Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Our On The Streets photo shows the first of 7 days of rain; the thunderstorm last week that occurred as I was driving home from work. Note the solid wall of water on the other side of the 97th Avenue Legislature Underpass. Edmonton finally emerged from the rain to three thunderstorms yesterday. This type of traffic is generally what I sit in every day. A recent poll done by CAA indicates that 86% of motorists feel that people have become 'rude' and 'in-courteous' whereas they rate themselves a 'B+' in terms of their driving habits while other drivers are a 'C+'. This indicates people are also unwilling to realize that the problem may be them. The question is continuously raised about why drivers in Edmonton have become so horrible. Could it be the infrastructure? Could it be that the city wants us to drive badly?
YEG Stupidity; Heritage versus Infrastructure Growth
Perhaps you've seen this:
This is a designer's rendering of what the new Walterdale Bridge replacement will look like if all goes as planned. But wait, whilst improving infrastructure, we will be throwing away a 100 year old piece of Edmonton history...(!)
The reports indicate that likely the bridge project will go ahead as planned, citing the Walterdale would cost $12 mil for a rehabilitation, and in spite of that $2 mil afterwards for upkeep each year. That is one huge money-sucking project when you think of ALL of the infrastructure in the city. The project was approved in April after costs were said to be $130 million for a new one; half of the original estimate. Considering you could probably get another hundred years out of the new bridge, that's a savings of $82 million over one hundred years, assuming the costs of
maintaining this bridge cancel out any other rehabilitative projects of the old bridge, and that the Walterdale would continue to cost $2 mil a year to fix. It's creative math, I know.
Ultimately I have heard some things like, "pieces of the bridge would be used in other projects." Or put in parks, around the city, what have you, to preserve the heritage. And then, just last week, a group of business owners said that the Walterdale should be kept open, but as a pedestrian bridge/cycling bridge. The great freaking hilarious thing about that is that the bridge would still require a $12 million overhaul, and $2 million a year in upkeep. Of course, the salon that patroned this idea did not say they were interested in ponying up any dough to keep the Walterdale going.
So if it's so cut and dry, why am I sharing an opinion about this? Well ultimately I feel like it's
the cries of the Edmonton Historical Board that the bridge has important historical value, specifically to native peoples (I'm not sure how this works out), and should be preserved. I feel that this is the cry of a desperate board that has let too many important buildings get destroyed in the name of expansion and are now trying to save ones that don't matter. It's an old bridge. Yes, that's kind of sad, okay, it's been there for 100 years, but let's face it, it's not an architectural juggernaut by any means. It's an old mess of scrap metal that the city has said has come to the end of it's usable life. Yes, the span of the bridge is over, heh heh. Joking aside, this is a piece of infrastructure, and as much as we love the historical here in Edmonton, it seems like fixing our failing infrastructure system should be first and foremost the priority. A new usable bridge that makes it easier to drive, bike, and walk, and costs less to maintain is probably exactly what we need there.
But It Gets Worse: BMO 63
You might also recognize this thing:
This is the tenement that stands on the corner of Jasper Avenue and 100th Avenue. It is the 1963 BMO building, which apparently has sat vacant since the early 1990's. There have been many petitions to save 'Edmonton's first modern bank' but unfortunately GE Capital, the owner of the building, is going to demolish it. The 'Save BMO 63' petitioner's website indicates the historical architectural value of the building as the reason for saving it, and that it was made of, "superior materials that will stand the test of time." Well, actually the building is a complete piece of shit, and no one wants it. That's why it won't be retrofitted, and GE Capital, to ensure there's no more blocks, have jumped the gun on taking it down. See the structure is not quite 50 years old, and if they wait until 2013, then it qualifies to be added to the city's heritage building inventory, and thus it'll be harder to knock down. The society has asked that the structure be revitalized and retrofitted into the current plans GE has for the space. But here's where the problem occurs. Representatives from GE indicate they've tried; and it can't be, because the granite and brick that hold the building together are actually decaying quite rapidly, and unfortunately the building is falling apart. In other words, they tried, they had plans to, but it won't work because it's structurally unfit.
That sucks, but such is buildings; sometimes they fall apart. Especially when no one wants to use them for up to 20 years, indicating that there must have been a problem with either Edmonton's commercial incentives to set up shop in a highrise here, or the Downtown Business Association, for not pushing to get someone in that space.
What really sucks is what GE is deciding to do with the location, and this, I think, should be intervened with by the DBA and the City of Edmonton. They plan, get this, to put up a two-story low rise with a parking garage. That's right, more fucking parking, and a two story building right in the heart of downtown. I think that if the plans say it can accomodate 30 stories on the new plan sheet that the city released after the airport runway closures; that's what SHOULD go in there, not a recommendation. So we lose a highrise to a two story and parking garage structure. That's disappointing. That's Edmonton as usual.
Speed On Green: Blatantly Taking Your Money
I read an article in the Metro (yup) where city representatives finally said that the initiative to put 'green on go' or 'speed on green' cameras back into effect. The city had to return $16 million, according to CTV news, after supreme court judges found the 'checks' ticket processes went through were inadequate and quashed 105,000 tickets. The company that originally had the cameras up said the tickets went through 5 different checks before they were sent out, but judges at all levels saw it differently, when a ticket came through the system that indicated a man sitting in gridlock was doing 140km/h. Now the cameras are going back up, and there are 'several checks' that the tickets have to go through before being sent out. Wait, weren't they already going through 5 checks? Also, according to CBC, the problem with the cameras were a breakdown in insulation in the electric wiring, which caused the cameras to malfunction. Now the cameras are said to be '100% foolproof.' To me, saying something like that is setting yourself up for looking like an ass later. Why not say, "they are much more accurate and reliable." Or, "With the new retrofitting, the cameras are so reliable and accurate that we cannot find any fault in the system after rigorous testing." This is obviously the mistake they made the first time.
The city estimates it will take about a $1 million cut from the cameras per month, and indicated they were 'hemmorhaging' this amount. Pretty much blatantly indicating the cameras are required for proper functional budget. They tried to cover their tracks by indicating to CTV that the accidents at intersections since the cameras went down were about 10 times higher. Of course, we don't get to know what intersections those are, or if there's a seasonally adjustable variable. I have a hard time believing this stat, because you're not really supposed to know what intersections have speed on green cameras. So what the city is trying to say is without them, accidents at intersections are ten times higher, as if we all know all where they are, and all knew when they stopped working, for how long, and during that time, we were all speeding and it was causing 10 times the accidents. Really? That's kind of a stretch. The EPS actually indicated they did not have firm data to back up the city's claim, not ones to have their physical officers with radar guns upstaged by fixed cameras.
To me, I consider photo radar a 'speed tax.' Getting hit with demerits that up your insurance and potentially spiral into you getting your license taken away is an actual punishment and a way to remove repeat offenders. Traffic cams are simply cash cows. I don't believe they stop people speeding, but they sure shove money into city coffers. What makes me angry is that the city doesn't just admit this. Just admit that you make money off them. Publish what the accident rates are monthly and what they are at intersections before and after camera installations. If you're going to call it a safety measure, show us the data that it works. Otherwise, don't try to pretend. We're not that stupid. You only hope that we're that nonchalant and have enough disposable income to keep speeding through the damned things.
The city WANTS us to drive irresponsibly. If we didn't ever speed through intersections with fixed cameras, the city wouldn't ever make any money from us. Not even enough to justify spending on the cameras, because they wouldn't break even.
Think about it. If these things worked perfectly, they would cost the city money.
Pushing Singles - An Introspective into Current Music Industry Trends
Matthew Good, forty years old, recently was interviewed by Sonic 102.9FM's Rick Lee. The subject was his current single Zero Orchestra off of the album Lights of Endangered Species. His problem was the conceptual idea of modern rock radio playing a song that he called, "...[his] best shit..." but something that was entirely devoid of guitars, made up of piano, cello, keyboards, violins, and a horn section. Zero Orchestra in fact, does include an actual orchestra. Although it is conceptually difficult to play music like this, there is a reason that modern rock radio can get away with it; and there is also a reason that In Place of Lesser Men got bumped so fast for the second single. The same is true for Foo Fighters and Rope, which quickly was replaced with Walk. The reason, in my opinion, is that anyone need only know that these albums from these modern rock powerhouses (Matt Good at least in Canada) exist to go out and get them.
This is in stark contrast to groups like Foster the People, where Pumped Up Kicks has been on the airwaves since the snow was still flying. It takes a lot more convincing for individuals to buy an album now. We are back to the days of singles with iTunes, where people don't need to get entire albums to hear songs they want to listen to. They just have to pay $0.99, as if they were buying a 7", and have the song. The great thing about the 7" single is that it either always came with some other bonus, or introduced you to a different song that wasn't a radio single. There is a certain persuasion, or even duping if you will, that goes on by pushing one single for so long on modern rock radio. Take Middle Class Rut for example, who's song New Low has graced the airwaves for quite some time now. Listening to M.C. Rut's album, you find that their music is actually decidedly harder than that simple single. Foster the People's next single may not be at all similar to Pumped Up Kicks from what I listened to (that's really up to you to decide). People need to be tricked into buying albums.
How does this new industry trend fare for the larger acts? Not good. Each play on a radio station earns a couple of pennies worth of royalties. This means your favorite larger groups like the Foo or Good earn less money for their music by not being pushed on the air as heavy as brand new groups.
How does this fare for the new acts? Also not good. The overplaying of one song, and flooding the market constantly with new music inundated and barraged into listeners could turn them off of the group completely; not to mention possibly making the songs irrelevant and disposable.
My solution would be to let the best man win on the countdown charts. Instead of pushing certain new singles more; trying to get other people to buy into the idea of new groups like Foster the People, Awolnation, and the like, play all the singles equally, and let the better songs be voted upon. But then, I believe that people will like pretty much anything you feed them. For example, how the hell did Christian Hansen get popular? That one will never make sense to me.
Matthew Good - Lights Of Endangered Species
Since 40 year old Good nearly offed himself with ativan and beer (by accident) after his divorce, spawning the release of Hospital Music, he has been riding a wave of success and a somewhat new wave of sound. His latest album, Lights of Endangered Species is a continuation of that. In this album you will hear songs that could be B-sides from Vancouver, such as Extraordinary Fades. Then there is some new, great stuff, like In Place of Lesser Men, and What if I can't see the stars, Mildred? that show a clear progression in Matt's work under his 'new' sound. Finally, Zero Orchestra doesn't even feature an acoustic guitar, which is what we've been expecting from Mr.Good lately, and instead features a real orchestra. In fact, Matt's credit list is 19 people long of musicians that joined him, mostly classical.
Ultimatley we're starting to get used to this sound from Matt since Hospital Music, and it's really working. Unfortunately, Matt stands in the shadows of some great acts this year, like The Black Keys, Foster the People, and on the other side of the coin, the return of Blink 182, making his music get buried in the lists of other stuff that take a back seat to his time tested and well honed song writing. You don't consider your own stuff, "the best shit you ever wrote" unless it is really, really, really, really, really, really fantastic. To a bipolar perfectionist like Matt Good, he really means it. I give this album a solid 8/10. I hope that it doesn't get lost.
Letters To The Editor
remember to hit me up at:
rbw2@ualberta.ca
if you have something you'd like to discuss. I'll post your thoughts right on the blog.
Speaking of which, we actually released our second most popular issue last week, showing our new circulation date is working great. Thanks to all that are reading.
Next Issue
-Rockabilly Retrospective: The Fashion Issue
Clothing, furniture, decorating, cars, music and more from the hottest new trends. Plenty of photos, plenty of style ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment