#so I reckon incomplete dating edit

[avayarising]

Jack Seward appears to have fallen into a minor time vortex. Yesterday Renfield got out and headed next door and got hauled back again in a paroxysm of rage. Now today it’s been a week and three days since then.

[just-emotionalistic]

2, 11, and 19 for whoever you like :)

Edit: this better not be another case of my blog not loading the relevant ask list before I answered, Tumblr. I swear I'll go feral

For Questions About Creating Your OCs (I think?):

Ahhh I like these- I'll be answering really vaguely, mostly, so I can cover all my OCs in general.

2. Do you design them with any other characters/OCs from their universe in mind?

Occasionally, yes! Sometimes a character feels incomplete and I usually find that another character threaded into their story tends to be the piece that completes the puzzle. Also, I just really like creating characters lol

11. Did you know what the OCs sexuality would be at the time of their creation?

For most of my recent OCs, yeah. When I was younger I didn't really think of sexuality as like, something I needed to add, but I've been re-imagining a bunch of them (such as Boithea and Varadis, they're basically remastered super old OCs from elsewhere) and giving them that extra nudge with sexuality. I refuse to allow them to be straight.

19. What is your favourite fact/thing about (one of) your OC/s?

Ohhhh...this one's a lil hard...hmmmm...I reckon I'll bridge off from my standard DA OCs and answer this one with a DnD OC, "Captain" Isabella Gunwhale (trust me, I made her before I even knew DA was a thing). My favourite thing about her would have to be that, even though she ticks all the "requirements to be edgy" boxes (e.g. Tiefling, Rogue, parents probably dead), she's still just a real happy lass who's less likely to brood in a corner and more likely to challenge a random person in the bar to a sword fight and laugh heartily while sharing a drink with friends. I love that about her. (I may, or may not, go into more detail about her at a later date, if requested :>>>>)

[denisehil0]

Another Glass Box: The Stalinist “Bunker” Edition

March 26, 2018 at 7:40 pm

cityscape

Another Glass Box: The Stalinist “Bunker” Edition

Mayoral foibles, Google's urban charm offensive, finalists for George Brown's new wood building, and how many avocado toasts will you need to give up?

By Dan Seljak

1

The Stalinist “bunker” in question.

Please don’t poke the mayor – Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson found himself criticized in light of calling George Bemi’s award-winning Ottawa Library a “Stalin-ist bunker”. Watson’s rebuke wasn’t so elegant, but the following debate explored how contemporary ideas of wellness and accessibility requires real investment in restoration and renovation.

Here in Toronto, Mayor John Tory was sent an open letter by a large contingent of the city’s urbanist intelligentsia, protesting his decision regarding REimagining Yonge, a proposal that would see changes to the streetscape in North York Centre. In short, the Mayor Tory has suggested a scheme that costs approximately $20 million more and retains the current number of car lanes, while the recommended plan (that has the support of city staff and the local councillor) removes one lane in each direction to add things like wider sidewalks and bike lanes.

2

A rendering of Google’s plan for Quayside. Image courtesy of Sidewalk Labs.

Big data city – Sidewalk Toronto, the massive project from Alphabet (aka Google’s parent company) proposed for the Waterfront, held two public roundtables late last week. It’s the first of many such meetings, where the public’s input will help shape the face of the development. For some context, over on Spacing, John Lorinc broke down the history of consultation on Toronto’s Waterfront.

Also released as a component of the meeting was a new app that maps historical photographs from Toronto’s archives all over the city. The initial reaction was largely positive, but as people used it, glaring errors and other issues provoked questions as to whether an incomplete but high profile app devalues the hard work of Toronto historians.

Google’s use of data on the site also came under scrutiny. Their mission is a bit of a tough sell as the public comes to terms with the Cambridge Analytica big data manipulations and Uber’s self-driving fleet killing its first pedestrian. I predict there will be some sort of larger reckoning as North American cities come to terms what it means to be part of a living lab. Arguably, social and economic theory has been tested in a living lab since organized government has been able to mandate policy, but I concede that argument is hard to make when crushed under 5,000 lb of autonomously propelled steel.

Now I’m truly on a tangent – but ICYMI here’s a compelling New York Times’ visual opinion piece on why autonomous vehicles may not benefit city design.

3

Shigeru Ban and Brock McIlRoy’s proposal for the new George Brown campus building, to be made from wood.

TIMBER!!! – George Brown has released renderings of the four designs proposed for a wood structure at its Waterfront campus. Contenders will present their designs on April 27. Early reactions on Reddit featured the eminent authority of internet commenters who worry this building is going to be destroyed by an errant cigarette butt before cooler heads prevailed – the entire thread is interesting exercise in individuals educating each other on a new building type.

Who are the players?

Moriyama & Teshima and Acton Ostry: Moriyama Teshima has historically provided Toronto with solid institutional design dating back to the Toronto Reference Library – a project that is still capturing cultural imagination. Acton Ostry is BC based and  recently completed an 18-storey wood tower there.

Patkau and MJMA: Patkau is BC based research/design firm, with a focus on institutional work like the recently completed Audain Art Museum. You might know MJMA for their community and athletic centres locally. MJMA won RAIC’s firm of the year in 2016 and has been putting out consistent institutional work for some time now.

Provencher Roy (this is a link to ArchDaily; as of this writing the firm’s website appears to be down and redirecting to ads) and Turner Fleischer: Provencher Roy is a Montreal-based firm and I personally am stoked to see some representation from Quebec. They recently won the National Urban Design Award from the RAIC in 2016. To my knowledge, Turner Fleischer is known for condominiums and big retail (like high profile Loblaws projects). Not to speculate too much, but their newly rebranded website and presence on this team might signal something.  

Shigeru Ban and Brook McIlroy: Arguably the team with the highest profile international firm on it. Shigeru Ban is a Japan-based firm with wood and design accolades – here’s their design for the Aspen Art Museum.  Brook McIlroy has done a lot of institutional and urban design work, and recently got a nod from the Wood Design and Excellent awards for their work on The Orillia Waterfront Centre.

Michael Green Architecture had some big news earlier this week with a mass timber complex being proposed stateside. Green set the record for largest mass timber project with T3 at 220,000 sq ft – this one more than doubles that. For those who don’t know him, Michael Green’s work has created a lot of momentum for tall wood buildings, with a popular 2013 TED talk that still inevitably comes up every time you mention the subject.

If you want to see some engineered wood here in Toronto relatively soon, The Star recently published an opinions piece by Christopher Hume featuring 80 Atlantic and its developer, Hullmark (full disclosure: I work at Quadrangle, the firm designing this project). The project is currently a hole in the ground but the structure is coming soon. And, while not wood, just a down the street Sweeney and Co. has another commercial complex coming.

4

Run the numbers – Realtor David Fleming broke down the costs and profits of the average Toronto developer. It’s a thorough take and worth reading. If you scroll down to the comments and you can see for yourself that the results basically proved what many already know: some people think developers make too much money and other people don’t think they make enough.

Mike Rosenburg, out of the Seattle Times, took a shot at patronizing millennial financial advice by noting that Seattle housing has gone up $266/day on average, meaning you’d have to give up 33 pieces of avocado toast every day to keep up. Apparently Curbed has also been at it with an entire instagram devoted to the subject. How does Toronto fare? Using TREB’s data from Dec 2017 and April 2016 in this CBC report, it looks like home prices across all types, on average, $521 every day. Assuming avocado toast is about $12, in that time period that’s:

43 avocado toasts/day

(Please check my math.)

Filed under urban design, Another Glass Box, Architecture, avocado toast, George Brown campus, Jim Watson, Ottawa Public Library, Sidewalk Labs, timber, wood, wood buildings

Share

    

Report error · Send a tip

Listen to the Latest Podcasts from Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers

Contact Michelle Kudlats at Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers

Read More

[nemolian]

The Death of Bon Appétit Is Proof Media Companies Have No Idea What Makes Videos Work

There are a zillion reasons why I have been mourning the Bon Appétit Test Kitchen. The one that hurts most is that the slow, drawn-out death of one of the most joyful YouTube channels on the internet could have easily been prevented.

If you haven’t been keeping up with the drama, the shit first hit the fan on June 8, when writer Tammie Teclemariam tweeted a photo of then Bon Appétit Editor in Chief Adam Rapoport in brownface. What followed was an explosive public reckoning as several staffers—those who appeared in videos, those behind the camera, and some at the magazine proper—recounted stories of racism, tokenism, and unequal pay at Condé Nast, Bon Appétit’s publisher. Rapoport resigned. Condé Nast Vice President Matt Duckor also left after racist and homophobic tweets (from as recently as 2014) were unearthed. (Duckor has been employed by Bon Appétit since 2011.)

The first part of this saga ended with Bon Appétit posting a pledge on its Instagram to “do better” in reckoning with its culture of racism, sexism, homophobia, and harassment, and assured viewers of a future with more “inclusive programming.” Still, BA had effectively gone dark on YouTube—not because of the pandemic, which the crew successfully figured out how to safely shoot videos in spite of, but because staffers refused to appear on camera in solidarity with their underpaid colleagues.

Things were silent for a bit and then on Thursday, three beloved Bon Appétit stars—Priya Krishna, Rick Martinez, and Sohla El-Waylly—announced via their Instagram and Twitter accounts that they would no longer appear in BA videos because, as you might expect, the corporate suits at Condé Nast Entertainment wouldn’t pay them what they deserved. Soon, BA favorites Molly Baz and Gaby Melian also said they would no longer be appearing in videos as a result. Then yesterday, Carla Lalli also announced that she was leaving BA video. That brings the number of staffers who’ve quit making videos up to six.

G/O Media may get a commission

This is a woefully incomplete recap of issues plaguing what was once a wholesome oasis in the endless barrage of bad news and irony-poisoned memes that now make up the internet. It doesn’t take a genius to suss out that Condé Nast Entertainment is killing a hyper-successful video channel because profits are more important than equitable pay. Compensating these staffers fairly isn’t likely to make a huge dent in Condé Nast’s profits, especially when you consider that Bon Appétit had been irrelevant for years before this group of unlikely video stars came along. Perhaps, Condé Nast is more afraid of what else the staffers will ask for. But regardless of why Condé Nast is being so stubborn, something in Lalli’s tweet was a literal shot through the heart for anyone who has ever produced or starred in a video for a media company.

After describing a once-organic process where people got to pitch their ideas freely and videos were often shot by a one-person crew on a small budget, Lalli then traces an all-too-familiar change in process once BA’s videos began to take off. “By that time, video-related revenue was integral to Bon Appétit’s budget, and [Condé Nast Entertainment] relied on algorithms instead of instinct when determining who could appear in videos. Content decisions were largely data-driven. The editorial team had diminishing influence over video strategy,” Lalli claimed. “I felt that the expertise and interests of the hosts was less important to the decision-makers than platform-specific trends.”

Smarter people than I have weighed in on the systemic racism that’s rampant in food media. But I do know something about making videos for media companies with half-baked plans to “pivot to video.”

Videos are a labor of love. It’s common knowledge that TV and movie productions take months, if not years, to plan and execute. For some reason that acknowledgment flies out the window when it comes to digital media. “How hard could it be?” the publishing executive in a bespoke suit muses. A five-minute video should only take, what, four hours to produce, shoot, and edit? Why not pump out two, three, four, five videos a day? And if a “good” video takes that long to produce, why not opt for “easy” videos that we can shove out the door? After all: more videos, more ads, more money. And that’s really what’s driving it all, in case you’ve never been in the rooms where these decisions are made—advertising sold against video content commands a higher rate than traditional web display ads. It’s absolutely that simple.

To anyone who’s ever been involved with making a video, this brand of c-suite thinking is pure comedy. Hosted videos often involve scripts, written by a video producer and sometimes the on-screen talent. They involve pre-production: creating shot lists, buying props, and brainstorming how best to express a concept with whatever resources you’re given. They involve nuts and bolts decisions like lighting, framing, and set-up before anyone ever steps into the studio. When you actually get around to shooting, there’s no such thing as a single take. You film, saying the same things over, and over, and over again until you get what you need, and then, one more time for safety. After that, it can take forever and a year, depending on your internet connection, to upload footage. Video producers are like marathon runners—they sometimes sit hunched over their computers for 18 hours at a time (usually in “editing bays” that are glorified closets) just to get a first cut done. Sometimes, you have to reshoot bits or re-record audio. Sometimes an editor gets picky with second-round edits. In short: a two-day turnaround for a lean crew is speedy, and likely means multiple people have pulled long hours to make it happen. Two videos a day? You’re asking someone to work themselves to death. Because these days, media executives aren’t exactly keen on providing resources or hiring the staff necessary to lighten the load.

This is true of Bon Appétit’s videos, too, and why the refusal to pay people what they’re owed is so infuriating. Make no mistake, as effortless and freewheeling as BA Test Kitchen videos appear, it requires a small army to keep these videos going. That Bon Appétit’s video crew was obviously having fun at the same time? That’s what made their videos so aspirational for the rest of us.

This is what media executives don’t understand. To them, videos are a vehicle for ad dollars, whether readers want them on not. Executives like to think that if they can game the numbers just right, they’ll have impressive figures to show advertisers, and a fistful of Benjamins to line their pockets. They’re not thinking about why anyone would want to watch these videos. As for paying people equitably for their labor—why would they when they can pay a contractor for the same amount of hours and skip paying the healthcare benefits?

Silicon Valley has hyped algorithms to be infallible arbiters of data-driven truth, but anyone who’s been on a bad Tinder date can tell you the limits of that. Data without context isn’t much of anything. Analytics are meant to guide content creation—not define it. Did Condé Nast’s algorithms foretell just how quickly Sohla El-Waylly would capture the heart of BA fans? Not likely. To hear El-Waylly tell it, she was shoved in front of a camera to make BA appear more diverse. That she became as popular as she did was because El-Waylly was delightful to watch and could cook like a motherfucker. Did the algorithms predict that challenging a neurotic pastry chef to make gourmet versions of snack foods would be a hit? Probably not. That sounds a lot like editorial staff shooting the shit and deciding why the hell not? No machine would possibly know a tall weirdo who can barely finish a sentence trying to ferment various foods would be beloved by millions. They watch because Brad Leone is hilarious, and the shady choices that BA’s video editors make are also a hilarious meta-story in and of itself. 

What I’m getting at here is that people are what make videos work. People—given the license and resources to have fun—are the reason why viewers hit the play button. People are the reason why you hit that like and subscribe button. Even as BA grew from a sleeper hit to its own cinematic universe, what kept it successful was that the human element came through in moments congenial, frustrated, heartbroken, petty, and embarrassing. No one watches BA Test Kitchen because they’re fans of Condé Nast, or want to see Condé Nast succeed.

It’s heartbreaking, then, to watch BA’s staff fight to make things right, to see their fans vocally and passionately support them in that fight on every conceivable platform, and know that Condé Nast does not give a fuck. It’s depressing to know that the people who made the BA Test Kitchen magical are not the ones who get to decide its future; that the best most of them can do given the circumstances, is to walk away, knowing their bosses see them as barely more than a rounding error.

It doesn’t have to be like this. The solution is right there in plain sight, for everyone with a pair of working eyes to see. It’s like this because the adults in the room don’t care: They barely understand what they own, and hardly notice when they sign its death certificate.

via:Gizmodo, August 13, 2020 at 11:27AM