Dave Menninger

A whole bunch of interesting things to point to today:

- An interesting Smart City Radio program from 2007 explores the rebranding and redevelopment of a historic, and downtrodden, neighborhood in Cincinnati, here. Following that, an interview with a professor at SUNY Buffalo introduces the Tactical Sound Garden, wherein urban space is "overlaid" by audio files chosen to evoke certain feelings in different locations. Thus a place is continually modified through the way it "sounds."

- Speaking of sound, read about one woman's obsessive collecting of songs for the creation of "cinematic moments" for this summer's Olympics. Explore another facet of branding with sound:

When NBC's producers prepare a segment, they use the database to zero in on the exact tone they're looking to set. Producers can search by artist, album, instrumentation, mood, decade, and culture of origin, so when recapping a Norwegian's javelin victory subsequently overturned by a rules violation, they can utilize key words such as "rousing," "Scandinavian," and "moody" to hone their choices.

- In Philadelphia, Inga Saffron reviews Robert Stern's new Comcast Tower, 58 stories of smooth silver glass, a "high gloss," "frozen mountain cataract," opened earlier this month.

 

(via Flickr; that's some curtainwall!)

From Saffron's review:

Ultimately, though, it's the image of the great obelisk, shimmering like mercury in the afternoon sun, that many will remember. They may eventually forgive its vacuous facade, preferring to see the glass expanses as a blank canvas on which the city can project any dream it chooses.

- In Melbourne, a fun video from Streetsblog extols the virtues of the city's laneways and sidewalks, and the public realm that thrives there. The filmmaker writes:

Melbourne is simply wonderful. You can get lost in the nooks and crannies that permeate the city. As you walk you feel like free-flowing air with no impediments to your enjoyment. For a city with nearly four million people, the streets feel much like the hustle and bustle of New York City but without omnipresent danger and stress cars cause.

Related: A fine article from the Toronto Star on "the lost art of strolling:"

And so it is a measure of how far removed we have grown from ourselves that many of us now see walking as extraneous. It is viewed as a kind of hobby, a pastime, a luxury, certainly not essential, and definitely not a means of transportation.

Indeed, we have reached a point where we classify ourselves according to whether we walk or drive. Thus we are either drivers or pedestrians. Because walking is not considered necessary, we give precedence to those who travel in cars and trucks. From their perspective, people who walk are obstacles, in the way.

As the French realized 150 years ago, walking--specifically urban walking--is about much more than getting from one place to another. It is a mode of being, a way of relating, of existing in the world. The mere act of going out onto the street opens up a whole set of possibilities that lie at the heart of urban life.

- Also in Toronto, a couple improves upon what is already a significant undertaking--the demolition of their home and the construction of its replacement--with exhaustive documentation of their process.

With an eye toward creating a resource for other would-be builders, Jeremy Bell shares the ongoing story of 360 Winnett Avenue:

We had originally planned to build a rather traditional home, however at some point along the way our priorities changed. While we still need the extra space, we've come to realize we should be building a smarter home and not just a bigger home. We've also come to appreciate our eco-responsibilities and we felt it was important to document the realities that came with this decision.

So what started as a simple renovation, has blossomed into a true eco-challenge. How "green" can the average family actually be? What sacrifices will need to be made along the way? Is building "green" even worth it? I also think it's important to show people that building green is indeed possible, but doing so requires a change of priorities....

From start to finish, I want to share our experience with complete transparency; finding a contractor, choosing an architect, defining our green strategies and balancing the budget. In the end, I hope the site will stand as a guide for other would-be home builders. Something that will help eliminate the unknown and make a project of this scale more approachable.

More here. (Thanks, Jeremy!)

So, is it? I tend to think that it is inevitable, but it does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. The word often comes with very negative connotations, especially when you throw race into the equation. This is exactly the issue in Over-the-Rhine, and it is also not a new one (see Buddy Gray).

Gentrification, by definition, is the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents. The key here is that gentrification often displaces poorer residents. An influx, of middle-class or affluent people, alone isn't a bad thing. It is what usually comes with it that is bad - the displacement of poorer residents.

So far gentrification has been taking place in/around the Gateway Quarter, but displacement hasn't really occurred. Many of the buildings were vacant and there has been an effort, by 3CDC, to keep units at affordable levels. Some of the units have even been arranged to only accommodate individuals within certain income ranges.

As more and more new condos pop up and more new businesses arrive, the question seems only logical. How are we going to deal with the issue of gentrification in our city's most infamous neighborhood? It is something that will take work and courage from our leaders, and dedication from the developers to do what is right.

The gentrification of OTR doesn't have to be the divisive/negative aspect that it often is elsewhere. We know what we can do (inclusionary zoning techniques), and we know what we should do. The question really is whether the OTR power brokers will ultimately do the right thing and not displace those current residents just so they can fatten their wallets.

Summer is here, and while the days are can be sweltering, the evenings can be a great time to do some serious walking.  All across the state, it is possible to combine exercise and education by taking a self-guided walking tour of one of Ohio's historic downtowns.

Here is just a sampling of such tours - we well as information on where you can locate a copy.  If your downtown has a self-guided walking tour which is not included, please let us know.

PRINTED:

Bowling Green - Main Street Bowling Green, 121 East Wooster Street
Canal Winchester - Victoria’s Attic, 11 South High Street
Delaware - Delaware County Convention & Visitors Bureau, 44 East Winter Street
Hamilton - Greater Hamilton Visitors Bureau, 1 High Street
Maumee - Lobby of the City of Maumee Police Department (entrance on Dudley Street near Conant Street)
Oxford - Oxford Visitors Bureau, 30 West Park Place, 2nd Floor
Sandusky - Eleutheros Cooke House, 1415 Columbus Avenue
Van Wert - Van Wert Convention & Visitors Bureau, 118 West Main Street

ONLINE AND PRINT:

Logan - Click here
Oberlin - Click here and then click on "Walking Tour of Oberlin"
Painesville - Click here, click on "Visitors," then "Attractions," and scroll to the bottom of the page for a link to the Walking Tour.

AUDIO:

Canton - Click here
Cleveland - City Prowl - Click here
St. Clairsville - Click here

SPECIALIZED:

“Building Stones” Walking Tour of Downtown Cincinnati - Click here
“Building Stones” Walking Tour of Downtown Cleveland - Click here

PBS recently added 1-click Miro subscribe links to their video podcasts. We’re really enthusiastic about this development, as one of our goals is to encourage traditional broadcasters to offer open alternatives to their online viewers.

PBS sets the tone for public broadcasters around the world, and so we hope this is just a sign of things to come. Cheers to PBS, and thanks to Jesse Patel (our Business Development Director) for helping make this happen!

Note: If you have a video RSS feed and would like to offer your viewers Miro 1-click subscribe buttons, you can use our 1-click subscribe button creation tool.

Note II: If you have connections to a traditional broadcaster and are interested in seeing them move in a more open direction, please get in touch: dean at pculture d org

July 3, 2008

to

July 5, 2008

Wow. That’s a mouthful.

As noted on the flyer, this is your chance to see the Cloven Hoof Theatre, Barnyard Burlesque, Pickled Brothers Sideshow, and Dante’s Gypsy Circus all at once!

More at Northside Rocks.

Hoffner Street

I understand that most people would just like to see something on the riverfront between the two stadiums, but if this truly the "front porch" of the city and as important as they say it is, let's build something that doesn't look like something you might find at the Deerfield Towne Center.

When I first saw the renderings, I don't even remember my reaction. I must have totally glossed over them in ambivalence. (Or I was still reeling from the new Cincinnati.com website, but that's another post.) They look nice and all, but...

In the story comments, quimbob links to some old renderings, circa 1999, I believe, of The Banks way back when the idea first surfaced. I remember these drawings, now that I look at them. Somehow they feel better. Maybe it's just the texture - I guess rendering software has advanced a lot in the last 10 years. But notice the triangular block with the fountain in the second picture, a characteristic you might find in an East Coast neighborhood that grew organically over time. I don't get that feeling from the new drawings.

You can see all the old renderings by clicking on the first one here, and then changing the filename in the URL.

Rebooting Democracy, a compendium of some 44 essays, was released earlier this week at the Personal Democracy Forum conference. It virtually - and for real (there was actually a real book produced. You can download it too) — seethes with the hopes and possibilities of re energizing, reorganizing, and reorienting our government for the Internet Age. It focuses on some fundamental questions: Is it possible to redesign our government with open doors and see-through walls? How can we leverage the exponential power of many-to-many deliberation for the common good?  It’s a really terrific collection with a remarkable group of authors.  My contribution is about what real government transparency means as FOIA dies.

The Merciful Death of the Freedom of Information Act and the Birth of True Government Transparency: A Short History

Looking back, maybe it was inevitable. Perhaps the well-intentioned yet fatally compromised Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was doomed from the start, well before it died this year, in 2015. And yet, while FOIA was dying, true government openness was emerging to take its place.

In the 1950s and early 1960s, the passage of a Freedom of Information law requiring government to provide information to citizens upon request was championed by newspaper editors and other journalists and by a California congressman by the name of John Moss. (Brief historic and ironic aside: A young Republican congressman from Illinois named Donald Rumsfeld was a champion of government openness,

and signed on as a leading co-sponsor of Moss’ bill.)  Less than 10 years later, as President Gerald Ford’s chief of staff, Rumsfeld convinced his boss to veto FOIA amendments meant to strengthen the law.) In 1966, with trepidation on the part of the press-wary Lyndon Johnson but great fanfare from others, FOIA was born.

FOIA was meant to be “democracy’s X-ray,” as Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote in 2007, allowing journalists and other citizens to ferret out waste, fraud, abuse and corruption. As early as 1991, FOIA was being criticized as an oxymoron and was fading into obsolescence. FOIA had some victories. NASA was found to have covered up damning details of the 1986 Challenger disaster; historian David Garrow used FOIA to uncover records of the FBI’s surveillance of Martin Luther King, Jr.; the Associated Press discovered that researchers at the National Institutes of Health were collecting royalties from drug companies for tests they conducted on unwitting patients; and the world learned of the torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and other detention facilities after 9/11 -all as a result of FOIA. Despite these and other high-profile successes, government information was never easily or willingly released. Federal agencies failed to answer most requests, and took years to answer others. An executive order issued by the Reagan-Bush Administration in 1982 instructed the federal government to classify documents whenever in doubt, and to reclassify already released material. FOIA was doomed. The FOIA Advocate, a publication of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, reported in 2007 that:

• Two of every five FOIA requests filed in 2006 were not processed
• The number of exemptions cited to support the withholding of information had increased 83% since 1998
• The number of FOIA denials increased 10% in 2006
• The cost of processing FOIA requests had gone up 40% since 1998, even though agencies were processing 20% fewer requests
• Most people were waiting much longer for FOIA information

In its fourth decade FOIA faced off and lost to the secrecy obsessed administration of President George W. Bush.Bush used executive privilege, hyper classification under the aegis of national security, and stonewalling to further secrecy. The administration tightened the government’s grasp on information like a boa constrictor suffocating a rabbit. For instance, the 2007 study found that the Bush Administration’s Justice Department granted only 4% of the FOIA requests it received in 2006, a 70% drop from the previous administration. Vice President Dick Cheney even argued that he was not part of the executive branch, and thus was not covered by the act.

Bush signed the Open Government Act of 2007, the first reform of FOIA in over a decade. It included the significant provision of establishing a FOI ombudsman to provide independent oversight and settle disputes over FOIA requests. However, Bush “neutered” the provision by shifting the funding for the office from the National Archives to the Department of Justice, where it died.

While FOIA was dying, other efforts within the Congress and elsewhere were laying the groundwork for true government transparency. In 2008, Jeff Jarvis, a blogger, journalist and journalism school professor, wrote that the act be turned inside-out. “Why should we be asking for information about and from our government?” he wrote. “The government should have to ask to keep things from us…Government information-every act of government on our behalf-should be free by default.” Digital technology and web-based tools allow business transactions to be digitally captured, stored, and opened to search and analysis, he argued. This was not possible when the information was stored on paper in file cabinets.

Congress began to see the potential of these new online tools. The Coburn-Obama Act of 2006 was the first of a handful of laws passed over the next five years, exposing the workings of Congress to the light of day. This law established USAspending.gov, a website that allows citizens to research federal government spending. The success of the website led to the formation of the Transparency Caucus Advisory Committee in 2009 that pushed more reforms on Capitol Hill and into law. This era later became known as the “Government Transparency Revolution.”

In 2009, Congress passed the Government Transparency Act requiring lobbyists to register and disclose all legislative contacts, all legislation and regulation discussed within 24 hours. The Act also required lobbyists to disclose any relationship to a current member of Congress, staff member, or executive branch employee.

Later that year, Congress passed the Government for All Act that became the gold standard for government transparency of personal and financial relationships. The law required that all public reports be filed electronically and shared within 24 hours of their filing. It forced the Senate to follow the House’s lead and make Personal Financial Disclosure reports available online. It also required Senators to file, and make public within 24 hours, campaign finance reports. It increased the filing frequency, requiring monthly reports. Personal Financial Dis  closure reports were amended to require disclosure of the affiliations of Members (and their spouses and their adult children) with political action committees, “Leadership” PACs, and any 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) organizations. Other mandated disclosures included the employment of immediate family members and their economic relationships with for profit and not-for-profit entities.

In 2010, Congress passed the Information for Everyoe Act that ended the practice of secret legislation once and for all. Specifically, the act required that all non-emergency legislation be posted online, in its final form, at least 72 hours before a vote. The act also required disclosure of the purpose and identification of the beneficiaries of legislative earmarks 72 hours before a vote on them.

The Information for Everyone Act opened up all congressional information to the public in free, easy-to-use online formats. This included Congressional Research Service reports, Legislative Information System documents, and all other non-classified research and information available to members of Congress and their staff.

These cascading reforms whetted the appetite of the public for open and transparent government. Suddenly, citizens were participating directly in the writing of legislation and regulations. The federal government stopped fearing transparency and embraced openness. Ultimately, FOIA’s demise was necessary to allow transparency and information to flow freely.