hello.column #9 — Redeveloping the Urban

hello.column

This week we talk urban redevelopment. In the last ten years, a glut of new sports stadiums and ballparks and arenas have been built around the country. Some have been financed by the city, some by taxpayers and the rare few by the actual owners of the sports teams. But does this investment actually lead to urban redevelopment or just another string Starbucks and Chipotles? And is that such a bad thing? Read on…

Greg: How do you feel about the new wave of downtown ballpark construction around the country as a tool for urban renewal?

Mike: I like it. I think its a good way to stimulate OTHER business to build there. I’m glad the Royals and Chiefs chose to stay where they were and we will upgrade the current stadiums. They will be pretty great I think. Though I’m glad that the rolling roof proposal didn’t pass…I thought it was lame and unnecessary and really ugly design.

Greg: Yeah I agree I think. I got into a big argument/discussion with my cousin last night about downtown ballparks and was just curious what you thought. In terms of if it’s an appropriate/effective way to redevelop a city?

Mike: I know lots of people in KC who would love a downtown ballpark. But I’m not sure its feasible considering the layout of KC and the lack of public transport. In other cities I think its a decent way to start growth (not the end all) and sometimes it simply serves as a catalyst. The Verizon Center here in Chinatown of DC really helped this area not be ghetto areas anymore. Within the last seven months even, I have seen all sorts of things go up here.

But for KC to expect that to happen here w\o developing a light rail or surrounding areas to create city density in downtown it might be foolish. Thing is, KC has all the suburbs that sprawl out forever, and then these little pockets here and there — 18th & Vine, Plaza, Crown Centre, Westport, Downtown, City Market, the stadiums etc…but there is nothing to tie them together. I think the Sprint Arena is supposed to spawn some activity downtown along w\ an entertainment district but we’ll see.

Greg: The Verizon Center… what is it? What does it look like?

Mike: Its the arena where NBA & NHL and concerts happen… Its like a huge box.

Greg: I have a more specific question I’m slowly working towards. Here’s kind of what I’m getting at and trying to figure out:

1. Do large scale redevelopment plans (i.e. downtown ballpark stadiums) create a genuine community (genuine is puposfully vague)?

2. How do large scale redevelopments compare to urban areas that develop more naturally, such as artists buying up depressed areas and slowly making them trendy?

3. Worst case scenario, the baseball stadium brings in a crowd to downtown on game nights and spinoff restaurants/bars/retail are busy those nights…. is that successful? I’m really not sure.

Mike: A couple things: I think you need a mixture of large scale and organic development methods. Its a macro and micro level idea of defining the city. The large scale things such as commercial entertainment districts such as theatres, movie theatres, shopping, chain restaurants and stadiums\arenas etc have the appeal to the normal person both in the city and people outside.

The normal person is looking for that kind of entertainment, and honestly sometimes I want that too, especially in sports going as I am a fan of mainstream sports. The stadium being built potentially is a draw to the area, and if there is adequate parking and public transport so people can easily get there and back, then it is something that will draw lots of people and then potential business to the area.

Many businesses see this as a macro level way to serve as a catalyst for growth and development. It also helps when the team is popular (and good)…a new park has shown even to help draw more fans to games which in turn makes the team better because more money is coming in.

Greg: Does that last long term?

Mike: As far as natural organic growth (i.e. people buying low rent and making it the new trendy residential area) I think that can only happen if the basics are taken care of elsewhere. I think once people have the basics they seek out the more fringe (and often better) places to eat and shop and drink… This brings as much worth to a city as the arena but they go hand in hand.

A residential city area needs things to do to make demand for people to want to live there. Bt for businesses to want to set up shop there, they need the reassurance that people are there creating a demand for the restaurants\bars\shops etc.

I’m not sure how sustainable any of this is…its all very fickle based on what the lifespan is and how high the rent is for the developments and the turnover rates of the businesses surrounding the residential and commercial and entertainment districts.

So in theory, a place can be there forever as long as people make it part of the city and the rent doesn’t rise too high, but the trendy stuff might fizzle out when its not the trend anymore…most restaurants not part of a chain turnover about every 2years…if you make it past that then you are golden, from what I’ve read. What do you think?

Greg: I’m not sure, all around… in a lot of ways I think the fantasy of going downtown and watching a baseball game and the stadium itself risks being Disney-fied and kind of fake.

Mike: It is at times, but once inside the stadium, the game and the atmosphere is what matters the surrounding landscapes of Gaps and Starbucks and Chipotles that are safe developments around there are needed for the common person, but it leaves something to be desired for others plus that stuff generates money to help develop housing, keep the stadium rent etc.

Greg: And I have that fantasy too, I mean i think it would be great to go downtown, have a beer and watch the game. But what will this be like in 15 years when the paint is chipping? A lot of the design of these urban renewal stadiums is retro, in the vein of the old stadiums. But it’s kind of a fake charm. It’s almost like living in a sentimentality like Leave it to Beaver or something.

But the thing is with my complaints is that I’m not sure what I’m complaining about is really a bad thing at all…see that’s the thing… I know you are right. The national chains are safe…they’ll stay.

Mike: For sports architecture that retro thing is more than just fake…baseball in particular is alway respectful of the past, the game itself and its relationship with your family memories of baseball— going to games with Dad. Its classy somehow with the brick and steel. As contemporary architecture, sports stadiums do leave something to be desired though.

Greg: Well… but it was classy. The old stadiums are classy…classy in their tradition and history.

Mike: But generally I can choose not to eat at those chain places if I want…and usually I don’t at all. But its good to have that stuff because it, in a way, helps the area. For example, my first place in DC was a ‘developing area’ but totally in the ghetto and 5yrs removed from probably being totally safe neighborhood. People were buying the cheap property and redeveloping, but there was no infrastructure there (no businesses at all) to make you feel safe. My new place has a nearby Whole Foods market and honestly having something like that, as much as I hate to admit, helps the neighborhood develop the metro stops help and so on.

Greg: Sure that’s true. It gives you an indication of the safety, quality of a neighborhood well if there’s a Whole Foods here it must be relatively safe…and really, like Starbucks, although it is a national chain, basically created a market that has allowed local coffee shops to thrive they created the coffee culture.

Mike: I mean, to some, that ‘homogenizes’ the area. But for others, its a great thing. We all want that ‘authentic’ feeling but I’m not so sure that always exists, sadly.

Greg: Well, in my mind there is a huge difference between a giant Home Depot at 119th and I35 than a Whole Foods in the city…not sure why.

Mike: Sometimes I think that ‘gentrification’ isn’t always a bad thing. Its just a key word that people throw around. Having a Starbucks would be the greatest sign of development and stability in some areas… So I get the idea that these large corporations often do take the flavour out of a place in a way to Disney-ize, but I think these days we need a mixture of both this and small businesses. As long as there is a corporate responsibility to not drive out the existing residents and local businesses with soaring rents.

Greg: I definitely agree… it’s good to see both types of businesses succeed side by side.

Mike: As much as I hate Starbucks on some level (their coffee kinda sucks and they will never recreate the community feel of a local store), you have to respect their business practice on another of having a solid product (and sometimes, a lifestyle) that people want. Granted its oft at the expense of these real and comfortable coffee shop community, (I sorely miss Radinas and Westport Coffee House) but they give most people what they want. And somehow starbucks do it without the Walmart and McDonald’s method of bad customer and employee relations.

Greg: Exactly…Chipotle, too doesn’t have that problem.

Mike: AND they are half-owned by McD’s

Greg: I know! Funny.

Mike: We are living in a material world, and we are that material girl.

Greg: Basically, the chains lend safety, reliability, the local places quality, uniqueness, diversity.

Mike: This is probably the most rational things I have seen about this issue. Its totally symbiotic.

Greg: Yeah. In the end, chains are an easy target but they have a lot of good things about them too… This story I think is relevant to the conversation. I personally am waiting in anticipation for the Chipotle to be done outside my office (close to my office) because let’s face it, they make damn good burritos. That I am craving now.

Mike: I was thinking that too actually of going there for lunch…strange…we are quite alike sometimes. Scary.

Greg: I know…funny.

Mike: I guess the marketing has worked on us.

Aryn: Hey guys, just saw this post and wanted to chime in with a few thoughts. First off, Chipotle is no longer owned by McDonald’s, the owner bought his share back. They were only a part of McDonald’s to help with distributions.

But as for my opinion: I think its a good way to rehash interest in a city. I think we are seeing a natural gravitation towards urban living, with all of the suburban kids growing older (like us) and wanting to live somewhere that is not so sterile. This of course may change when we get to the kid making part of our lives, but for now we want to be (at least I do) somewhere that I can walk, use public transportation and have different options than the cookie cutter box stores.

But neighborhoods have a natural sea change, they start out with the poor, the artists can afford , then the richer kids want to move in cause they are trendy, then the richer yuppies move in cause they think they are trendy, then its gets to be too expensive for people. Things settle and either find a balance or decline waiting for the process to happen 50 years down the line. It is quite apparent here.

In Chicago, you have Wicker Park (super trendy) which is way too expensive for the poor artists so they are moving to places like old town (where Sue works) and Pilsen (where the largest Hispanic population in the us lives) and systematically making the places nicer (= more expensive) and driving the “poories” out. But thats natural, I am not sure that there is another way to do it. But I think that stadiums can give that process a kick in the ass, if there is a location that is beyond crappy, it will create that security for business to invest in the area and brighten it up.

So what do you think? Email us at

Coming up NEXT WEEK: The last and final hello.column of season one.

hello.column #8 — Press Start

hello.column

This week we take a break from the scheduled topic and weigh in on Fox News host Tony Snow being named new Press Secretary for Bush administration. What does this say about the role of media to objectively cover the news without bias or conflict of interests? Can Fox News even have any pretense of being separate and critical of our govt? Does a White House shake up really affect us, the common 20-something young pro? Read on…

Mike: Here are some selected links I have found… NY TIMES, NPR’s Morning Edition, Tony Snow’s official show website.

Greg: What do you guys know about Snow? According to NY Times article he is quite a bit different from McClellan- more of a showman.

Aryn: Yes .. quite amazing.. That guy Tony Snow is such a jack knob. I have heard his radio show on fox radio, and he seems to be in that (currently popular) group of right wing ‘feelists.’ And when I say ‘feelist’ I mean that in the way that you no longer have to have facts to support things, you only have to feel that it is truth and it will be. Basically exactly what Stephen Colbert makes fun of on his show. But I really think this is a terrible statement on the current state of our government, I am SURE that Mr. Snow will DEFINITELY give a fair and balanced view of our current White House happenings. Politics play way too much in the happenings of any politician, it seems that they are more worried about getting reelected than taking chances to actually solve some problems… or at least make movements towards solving those problems.

Mike: The thing is, he is the PERFECT candidate for this job as he was a speech writer for Bush I and his biased right wing news delivery is ideal to speak from on high of the daily procedures and policies and responses of the govt. A couple things to note: First, Bush is not up for reelection, nor is Cheney intending to run for Pres in 2008, so I believe this shakeup is really to set the agenda for the remainder of the current term and establish agendas for the Republican Party. Snow is essential there to act as a persuasive voice to the media and also has been given ‘walk-in privileges’ and an important role in ‘strategic thinking,’ as reported by NY Times article.

Second, They are looking to freshen up the relationship between public and the administration and this guy obviously comes with his own built in audience of fans and supporters. I just find that there is a conflict of interests for FOX NEWS as a legitimate news source. Not that this a new notion, but it establishes a further connection that is irresponsible to objectivity. Again, nothing new, but flagrantly blatant.

Also to note as told by NPR blog:

The man is Tony Snow, currently a Fox News commentator and amateur rock musician in a band called Beats Workin’. Snow is a former speech writer for Bush the elder and a former editorial writer for the Detroit News. And, in his most important “former,” Snow was once a commentator for Morning Edition.

I gotta hear this band! Here are two bands by that name, both of which do not include Tony Snow. Here is the actual band…

Aryn: BOO ya! I can relate to rock stars. And I like spinsters. It should make for a more entertaining press conferences, and maybe even boost some of the ratings on CSPAN. Have you heard any of his older morning edition shows? Are those available online? we should find some clips of his radio programs, and make a little link list to point to some of his thoughts.

Mike: After scouring the NPR archives for his contributions, I found that others at NPR were up to the same thing. Here are a few choice cuts of Snow reporting on “Kafkaesque” U.S. tax code, the American health care system, partisan politics and NAFTA. What is interesting to hear is old NPR stories about issues from the past Clinton Administration policies. A nice little time capsule. Also interesting to note is last week’s blog host on NPR, Mara Liasson, correspondent for the Washington Desk, is also a frequent commentator on FOX NEWS…coincidence? It’s all happening!

Greg: I think I need to watch this guy on TV- his NPR clips really weren’t that bad. I mean, he sounds like a partisan hack like the rest of them, but not as bad as say O’Reilly or Tucker Carlson perhaps??? When you think about it, it’s kind of a pointless job. Basically he’ll a punching bag for David Gregory to flex his ego with… good for political theater I suppose.

Mike: It’s all theatre! The point of the job is to speak for the administration. It puts him in the position, like any other press secretary to get the brunt of the shit storm when any bad news is reported. Scott McClellan oft had very little to say when he had the position and from what people say, he had little access beyond what they told him. It seems Snow might be more of a shaper of their media image. Tough gig…but then if George Stephanopoulos can do it, anyone can. In two years Snow will be on to another job much like McClellan, Ari Fleisher and the others before them. Not sure any of this really matters to change the way the administration performs.

Tony Snow working at the job.

So what do you think? Email us at hellocolumn@hellocomein.com

Coming up NEXT WEEK: We REALLY will take a look at Urban Redevelopment!

hello.column #7 — 100 Dollar Computers

hello.column
Recently, an and engineering firm announced plans to create a computer that was affordable to those areas of the world and country where people would not have access to them. NPR did a bit of on the topic and brought up that many, including Bill Gates himself had doubts about the project. Is this good or bad? And if good, for whom?Greg: That’s interesting.Mike: So I’m not sure this is a good idea.Aryn: Why not?

Mike: In this form it might not be incredibly useful. The thought is in the right place, but the focus is slightly off and underestimating the way people will use them. Right now its more a toy and I think durability is an issue. It could be a great idea, but I too am a bit skeptical how it will relate in actual practice once in the hands of real people. It might not be what people will really need in the long run.

Greg: Like if they will be actually useful? Or the fact that they would be used by people who otherwise have no contact with similar modern technology?

Mike: Exactly. In some ways, what is the point? Glorified textbooks? I see the logic in giving people access to infinite books instead of just one. But that is from a economic cost-friendly view.

Greg: But they have wireless internet right? So supposedly you wouldnt need to store anything on a local machine.

Mike: Is this just a stopgap?

Aryn: I like the idea. Its a good way to get people information that would not readily have access or be able to afford a computer for educational purposes.

Mike: But isnt there some sort of ethical question here? Just playing devil’s advocate.

Aryn: Like providing computers when food and governmental stability are more crucial to their survival?

Mike: One issue yes.

Greg: Good questions. To me there are two criticisms- an ethical, and an engineering. Like you said- are they lasting and durable? So that’s a question of how well they are engineered. But then there’s also a question of if it’s just a glorified textbook. If it’s really useful. Is this an acceptable substitute for traditional pencil/paper education? Suppose you suddenly introduced these to a traditionally poor/illiterate population- what are the ramifications of that? Those I think are the ethical questions- which to me are the bigger questions.

Aryn: It may or may not be what the people need. I am not sure that is for us to decide.. But from a development stand¬point it would be good to have the option for people to use/learn from, in our ever increasing world reliance on computers. scoffs at the idea of a $100 computer, but I like it…

Mike: I definitely think the ethical questions outweigh the engineering ones.

Greg: What happens when you suddenly insert modern technology to a population that isn’t ready for it? I think you could also argue that it would be unethical not to introduce modern technology.

Mike: Its like technological evangelicalism in a way.

Greg: That’s true… candy to join free world.

Mike: It civilizes them to be able to meet the demands of the westernized world. But does it perhaps de-emphasize their own natural progression, by simply jump start them to new education…And who is to dictate what they will be taught. I am not conspiracy prone…its unlikely there is this clandestine plot to teach them our morals or that any of what I say is going to happen but these are certain things we should question a bit…whom does it truly benefit?

Greg:Is the point just to bring more tech-saavy people into a free trade, world market economy? Surely there’s plenty of historic¬al examples of similar situations.

Mike: Where is Jared Diamond when you need his expertise?

Greg: Yes. Maybe he has a Gmail account. He’d be fun to chat with everyday at work.

Mike: I know. I want to read Collapse.

Greg: Does he have a new book out?

Mike: Somewhat a sequal to where it talks not about how societies and cultures were built, but how they are destroyed.

Greg: Looks really good. I never made it through Guns Germs and Steel, so I had to get the bullet points from my Dad and but if I remember right he has a really interesting discussion on the domestication of animals. Those communities that had access to domesticatable animals gave rise to the greatest civilizations. Something to that effect.

Mike: Yeah…I never finished it either…its pretty dense. It’s true though…those with time to domesticate agriculture and animals had time to develop civilizations and cultures within due to the long term benefits of agriculture. I never saw the documentary. I feel it would have simplified it just enough to make the book a bit more digestible.

So back on topic then, IS the point to educate or to ‘save’ them?

Greg: Well… let me ask you this- is there a difference between the two? If the point is to save, is that bad? Why? I think it is, but cant pinpoint why I feel that way, besides the fact that it’s egotistical on the part of the western world.

Mike:I think thats why it has a weird feeling to me…it just comes across as this somehow. I’m not against these computers at all…It just feels funny like you said… it’s intangible. However education is the only way to bring people to a new potentials and help them but…

Greg: But couldn’t this technology be put to use in America? Poor areas that cant afford computers? Although it would be depressing to see in our own country.

Mike: I know… I oft think we neglect our own social problems while liberating everyone else. But our ignorance of the lower class is due to how it conflicts with our sense of the

Greg: Right. Here’s another question: Suppose you have some poor village in India- one of the target communities for this laptop project. Would people raise eithical concerns if instead of donating laptops, textbooks and other traditional learning materials were donated? If the laptops were loaded with the same exact textbooks (and potentially more b/c the associated costs of puting a .pdf textbook on a server would be likely less than printing), what is the difference with the laptops? If education is the key, that is?

Mike: I agree… I think that is their point. From a cost perspective its SO much better to give them everything in a tidy package and our dollar goes a lot farther to help. I wonder how much computers have helped educate people in our own country as a potential for higher education and knowledge for those who cannot afford them? Next to none, right? So if this is a sincere method of creating cost effective exposure to technology, information and outlets for these people (domestic or foreign developing countries) then I see this as a great means of a healthy first step.

But what kind of access are they really getting? Who decides? Do they want it? Does this commidify education? Will this create more strife as people will steal these machines the way they steal food from the underprivaledged? Am I sounding too negative and paranoid?

Greg: Nooo not at all.

Mike: I don’t think there would be a controversy if it were only books and not computers handed out…I’m not sure what makes this different.

Greg: I think this is why conservatives are generally against programs like this- social engineering programs always have unanticipated consequences. It’s strange- there’s no difference at all, yet it makes all the difference in the world, I think. And like you said, I can’t pinpoint why… but your questions about who decides and if they really want it, are important.

But another point I would make is that the textbook industry in our country is scary in and of itself- in some senses what Texas demands of textbooks is what the country gets b/c it’s a giant market. This is a different discussion, but my point is that the laptop concept has potential to actually free people from big brother so to speak. More

Mike: I want this to be a great gesture to really make a difference. But then, we wont know for years to come.

Greg: Exactly.

Mike: History and information will always be a bit tinted by perspective…and individual interpretation. The text books emphasis on particular events is what is across the States, but that I think is one of my points originally. I just hope this doesnt turn out to be another way to re-write history again in our favour.

It all goes in waves. Originally, the internet in general had all this potential to be open sourced, but then it became commidfied and in turn, unreliable. But another wave has resurged to allow for people who want to re-empower the internet to be a useful and connected place where there is a greater good to be served by contributing proper info. Perhaps these computers have the same potential.

Greg: I think it depends on the subject too. Math and, to a lesser extent, science aren’t nearly as sensitive to interpretation as say history. But how do you think the internet has become commodified and unreliable?

Mike: It’s less so now…but for awhile, yes. There have always been internet communities and usegroups etc, but to find real information, it was much harder to seek out. Now there is an elastic reaction to the other side where people are demanding fact and reliable sources…Hence Wikipedia (wikis in general), blogs and even the People are less patient with misinformation. Plus I don’t subscribe to your That’s crazy talk…

Greg: hah. Yeah, science is for the birds. Whoever thought testable hypotheses was a usefull idea anyways?

Mike: Not me. God doesnt use science…he uses his

So what do you think? Email us at

Coming up NEXT WEEK: We take a look at Urban Redevelopment!