[PHOTO] Under construction

Back in the summer I took four shots I took of a construction site on Yonge Street, possibly (I forget) of the Aura mixed-used skyscraper I described earlier.

[LINK] "The market and conservatism in the land of superheros"

French-language sociology blog Une heure de peine's Denis Colombi has posted--originally in French but also available in English via Google Translate--an interesting essay examining the poor representation of women (realistic women, any women even) in comics. Why is this the case when there would be a market for comics featuring believable women? Colombi's answer? The market is policed by fans with a vested interest in the established order. My slight editing on Google's translation of a key passage is below.

Fans are organized and have been for a long time: "fandom" did not wait for Internet development. In a sense, and if you go back to science fiction, home of what was to become the geek culture, Hugo Gernsback was the first craftsman. Following this came conventionsand, obviously, the fans were among the first on the Internet. exercise real power over publishers: reactions to the announcement of prequels to the majestic Watchmen by Moore and Gibbons were noisier than in many other social worlds.

Some of the reactions to requests for greater consideration of the female audience are some unambiguously hostile. DC Women Kicking Ass example relates some, left as comments on the site or sent via Twitter:

Have you considered starting your own independent comics publisher? Have you regarded starting your own independent comic book publisher? Then you can make comics the way YOU think they should be made…rather than trying to get a billion dollar corporation like WBE to create something for a tiny niche minority base that ultimately will not be sustainable or profitable Then You Can make comics the way THEY think YOU Should Be Made ... Rather Than Trying to get a one billion dollar corporation to create something like WBE for a tiny niche based Minority Will not Be That ultimately sustainable or profitable
Just a thought. Just a thought.

In short, the moral entrepreneurs are numerous and they defend the borders of the market. Modern guardians of the temple, they are ready to rein in those who come to challenge their conception of comics.

But why are they listening? There are a number of reasons. First, they are the first demographic that canb e picked up by a publisher: it is they who are most visible, either in conventions or on the Internet, they are the ones who speak the most, including sometimes very directly with producers. Therefore, it can be difficult to see that there is another potential market elsewhere. A product is never simply the product of a producer who would propose a demand that would accept or reject. Any production stems from the cooperation of a group of actors who influence the form and content: what Becker calls an "art world", noting that, for example to produce an opera, it is necessary that there is an audience willing to listen and equipped to understand. If your opera lasts 12 hours, it is unlikely to be performed because we will not find the public to attend. Same thing for the comics: the fans involved in the definition and design of what they are. And this is done through these moral entrepreneurs struggling not with them but the producer: comics traditionally have male supporters, not promoters of "kicking ass is gender neutral." And because they are unequally endowed in terms of resources, not everyone can be heard. A market like comics is an issue of struggle and confrontation. It is built in and the conflict between groups, and not just because some Schumpeterian entrepreneur had the brilliant idea of ​​a particular innovation.

Second, for a publisher, to disappoint fans is extremely risky: alienating them is to see dry up a key source of income. L'une des caractéristiques centrales du fan/geek, c'est qu'il achète tout : comics, produits dérivés, places de cinéma, etc. One of the central features of the fan / geek is that he buys everything: comics, merchandising, cinema tickets, etc. He might be disappointed by this or that product but he'll buy it anyway. This attitude is largely based on the distinctive aspect of these practices: we are very proud to be a true fan, to be the one who really knows best (and indeed it confronts happy to know which is the fan, the wisest, the most knowledgeable, etc.), to appreciate what others can only grasp. Again, this is an attitude very similar to that of dance musicians described by Becker: for them, jazz was only defined by the fact that almost it could not please the squares. Therefore expanding production to a wider audience, especially if it carries the stigma associated with women (with the continual devaluation of feminine practices labeled as feminine [. . .]), will lead to a loss of value in their products, their value distinction. Again, this gives a very different market than is generally promoted: the producers do not clash so that they can sell goods or services to be around them a small group of fans could follow them though do. Far from being brought to innovate, rather the publishers are encouraged to comply with standards and rules they can not be the only ones to handle and control.

Go, read.

james_nicoll?

[URBAN NOTE] "The Profits of Privatization"

James Bow's post analyzing Mayor Ford's sincere but economically illiterate plan for expanding Toronto's subways must be read.

One frustrating aspect in hearing Toronto mayor Rob Ford pitch his plan to build new subways for Toronto is how he tries to make the true cost of his subway plan disappear.

I don’t believe that Ford is being deceitful, here. For a lie to be a lie, you have to know that what you are saying is untrue when you say it. Given Ford’s behaviour since taking office, I’m willing to believe that he has a mathematical or economic blindspot that he’s struggled to see around.

If you recall, when Ford killed Transit City and negotiated a new transit plan for Toronto, the agreement he reached with McGuinty would have funnelled all of the $8.4 Billion the province had committed to Toronto transit projects to an all-underground Eglinton LRT. In return the City of Toronto would concentrate on finishing the Sheppard subway, extending it east to the Scarborough Town Centre and west to Downsview station on the Spadina subway line. More importantly, the City of Toronto would be wholly responsible for paying for this project.

Most experts believed that the cost of finishing the Sheppard subway is in excess of $4 Billion. In terms of committed public money, all Toronto had was $300 million offered by the federal government for the Sheppard LRT project. How was Ford to close the gap? Not a problem, said Ford, private developers are lining up right now to build us the subway.

Except that they didn’t. Since then, Ford has floated a number of trial balloons to close the funding gap, such as tax-increment financing which estimates the amount that property taxes are likely to increase following the construction of a new piece of infrastructure and borrowing on that amount. Unfortunately, the projected increases for Sheppard Avenue alone weren’t enough to pay for more than 10% of new construction. Indeed, to cover the full cost of the Sheppard subway, the Ford administration would have to rely on tax increment financing based on all of the properties of all of the City of Toronto. Which brings to mind the question of: how do you fund the next subway, then?

The clincher, Bow notes, is that given the plausible projections for subway usage which indicate that there will be an uneconomic number of passengers, a privately-owned low-usage subway would need to be leased back to Toronto at a significantly greater cost than simple ownership of a TTC-owned subway line would incur. In that case, what's the point?

If such an infrastructure project is likely to generate substantial revenues over its lifetime (such as a toll road), a private company may be interested in making an arrangement to pay for the construction of new infrastructure, and then making back those costs through the profit of operation, but public transit does not make a profit. Moreover, the Sheppard subway’s capacity is so well beyond its current and future demand that it is currently a drain on the TTC’s financial resources, and will likely remain so even after the line is extended to the Scarborough Town Centre and Downsview.

So, unless we pay a private company to operate the Sheppard subway the same way we subsidize the TTC’s money-losing bus routes, no company is going to want to operate the Sheppard subway, and it would make little sense for the City of Toronto to pay someone to do so (unless the TTC engages in a wider privatization of its transit services — a debate well worth having, but not necessarily here). So, it is very likely that a public-private partnership to build the Sheppard subway would involve having a private company take on the cost of building the extensions, and then making back that cost by leasing the line back to the city for an extended period (say, twenty-five to thirty years).

And here’s the problem with that: to cover an investment of upwards of $4 Billion, the year-to-year payments of that lease would likely be much higher than just $90 million. How is Ford to raise that money? Gordon Chong has shown that development charges along the line won’t fill the gap. Other taxes would have to be considered. And given how Ford finds taxes so politically untenable that he scurries away from such proposals after he himself makes them, it’s no surprise that these extra costs do not show up in Rob Ford’s position paper.

[URBAN NOTE] "Make the TTC councillor-free: Rob Ford"

The National Post's Sara Boesveld reports the news that Mayor Rob Ford, in what seems to me (and others) as an attempt to grab power from a city council that opposes him, wants to remove city councillors altogether from the Toronto Transit Commission's board and replace them with professionals.

A case can be made that a purely professional TTC board, apparently similar to New York City's would work. In the current climate of the mayor's hostility towards the majority of council, though, it looks very much like he's retaliating against council by removing Toronto's elected officials from positions of responsibility. (Question: Who will appoint the professionals?)

Perhaps surprisingly, comments at the right-leaning paper's site are largely hostile to the plan. Democracy matters.

Mayor Rob Ford says he will support a motion to make the Toronto Transit Commission politician-free when the battle over who should oversee the city’s transit system shakes out in council Monday.

On his Newstalk 1010 radio show Sunday afternoon, Mr. Ford and his brother Councillor Doug Ford said they will back a motion crafted by Scarborough councillor Michael Thompson to create a transit commission entirely made up of civilians with expertise in areas such as transportation, finance, engineering, social services and law.

The news comes as current TTC chair Karen Stintz plans to move a motion to dissolve the current nine-member transit commission — including herself — and replace it with an 11-member board made up of seven councillors and four citizen members.

Her proposal was an about-face from a deal she says she struck with the Mayor last week that envisioned a TTC with six seats for politicians and five for civilian professionals. On Friday, Mr. Ford aired his disapproval by saying she would “ruin the city” with streetcars if her plans proceeded.

Mr. Thompson, who represents Ward 37 Scarborough Centre, said his vision for a civilian-only board would erase all of the power struggles over transit, that have been particularly pronounced as of late, and square focus on moving the city forward.

“We’re seeing politics become too much the issue in transit and I think we need to focus on transit being the issue,” said Mr. Thompson, who is a past member of the commission. “We have politicians who are short-sighted, near-sighted, far-sighted in their thinking and their vision, which basically creates a situation in the city where we’re not able to articulate a real transit vision that really speaks to the need of the common man and woman in the city.”

The team of qualified professionals could include the city manager, and the deputy minister of transportation of municipal affairs, he mused — civilians with clear knowledge of governance but without any of the political baggage.

[URBAN NOTE] "Stintz to chair new 11-member TTC board"

After a debate liveblogged in detail by Torontoist's Hamutal Dotan, CP24 reports the bare bones of the defeat of Mayor Ford's initiative to create a TTC board without city councillors. Instead, Stintz' plan to have an eleven-member board with seven city councillors--Stintz herself as head--won out.

Karen Stintz will head a newly-elected seven-councillor Toronto Transit Commission board following a vote Monday evening.

The vote comes just hours after a motion to dissolve the board passed Monday afternoon after a day of heated debate at city hall.

The motion, which was put forward by Stintz, passed 29-15 just before 5 p.m.

The board will now be composed of seven councillors and four civilians.

[. . .]

The debate to dissolve the board came weeks after Stintz first went public with her disapproval of the mayor's plan to scrap light-rail transit for subways. Stintz said the plan was unaffordable under Toronto's current budget.

Stintz, backed by her council allies, and Coun. Michael Thompson, one of the mayor's allies, presented competing motions at council Monday over the composition of the TTC board.

Stintz pushed to change the commission from a group of nine councillors to a mix of seven councillors and four civilians, in what is believed to be an attempt to boot Mayor Rob Ford's supporters from the TTC board.

Thompson's motion sought to remove all councillors from the board and replace them with private citizens.

In a blog post on her website, Stintz cited stability and renewal as the reasons for the move to overhaul the board.

After speaking to fellow councillors, Stintz said the overriding belief was that the chair of a new 11-member TTC board must be a city councillor, and the board must be comprised of seven councillors and four citizens.

She said the TTC board members wouldn't be pre-determined.

Stintz presented her motion after Ford's allies on the TTC board, who represent a majority, outvoted fellow board members, including Stintz, to fire TTC chief general manager Gary Webster.

[CAT] "Toronto's first cat"

Via Torontoist comes this post from the Toronto Dreams Project outlining the first recorded presence of a domestic cat in Toronto.

The cat arrived on a July morning in 1793. Toronto was just a few days old. It had only been a week and a half since one hundred British soldiers sailed into our harbour and came ashore at the mouth of a creek they would call the Garrison. That's the spot where they pitched their tents and started taking axes to trees. Enormous old oaks and pines crashed to earth as the men began to clear away the ancient forest that had been growing here since prehistoric times. In its place they would build Fort York – and a few kilometers to the east, the first few blocks of a new town. This was going to be the new capital of the new province of Upper Canada, away from the border and easily defensible – ready for the inevitable war with the Americans.

It was in the early morning of their eleventh day clearing trees that a great big British ship sailed into the harbour. This was the HMS Mississauga. On board was the man who had sent them here: John Graves Simcoe, the first Lieutenant Governor of the new province. He had sailed overnight from Niagara-on-the-Lake (the temporary capital) to oversee the construction of what he hoped would some day become a thriving metropolis, a testament to the glory of the British Empire. And he brought his family with him.

[. . .]

Now, in the forest of Toronto, the tent was home to the ruler of Upper Canada, his wife, and three of their children. They'd left the older ones behind in England, but brought their toddlers – Sophia and Francis – with them. Their youngest daughter, Katherine, was a brand new baby girl: she'd been born just a few months earlier in that very same tent.

She wasn't the only new addition to the family, either. At Niagara-on-the-Lake the Simcoes had gotten three pets: two dogs (who I'll talk about in another post) and a cat. And since they'd all come along for the trip to Toronto, (assuming none of the soldiers brought a cat along with him) this cat was the very first house cat to ever set paw on this land. Elizabeth Simcoe wrote a paragraph about him in her diary, just a few weeks after they arrived:

"I brought a favourite white Cat with grey spots with me from Niagara. He is a native of Kingston. His sense & attachment are such that those who believe in transmigration would think his soul once animated a reasoning being. He was undaunted on board the Ship, sits composedly as Centinel at my door amid the beat of Drums & the crash of falling Trees & visits the Tents with as little fear as a dog would do."

Yes, as the writer notes, the cat was a badass.

[LINK] "Tories demand Liberals release call records – but refuse to follow suit"

As Facebook's Clifford put it when linking to this news article, "YES! It finally happened! WE ARE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS. I'm so glad nothing ever has to make sense anymore!". Ridiculous.

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives say the Liberals must release records of calls made on their behalf during the last election – but the Tories also say there is no reason for them to release their own documentation.

Dean Del Mastro, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, stood repeatedly in House of Commons Monday to answer questions from opposition MPs who accuse the Conservatives of making calls to suppress votes for other parties. Over and over again, Mr. Del Mastro blamed the Liberals for the calls.

“The Leader of the Liberal Party knows full well, every household that they called, every originating phone number they called them from, and, in fact, when those calls were made,” he said in response to a question from Bob Rae. “When will he make those phone records public? Because I believe when those phone records are made public, the Liberal Party will have fingered itself for each and every one of these calls that they allege had taken place.”

But when asked later by reporters if the Conservatives were prepared to release their own records, Mr. Del Mastro said: “No, because obviously our party is not behind the calls. We know that. We believe the Liberal Party has in fact made these allegations and they’ve made these allegations knowing full well that they’ve paid these companies millions of dollars to makes calls to hundreds of thousands of households across the country.”

[. . .]

A Conservative staffer who worked on his party’s campaign in the Ontario riding of Guelph resigned after the elections agency said is was investigating the calls that misdirected voters. And the Liberals say it doesn’t make sense that they would call voters, identify themselves and Liberals, and proceed to harass them.

Mr. Rae said after Question Period that the Liberals are trying to get permission from the companies they have hired to do their calling to release the records and are hoping to do so in the near future.

[. . .]

Pat Martin, the Winnipeg MP who has been the NDP’s main interrogator on the calls, said Mr. Del Mastro’s excuse for not releasing the phone records was a “ridiculous, spurious” argument.

“If they have nothing to hide as they keep saying,” Mr. Martin said, “why are they denying and obstructing any idea of a public inquiry? They are not behaving like people with nothing to hide. They are behaving like people who have everything to hide.”

After Mr. Del Mastro demanded several times during Question Period that the Liberals release their phone records, NDP MP Charlie Angus accused the Conservatives of bullying the third party in the House of Commons.

“Last week, the Minister of National Defence said it was a kid from Guelph [who was behind the calls], case closed. Now the Conservatives are saying they do not know what is going on in Guelph. Now we are hearing that the Conservative Party is trying to blame Elections Canada because obviously blaming the little Liberal Party is not following through either,” Mr. Angus said. “When will the government stop playing the blame game and come clean with the electoral fraud that happened under its watch and its party.”