Cities

Recently, I read Jane Jacobs’ The Death and Life of Great American Cities and Jonathan Mahler’s Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bronx is Burning. Due to her residence in New York City for many years, Jacobs’ theory is illustrated by the real-life examples of politics, economics, and city planning recorded by Mahler in his study of 1977 Gotham.

Both authors display a strong understanding of history and the events that have led to the current state of New York City. Unfortunately, both possess a rambling writing style that creates many excruciating chapters. Editors have jobs because they do good work.

Written in the 1960s, Great American Cities is somewhat dated; a revision would have brought the ideas up to date. There are some prejudiced comments that no longer apply. For example, women don’t stay at home to supervise children and hiring women to work as elevator attendants in dangerous apartment buildings are somewhat dated. I don’t think that race necessarily equates with socio-economic factors but Jacobs’ treats the two as the same.

Many of Jacobs’ premises are illustrated by narrow examples, instead of studies. Jacobs’ talks about understanding a problem before trying to solve it and lists three types of problems: simplicity (two variables, X and Y), disorganized complexity (countless variables, solved with statistics and probabilities), and organized complexity (interconnected variables, such as life sciences and city planning). The third type requires people to think about problem-solving processes and observe how small clues demonstrate how the larger systems are operating.

Yet until the final chapter, Jacobs does not provide any examples of such complicated problems. Mahler does a far better job showing readers how Reggie Jackson and the New York Yankees inspired citizens, how Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post influenced the mayor’s election, and how neglect by police and politicians incited the rage and frustration of the riots in Harlem. Great American Cities often takes five pages to describe how street-lights should favour buses; Bronx is Burning jumps from issue to issue at a sometimes frenetic pace, which is welcome because it seems to symbolize the organized chaos of New York City.

Both show, sometimes comically, sometimes tragically, how too many levels of government botch projects because of comical misunderstandings. Jacobs recounts how several public housing buildings in New York City burned down because of a mix-up between three agencies delayed fire inspections by up to a year. Mahler writes about how incompetent unionized management at Consolidated Edison caused a huge blackout during the hottest time of the summer because they couldn’t make key decisions. Several cumbersome entities are shown as creating the economic justification for their existence, rather than serving the people who need their help.

Jance Jacobs believes that cities are complex functional systems of order, not chaos. Despite this sophistication, basic common sense and understanding can be employed to make things better. Diversity is important, cities are integral in raising children and modeling the way, people must have pride in their communities, roads should give preferences to transit and vehicles such as delivery trucks which stimulate economic growth. Don’t concentrate all the interesting cultural buildings downtown because then there will be no reason for people to stay in their own communities. Little things that would still work today despite the age of the book.

Whether a reader reaches the end of Great American Cities (I did, barely) or not, I think that there are two crucial points that can apply to any field. One, understand the crisis and create solutions that address specific problems. Two, “life attracts life” as Jane Jacobs, and whether using technology or cities or something else, people are still interacting with each other and it’s important to appreciate how this energy makes various places, events, institutions, traditions, buildings, etc. attractive and how it can’t be simply removed and relocated somewhere else.

Finally, I can start reading Hitman: My Real Life in the Cartoon World of Wrestling.

Babar is an Example of Bad Keynesian Economics

Though he remains a hero to children worldwide, Babar the Elephant is a terrible economist. Watching an episode of the Nelvana-animated television show documented his monarchy in the Kingdom of the Elephants, it became clear how his fiscal policy is a disaster waiting to happen. Major capital expenditures are required to bring the jungle up to modern standards of civilization and the ongoing war with King Retaxes and the rhinoceroses must be an enormous money pit.

After fleeing to France after watching poachers kill his mother, Babar meets a kindly old lady, who unbeknownst to him is a fervent colonialist. She takes the young elephant shopping for clothes and convinces him of the merits of Western civilization before he returns home. Meanwhile, the previous elephant ruler eats some bad mushrooms and dies so Babar is crowned king.

Aside from the poaching issue, the elephants seemed to be getting along well enough but Babar convinces them to dress like humans and construct buildings like those he saw in Paris. Elephant-sized edifices and bespoke suits must be tremendously expensive and from what author Jean de Brunhoff reveals about their economy, the elephants must have tremendously leveraged themselves. Should a sub-prime mortgage crisis arise, many pachyderms will be left homeless when the banks foreclose.

Babar is a savvy ruler and engages in a costly war with the nearby Rhinoceros kingdom in order to create a few jobs and pass his homeland security legislation. Massive macro-economic spending is used to control the economy of the Kingdom of the Elephants and daily life. The previous “laissez-faire” policy is replaced with a totalitarian regime backed-up by armed guards. These aren’t white or green collar jobs that will create wealth.

It’s probable that a large percentage of G.D.P. is spent on health care. Sure, less elephants are dying of poisonous plants but at what cost? Where is the balance that could be found a generation ago and beyond? In de Brunhoff’s tales, debate is absent and Babar rules with an iron trunk.

Fortunately for Babar, when the system crashes and creditors come calling, the World Bank and I.M.F. won’t hesitate to prop up his regime. Is the average elephant better off due to all of this intervention? Even Adam Smith would have accepted the risks that come from living in the jungle, such as hunters, in order to propagate simple micro-economics among an educated population. Sadly, the average elephant is ignorant, now concerned more with dressing up more nicely compared to their neighbour than natural law and distributive justice.

Where’s a journalist like Tintin or Anderson Cooper to shed light on these problems and keep Babar honest?

Tourney Concerns

Last night’s narrow victory over Belmont exemplified the glaring weaknesses of Duke since J.J. Reddick was recruited in 2002. The lack of penetration and interior presence become severe obstacles when the game becomes a halfcourt contest or the Blue Devils are faced with an athletic team.

Television views have seen this situation unfold twice, during the final regular season game versus North Carolina and the 71-70 First Round victory. When pressured, Duke’s two guard front is neutralized. When Jon Sheyer and Greg Paulus dribble or pass the ball back and forth, several turnovers seem imminent. On the other hand, due their poise, the Blue Devils don’t throw the ball away often. They still throw possessions away when they force low percentage shots.

If the team does not score in transition and make a three-point shot, they have difficulty creating their own shots. Even DeMarcus Nelson and Gerald Henderson get stuck and appear not to maximize their quickness and athleticism. Kyle Singler is not a dominant big-man and would rather shoot from the outside. If outside shooting abandons the team, their motion offense is very stationary, a departure from past championship teams.

Interior defense and rebounding are question marks and the team is vulnerable to bigger opponents (losses include Pittsburgh, North Carolina, and Wake Forest). West Virginia, Purdue, and U.C.L.A. pose similar threats and Duke will not beat all three teams. This year, almost any team in the country with a winning record can beat the Blue Devils.

Yet, the demise of the Duke Men’s Basketball Programme is greatly exaggerated. Coach Krzyzewski and the team still lead the N.C.A.A. in tournament and regular season wins over the past ten years. A core of talented recruits (Brand, Williams, Battier, Dunleavy, Deng) rebuilt the team after the 1994-96 debacle and reached four Final Fours in seven seasons. Strengthening inside and wing play in order to curtail reliance on the outside shot will permit Coach Krzyzewski to repeat that accomplishment.

Performance under Pressure, Part IV

A C.I.S. observer suggested that the premature defeat of the Carleton Ravens at the Final 8 Tournament was partially due to the absence of tight games on the Ravens’ schedule. I disagree, specifically and generally speaking.

Although Carleton did not execute well during the last possessions of both regulation and overtime, inexperience did not lead to this poor performance. The team was comprised of largely juniors and seniors who had played close games together throughout the previous seasons. During their run of five consecutive championships, the Ravens had defeated Brandon, U.P.E.I., Guelph, St. F.X., and Ottawa by five points or less. Forty percent of the starting line-up belonged to the Canadian National Team Roster, including Aaron Doornekamp who was named National Player of the Year. In 2007, the Ravens won the title with a poor seed and in 2008 without Doornekamp on the court.

The team knew what to do, having played more than enough basketball at the high school, university, and club levels (to say nothing of the pick-up and practice courts). Like the shooter seeing the defender cheating on the curl who flares or the point guard perceiving the hedge who rejects the screen, the Ravens should have recognized what was happening. Since the final shot was taken by a player who was shooting 4 for 23 instead of a teammate playing better at the time, perhaps it was the coaches whose recognition was out of practice.

Any coach cannot and should not rely on the breaks of the game to temper a team. Practices should account for the majority of competitive situations faced by players. Every drill should be a competition against a benchmark, previous personal best, or another squad. The clock is mounted in the gym for a reason. There will be times when the Blues must overcome adversity and beat the buzzer or when the Whites will run their opponents off the court. The majority of these drills, games, and scrimmages will be close enough and all players - not just the starters - will learn how to handle pressure.

Carleton was fortunate that intrinsic motivation enhanced a number of these situations during their practices; the Ravens are tremendously proud and uncompromising. However any coach can create a similar training, practice, and game environment with extrinsic motivation.

Bemoaning the trip back from Lennoxville and blaming the fact that teams only play at Bishop’s once per year is short-sighted and ignores choices and habits. Teams play thirty games per season, a small percentage of the total time players and coaches are together. Which is ourselves, n’est-ce pas?

Carpe Diem

Brock University’s C.I.S. Men’s Basketball National Title victory on Sunday - following Acadia’s 82-80 double-overtime defeat of five-time defending champions Carleton in the semi-finals - proved again how anything is possible, in sport and life. Any Canadian team would have won out and claimed the W.P. McGee trophy. In fact, the dark jerseys won seventy percent of games played at the Final 8 Tournament.

The odds finally caught up to the Ravens. At once they faced an intransigent opponent, shot poorly, saw calls go against them, and did not recover every lucky bounce. A team can often overcome one or two critical obstacles but beating a great team while playing poorly is usually unfeasible.

Association media pundits would describe Carleton’s match-up with Acadia as a classic “trap game”, a surprisingly tough challenge to face before the main goal. The Axemen’s natural motivations to win the game were supplemented with a desire to avenge a blowout loss from the 2007 tournament. Even with the most physically talented and mentally tough team, playing at home, the Ravens fell short.

Other squads, those who can’t say that they executed every single aspect of the season to the best of their abilities have no recourse to blame but themselves. A number of teams beat the shocking champion during the regular season but none when it counted. Anyone could have won this past year but to attribute the result to fate is a mistake.

Like the N.C.A.A. Tournament, some teams lamented their exclusion from the Final 8 (some more on the Monday afterwards than before). Some teams learnt the hard way how national rankings are meaningless when not supported by wins at the end of the season. But also like the N.C.A.A. Tournament, no team with a legitimate claim to winning the entire bracket was excluded

Coaches, players, administrators, and supporters should look inward and evaluate whether they succeeded in terms of recruiting, skill development, team defence, rebounding, moving without the ball, perimeter shooting, attacking the basket, and strategies and tactics. Winning at the highest level demands severe commitment and there is always room for improvement (certainly balance is important in life but this blog entry is about self-actualization and personal development). Coaches should be at Humber College’s Lakeshore Campus for the U15 and U17 tryouts this weekend, followed by O.B.A. championships and summer leagues.

2008’s remorse and regret should fuel off-season training and in-season motivation throughout the next year. Carleton will certainly be driven to reclaim what they perceive to be their crown. Shouldn’t all teams share this mindset?

The More Things Change...

San Antonio beat Dallas 97-94 last week. Same as usual (except for 2006). Tim Duncan scored the crucial points while Dirk Nowitzki fell short at crunch time. Each team demonstrated how the keys to success lie in the details.

During the penultimate play, Bruce Bowen blocked Jason Terry’s shot. Duncan immediately took the ball out of bounds because he is the Spurs’ worst free throw shooter. He inbounded as soon as possible and since the Mavericks were ill-prepared, more time elapsed and San Antonio had the best chance for points from the line.

Bowen deliberately missed the second shot with 0.4 seconds remaining and Duncan tipped the ball towards midcourt. This action started the clock and increased the time it would take to recover the ball so the concept could have been just as effective had more time been on the clock.

Not all was well-executed by the defending champions. Michael Finley overran a hot closeout, permitting Josh Howard to drive by him and dunk before help arrived. Duncan changed his pivot foot in the paint but a foul was called due to his reputation. Bowen climbed all over Terry but the official passed.

Dallas still shows many of the same flaws. When Tony Parker guard Nowitzki on a switch, Dallas’ star forward did not back down San Antonio’s point guard and post him up. Instead, Nowitzki shot a contested a fade-away jumper with a low chance of success. Dallas still lacks crunch-time shooters and needed to bench newly-acquired Jason Kidd in order to put more scorers on the court.

I don’t blame Avery Johnson for this game but it is clear that he still stands in Pop’s shadow. San Antonio knew exactly what they wanted to do and executed each play fairly well. On the other side, it seems like nobody on the Dallas team wants to take responsibility for making plays in critical situation. Despite ostensibly improving their team, the Mavericks have fallen from first overall to a fifth or sixth place team and can look forward to another long off-season.