to grab a bite in the City of Angels.
I'm also a DIY kind of girl when it comes to food, but I will shell out my hard-earned bucks for some greasy bacon, eggs over hard, and a waitress that calls you "hun," as in "What can I do ya for, hun?" ***Sigh***, though that may be limited to the Midwest, especially at George's Grill, the Milwaukee equivalent of a Waffle House.
However, though I probably won't have a waitress who looks like she could drop an engine in a built-from-the-garage-floor-up hot rod, my waitress will probably look like she is about to drop dead from self-inflicted starvation in hopes of a movie producer just happening to discover her, L.A. is apparently the best breakfast city. Or so says Devin Friedman in his (-?) article with the same name in GQ's March 2009 issue, page 202.
"To visit L.A. is to act like you wear $300 chinos and drive a black Range Rover and wear sunglasses that would otherwise embarrass you. And to wake up in L.A. is to pretend that you don't have a job and eat breakfast at 10 a.m. L.A. is a breakfast town. Breakfast at ten in Cleveland or Houston is a lonely affair, where you'll meet the kind of people who steal Sweet'N Low and talk to their lottery tickets. In L.A. though, if you eat a scramblette at Toast or some raspberry and lemon pancakes at Griddle Cafe, you'll be surrounded by people who seem famous even if they're not. Plus- there's the food- killer coffee at Kings Road (see page 203 [Kings Road Cafe 8361 Beverly Blvd., corner of Kings Road and Beverly 323-655-9044] omelets with caramelized onions at the Chateau Marmont, huevos rancheros basically everywhere, and all that great produce (never have breakfast in L.A. without at least one avocado). It's a breakfast town where people actually eat breakfast, at restaurants, every day of the week, where there are dedicated breakfast spots instead of lame brunch places. And it's one of the few locations where there' no shame in ordering the egg-white omelet with veggie bacon. Because L.A. is a place where, in general, there is no shame."
We haven't decided where we shall be dining, but a review to come.
Possibilities include:
Griddle Cafe, 7916 W Sunset Blvd., (btwn N. Fairfax & N. Hayworth Ave) Los Angeles, 323-874-0377
John O'Groats 1056 Pico Blvd., (at Patricia Ave.) West Los Angeles, 310-204-0692 ogroats-restaurant.com (very positive review at menupages.com and I love me some gentrification)
http://losangeles.menupages.com/restaurantdetails?restaurantid=25415
Kings Road Cafe, 8361 Beverly Blvd. (at the corner of Kings Road and Beverly), Los Angeles, 323-655-9044 (GQ's Editor in Chief Jim Nelson's pick)
Nate 'N Al, 414 N. Beverly Dr., Beverly Hills, 310-274-0101, natenal.com
Toast, 8221 W 3rd St., (Btwn S Harper Ave & S La Jolla Ave) Los Angeles, 323-655-5018
or some hole in the wall place that serves huevos rancheros
Oh, and if you're in the South, stop in at a Waffle House, it ain't exactly Le Bernardin, but it's a definite slice of life. There are 3 of them, I kid you not in a 5 minute driving range in Augusta, GA.
Let's Get (Reluctantly) Political
I am probably the least political person I know. While we were waiting for the Bush administration to wrap up I tried to ignore the accusatory headlines, the celebrity finger pointing/Bush bashing that was more fashion than politically motivated for a lot of the participants, and the general state of dissatisfaction that ran rampant. I always say, and this is just me talkin, but unless you think you can do better and are willing to put your money where your mouth is, it's best to keep such thoughts to yourself.
I applaud our new elected leader's courageous decision to want to fix this sorry state of affairs, but that doesn't mean that I'm so filled with political inspiration that I'm going to run for office too.
However, politics are intrinsically connected with planning. In a perfect world, urban planners would construct and design urban, suburban, and rural utopias that would spring forth from the ground using only sustainable, earth-friendly materials with everyone agreeing that whatever changes implemented are exactly what the location needs, money would flow freely, and politicians would provide ardent and unfailing support. I imagine that such world also rain gum drops and have organic unicorns as the preferred mode of transit as well.
However, in the real world, planners must rely on politicians to champion their projects and obtain city funding when applicable and align their projects with politicians' own agendas. This point was brought up in Alexander Garvin's work, the American City: What Works, What Doesn't (New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, Ne Delhi, San Juan, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney, Toronoto: McGraw-Hill, (c) 2002) Mr. Garvin talks about "a new approach to planning," which "explicitly deals with both public action and the probable private market reaction." [emphasis author's own] (Garvin, 8)
Mr. Garvin goes on to say,
"Such change-oriented planning requires general acceptance of the idea that while planners are in the change business, others will actually effect the changes: civic leaders, interest groups, community organizations, property owners, developers, bankers, lawyers, architects, engineers, elected and appointed public officials- the list is endless.
Being entirely dependent on these other players, planners must focus on increasing the chances that everybody else's agenda will be successful. They may choose to do so by targeting public investment in infrastructure and community facilities, or by shaping the regulatory system, or by introducing incentives that will encourage market activity. But whatever they select, their role must be to initiate and shepherd often-controversial expenditures and legislation. More important, the public will be able to hold them accountable by evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the private market reaction to their programs." (Garvin, 8)
I realized that I am a certifiable dork when I noticed that Mr. Garvin's American City is the size and weight of the average college textbook, yet I found the material fascinating. This isn't a slam against Mr. Garvin, his writing style is informative and engaging. But that doesn't change the fact that I read textbooks for fun.
I recall talking about the strange bedfellow relationship between planners and politicians during my summer internship with the city of Visalia and discussing this subject with the incredibly generous and experienced Andy Chamberlain, one of the senior planners.
Andy told me, and this cobbled from my hastily scratched notes, nothing was recorded and he was not on record, that "Planning is ultimately about politics, it shouldn't be, but it is." He went on to say that politics means both political politics and people's personal/business agendas. "Planning needs to focus on the long-term good for everybody, but how to achieve this with everyone coming in with diametrically different goals and having everyone walk away with a sense that compromise was reached as far as possible." (paraphrase)
Andy knows what he's talking about as he has diffused many a potentially tense, or even volatile site plan review meeting with a firm but empathetic manner. Even when the developers or architects would come in with a my-way-or-the-highway attitude, regardless of the city's set mandates, Andy made sure that everyone had a chance to air their grievances, but that did not also mean surrender on the city's part.
Andy not only is an excellent planner, but he also has an unintentional Socratic method built into his conversations, sparking me to think broader and farther about a topic. For example, I stopped by his office to talk about my research on the e-waste zoning amendment project on which I was working and during our discussion he wondered out loud about other underutilized applications such as solar panels on top of buildings which set Thanks again Andy, for everything.
I applaud our new elected leader's courageous decision to want to fix this sorry state of affairs, but that doesn't mean that I'm so filled with political inspiration that I'm going to run for office too.
However, politics are intrinsically connected with planning. In a perfect world, urban planners would construct and design urban, suburban, and rural utopias that would spring forth from the ground using only sustainable, earth-friendly materials with everyone agreeing that whatever changes implemented are exactly what the location needs, money would flow freely, and politicians would provide ardent and unfailing support. I imagine that such world also rain gum drops and have organic unicorns as the preferred mode of transit as well.
However, in the real world, planners must rely on politicians to champion their projects and obtain city funding when applicable and align their projects with politicians' own agendas. This point was brought up in Alexander Garvin's work, the American City: What Works, What Doesn't (New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, Ne Delhi, San Juan, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney, Toronoto: McGraw-Hill, (c) 2002) Mr. Garvin talks about "a new approach to planning," which "explicitly deals with both public action and the probable private market reaction." [emphasis author's own] (Garvin, 8)
Mr. Garvin goes on to say,
"Such change-oriented planning requires general acceptance of the idea that while planners are in the change business, others will actually effect the changes: civic leaders, interest groups, community organizations, property owners, developers, bankers, lawyers, architects, engineers, elected and appointed public officials- the list is endless.
Being entirely dependent on these other players, planners must focus on increasing the chances that everybody else's agenda will be successful. They may choose to do so by targeting public investment in infrastructure and community facilities, or by shaping the regulatory system, or by introducing incentives that will encourage market activity. But whatever they select, their role must be to initiate and shepherd often-controversial expenditures and legislation. More important, the public will be able to hold them accountable by evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the private market reaction to their programs." (Garvin, 8)
I realized that I am a certifiable dork when I noticed that Mr. Garvin's American City is the size and weight of the average college textbook, yet I found the material fascinating. This isn't a slam against Mr. Garvin, his writing style is informative and engaging. But that doesn't change the fact that I read textbooks for fun.
I recall talking about the strange bedfellow relationship between planners and politicians during my summer internship with the city of Visalia and discussing this subject with the incredibly generous and experienced Andy Chamberlain, one of the senior planners.
Andy told me, and this cobbled from my hastily scratched notes, nothing was recorded and he was not on record, that "Planning is ultimately about politics, it shouldn't be, but it is." He went on to say that politics means both political politics and people's personal/business agendas. "Planning needs to focus on the long-term good for everybody, but how to achieve this with everyone coming in with diametrically different goals and having everyone walk away with a sense that compromise was reached as far as possible." (paraphrase)
Andy knows what he's talking about as he has diffused many a potentially tense, or even volatile site plan review meeting with a firm but empathetic manner. Even when the developers or architects would come in with a my-way-or-the-highway attitude, regardless of the city's set mandates, Andy made sure that everyone had a chance to air their grievances, but that did not also mean surrender on the city's part.
Andy not only is an excellent planner, but he also has an unintentional Socratic method built into his conversations, sparking me to think broader and farther about a topic. For example, I stopped by his office to talk about my research on the e-waste zoning amendment project on which I was working and during our discussion he wondered out loud about other underutilized applications such as solar panels on top of buildings which set Thanks again Andy, for everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)