The Sunday Diigo Links Post (weekly)
January 4, 2009 at 2:30 am | In links | Comments Off-
“Oregon will move to tax cars by the mile,” by Knute Berger
Oregon might transition away from a gas tax in 2009 and switch to a mileage tax instead.
Unfortunately, the scheme raises privacy issues/ concerns, since GPS satellite tracking systems would be used to keep track of one’s mileage. Ouch.
-
A 9/10/08 pointer to a 44-pg PDF, “The economic impact of high density development and tall buildings in central business districts: British Property Federation.” From the description:
QUOTE
There is increasing recognition of the need to increase the density of commercial development, especially in the centres of our towns and cities. The sustainability benefits of high density are relatively well known. For example, less urban sprawl means less need to use greenfield sites, more use of public transport and, with mixed use developments, a reduced need to travel.However, there is also an economic case for increased commercial density, as specified in Policy Planning Statement (PPS) 6 and the State of the English Cities. In current debates about increasing commercial density in London – including through tall buildings – this economic element has been little mentioned, and is perhaps little understood.
This research has sought to explain and estimate the economic costs and benefits of high density commercial development in central business districts. The aim is to provide a more rounded picture of the economic impact of high density development and to strengthen the assessment of such development.
UNQUOTE -
The Frontal Cortex : Urban Innovation – Annotated
Jonah Lehrer discusses Ed Glaeser’s recent post in the NYT blog on NYC and why it’s “America’s most resilient city.” Lots of great points, interesting comments thread, too. Closing line by Lehrer nails it.
-
A Christmas essay: a better way to help the homeless – Annotated
Article published in Seattle-based Crosscut about an initiative out of Vancouver to build “Stop Gap Housing” (as per architect Gregory Henriquez), essentially fixed mobile/modular homes, for people who are homeless. Article continues over 2 pages.
-
Bjork turns venture capitalist
Self-explanatory, by title. I always liked Bjork, starting with The Sugarcubes…
-
YouTube – Authors@Google: Lee Siegel
Lee Siegel presenting at Google, with Q&A following.
QUOTE
Journalist Lee Siegel visits Google’s Mountain View, CA, headquarters to discuss his book “Against the Machine.” This event took place on April 28, 2008, as part of the Authors@Google series.
UNQUOTE -
Why Does Hollywood Hate the Suburbs? – WSJ.com – Annotated
Interesting article by Lee Siegel on the history of hating the suburbs.
His point about cities having become more uniform/ conformist (i.e., like suburbs) is interesting. Not sure how well this all holds up, though…
QUOTE
One of the most glaring ironies of American life is that, a quarter-century later, the cities have metamorphosed into the suburbs — sans trees and grass. The cities’ fabled diversity has devolved into global chain stores and the electrolyte-enhanced water bottle and the branded baseball cap have become the accessories of a universal comfort and conformity. In a social and cultural sea change, the cities’ rented apartments, once the guarantor of diversity and fluid, exciting movement, have been converted into exclusive co-ops and condominiums.
UNQUOTE -
Portal page for Passivhaeuser.
-
NYT: No Furnaces but Heat Aplenty in Innovative ‘Passive Houses’ – Annotated
The New York Times gets & spreads a clue about Passivhaeuser.
Freshness.
January 4, 2009 at 1:21 am | In Uncategorized, authenticity, writing | 6 CommentsAs I mentioned in my last post, I’ve been commenting on a couple of other sites. As a result, I started mulling over the odd (to me) idea that having a PhD from Harvard and having taught at MIT and Brown is meaningful over and above the ideas I try to contribute when I write anywhere, whether here, in my articles, or on other blog posts or forums. Then I had an epiphany.
Here’s what happened: I had responded to a compliment regarding my past credentials in the comments board to this post by elaborating a bit on my background. It’s a device (narrative, personal history) I find myself interested in more and more, since I’m in a transition phase (again), without a clear path forward. (In a recent October blog post here I already broached this).
Then, some hours after leaving my comment, it hit me.
Even though I’m the first person in my family in my generation to go to university, to grad school, or to get post-graduate degrees (including that PhD in Art History from Harvard), I never found getting those credentials difficult. It was, if anything, easy to do research and to write and to think up new ideas. In fact, I earned my PhD in just five years, which in humanities is considered speedy – some of my fellow students were taking twice as long.
Why was it easy for me, why could I do it quickly? Because I was keen, sharp as a knife: I knew what I wanted. Cut right through the bullshit, barreled on, damn the torpedos.
It was a pleasure.
The difficult part wasn’t coming up with new insights, or synthesizing disparate pieces of information, finding patterns, developing a thesis, going where no grad student had gone before… The difficult part came later, once I started teaching and realized what academia was also about.
First, I have to admit one thing: massive stage fright. I had no idea that a big chunk of my job would entail performing in front of crowds. That threw me for a major loop – I wanted everything I did to be perfect, and I was so afraid of public speaking that I initially wrote out every single word of my lectures. It was Pure Agony. I told myself I didn’t have the “winning” personality – because I’m a critical bitch myself – to get my students to love me, and I was afraid, horribly afraid, that they would hate me instead. Besides, I had imposter syndrome, and I never wanted to be a teacher or a performer. I wanted to be a researcher, a writer, a synthesizer, a connector. An ideas person, but definitely someone who thinks stuff up behind the scenes, not out front like a show pony at the circus.
But here’s my epiphany: I really, really came to hate (yet mourn) academia when I understood that at some point you have to stop being an ideas person – at least for a good chunk of the time. Yes, you have to grind out your lecture courses; but once you have them “under your belt,” you can repeat them ad infinitum with minor tweaking for the next few decades. I saw many professors do this. The seminars were a different matter, but even these were often variations on a theme – and that’s what I now realize was so depressing.
My advisors and most of the humanities professors I knew were too often one-trick ponies, repeating the same things year after year after year. It mattered not whether it was their lectures, or their seminars, or the endless variations on their initial dissertation work – even their “new” research was somehow a variation of what they had already been doing for years. In fact, it was imperative that you milked your dissertation for all it was worth and for as long as you could. To me that prospect seemed frightful, phony – after successfully transforming my 1991 dissertation into a book four years later – published by Princeton University Press in 1995 – I didn’t really want to belabor the topic any longer. Big mistake. Exceptions aside, many academics go on to belabor the same topic, over and over again. If the material seems to run dry, the hacks among them just turn up the volume on the unintelligible language, on the verbiage and jargon that no normal human understands, until they can tell themselves that they’re so specialized that they’re an industry unto themselves.
What I couldn’t stand, truth be told, were the limitations of working for years on one idea, of having to take this one idea on a nation-wide road-show (to conferences, symposia, etc.) in an attempt to get as many additional gigs with which to pad the resume, and of then being branded as “that” guy or “that” girl.
Further, because of the sheer numbers of PhD candidates admitted annually, everyone tries to get as specialized as possible – but without taking full account of how they’re already a “product” of the advisor machine. Student X of Professor Z will work on Xz – or maybe it’s Zx. Student X still has to differentiate him- or herself from Prof. Z enough to have some sort of identity. And so, if Prof. Z was working on the signifiers of female clothing in pre-Revolutionary French painting, Student X might “specialize” by focusing on a niche subject – like undergarments, or the transference of petticoat signifiers to colonial revolutionary settings. I’m making this up of course, but only slightly.
In short, the stuff gets stale, stale, stale – like underwear that hasn’t been changed in a generation.
I mourned the loss of academia: it had seemed like an ideal world for a while, like some kind of “Annie Hall” fantasy, lah-dee-dah. I have beaten myself up repeatedly for losing it, but I only have to read a few paragraphs in my discipline’s trade journals to be reminded of its worst aspects: irrelevance, staleness.
And so, although I’m against New Year’s Resolutions, perhaps I should make a note to myself to craft a New Year’s Mantra: I want freshness to guide me.
That said, I now face the real problem of location and wonder whether Victoria is the right place for me.
Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.