My Ambition

Well, I've lost a lot of what was on my computer when it was stolen in August, including some business ideas, some plot ideas, and some ideas regarding what I'm about to talk about (and research regarding historic Chicago cityscapes as well).


Perhaps the most important part of growing up is discovering what you have to add to the world. What drives you as a man? What is your life's ambition, your life's direction? Where are you going to go and how will you get there? By this measure it's perhaps true that most men are children, as women like to say. But truly the most developed men know this is a very important self discovery. More than a woman, a man needs to continually question his self understanding and try to fault his view of himself and his world.

For the past several years my own life's direction has been coming more and more into focus. I'm proud to say my last several major life steps have been informed by my visions for the future.

My family is being constructed, I'm taking seriously my responsibility for putting direction to growth in our marriage. I know what kind of place I want to live in. And above all, I'm honing further my financial road map and investing in my further financial education.

Allow me to put to paper my professional ambition, and what I hope to contribute to this world.

Whenever something is rare, it becomes dear. I think one of the rarest qualities in America is authenticity. It may soon become quite dear. My passion is to contribute to its eventual regrowth via helping to revitalize the troubled cities in America which connect her most closely to her past. America's cities are becoming fashionable to live in again, but as the city becomes a hotbed of innovation again it will need a style of architecture for the new century.

So far this millenium we have yet to see a 21st century style of architecture, much less one that is economically and practically reproducible on the neighborhood scale. It is my very ambitious goal to help create one, and to develop buildings that represent this style, and authentic versions of local styles, in America's most unique places. Historic preservation is absolutely vital, but for cities to become the center of everything again they need to physically embody the new century, new ideas, and new generations.

So far we are seeing cheap imitations of historical styles, as well as a rebranding of modernist ideas as ultramodern minimalist boxes. The problem is mainly that neither of these styles infuse any innovative energy in to their environments, that they both absolutely devalue authentic sense of place, and that both of them heavily depend on QUALITY.. quality that is wholly lacking in their contemporary urban incarnations.

The basic approach I want to take to architecture is a question as follows:

Why does modernism have to throw out traditional architectural styles? Why can't classicisms meld and playfully combine with modernism? And why shouldn't we utilize our modern structural abilities to create truly eye popping little buildings along normal streetscapes? To me, this finally brings something new to the conversation. And it may well be one of the first of what are sure to be many twentieth century styles.

The essential question is: will people still pay a premium for exciting architecture? For quality and authenticity? Will they know it when they see it?

I'll be wagering yea.

And I'll be betting that people will be able tell this builder will be steeped in local styles, that sense of place and deep ties to past architectural trends will make every city's buildings by my future development company unique, endearing, and contrasting. They should deepen the personality of their surrounding city.

This is a naked bet that the Chicagoan wants to live in Chicago, the Cincinnatian in Cincinnati, and so for New Orleans and many other cities.

Like any true creator, I'll do it without government subsidy. I insist.

The Consumers Building

The pending story of 220 S State, the Consumers building.

1. Government buys a whole block and allows 220 S state to sit vacant for years after it was previously occupied and cash flowing.
2. Government details all the historically significant details of the building.
3. Government decides to demolish the building anyway while patting itself on the back for renovating two other buildings.
4. Government claims it supports historic preservation.

On "The myth of male power"

I recently listened to an interesting recording of a men's rights activist. He talks about many of the misconceptions about men supposedly holding more power than women, and all of the ways in which society has been pushed too far to one side by the women's movement, including numerous examples of double standards both under the law and in other areas and also the lack of value society is currently placing on men in general. He also, and I think importantly, highlights some of the male contribution to society and how unappreciated male qualities have become. Additionally, he mentions the misplaced anger at men that the women's movement has aroused in women.

There are many, many nuggets of wisdom as well, such as, roughly similar to something he said, "Woman's strength is her facade of weakness, while man's weakness is his facade of strength." Although I would stop short of calling them facades.

Here's the recording of Mr Warren Farrell.

However, I think he gets a lot of things very wrong, particularly in his prescriptions for our current problems. He suggests, for example, that the old model of codependence in families is outdated, that men shouldn't be expected to be protectors willing to sacrifice themselves, that society's pleasure at male violence is something primitive that needs to be changed, and that men should be allowed to switch in to the female role just as women currently switch in to the male role. He hopes for a men's movement to sort out some of the gross imbalances currently extant (I agree with that part) and then a sort of transition movement for both sexes, which I vehemently disagree with and oppose.

But while I oppose a movement advocating any string of thought as the one solution, as a libertarian I support everybody discussing these issues and learning and coming to their own solutions that work for them.

As for me, and I think for many men (this is why the gender transition thing isn't going to happen and shouldn't), I don't see anything wrong with self-sacrifice for those I love. And honestly, many of the things he's railing against are plain and simple part of man's nature. I'm a man, I've no desire to be a woman, and I don't want a woman who's a man. For me, the traditions that he views as outdated are those by which I want to live my life. Not because they're traditions, but because I think most of them work for me personally. I find that I desire a relationship wherein both partners bring different kinds of self-sacrifice to the table as they give to each other and their new family. I think this is the foundation for the healthiest type of relationship.

Further, I reject Warren's apparent belief that the differences between men and women have societal influence as their source. I think there are fundamental differences between the sexes in the way that their brains and emotions work, so that the feminine and masculine natures have additional reasons for existence aside from mere evolutionary survival. I find that for me, and for the kind of woman I'll have by my side, I'm at peace and happy when I'm the primarily masculine side of the balance. And I hope that my partner will be not confined but enriched by her role in our family. I don't believe in confining her only to that role, but I do believe in its existence as part of the foundation of her end of our shared sacrifice.

I find that the man's role of tireless work in support of the family, and in willingness to sacrifice everything for their protection, is exactly the one I want to fill. Sacrifice is a virtue when done willingly and lovingly. I resent his argument that this makes me a slave. I WANT to play this role, as for me that is part of the definition of manhood. There are other parts of it as well. I'll be the public face of the family, and I may ask my wife to move our family where I need it to go. But I'll be asking my wife to trust me and follow my lead wherever I may take her. How can I do that without fulfilling the role Warren labels slavery??

How can somebody say that my personal definition is wrong or due only to conditioning? I find that terribly condescending. And I maintain that the idea that masculinity and femininity are constructs is absurd and also condescending. My new wife has a feminine soul right to the core of her being. And some women ooze unexplainable femininity.

I think that many imbalances and problems outlined in the recording only exist because of the particular form feminism has taken in America, and that group's propensity for government rent-seeking. For a contrast, observe the Eastern European form of feminism. They're empowered without demanding the masculine role in the relationship.

For my life, solely about which I can speak, I reject a wholesale redefinition in roles. Not everything needs fixing. In fact, if feminism is a first step in a "fix," maybe we ought to consider unfixing things.

Earlier in this blog I wrote about the American Political Spectrum and its peculiarities with regards to the rest of the world.
Here is an even better explanation. It's a key thing that I believe in, and part of the argument for an important future blog post about the differences between corporatism and free market capitalism, which are nothing alike. It's time we realize that it isn't right vs left, but everybody vs the elite. Free business and low regulation results in something completely different than special favors for the biggest corporations and bankers. Indeed, it is the assumption of the power to regulate that allows the people with money to attain these favors. Without these powers, there would be no favors to lobby for.

Redefining the Political Spectrum

The West Side Before the Bulldozers

As per my previous example, the neighborhoods on Chicago's West Side have been torn apart by poor and short-sighted public policy. There is so much devastation at this point that there is little that is left to save South of West Town and North of Pilsen, which is a huge area.

There's a block (I believe perhaps Jackson?) just East of Ashland that stands out as a short stretch which has not met the wrecking ball. It's now a landmarked area. The stretch of Ashland due West of downtown was previously lined with upper class residences and churches. There was an opulent commercial highrise at the intersection of Ashland, Madison, and Ogden. Ogden and Blue Island were previously important commercial thoroughfares in the same vein as Milwaukee. No more.

UIC's campus demolished the neighborhood and truncated Blue Island short of its climax at it's previously vital intersection with Halsted and Harrison. The Dan Ryan was positioned particularly to destroy Maxwell Street's old neighborhood because it housed the poor. The circle change and the highways it connects have severed the neighborhood instead of giving it its focal point as the civic square would have done. The dividing power of highways is clearly shown in the separation of the neighborhood revolving around Canal, 18th, and Canalport from the rest of the lower west side.

UIC was not satisfied with their original campus, and so set about acquiring land to their south for athletic fields and dormitories, ripping down the original buildings and neighborhood while the poor renters living there were left unable to stop them. This area of indifferent expansion was documented by Charles Cushman in the 1940s

Witness the destruction here.

But the cherry has to be the threatening of eminent domain used to acquire the land around Maxwell Street Market and along Halsted to 15th. The university then proceeded to sell this land to politically connected developer friends of Daley, who erected posh (and cheaply built) new condos and dorms, destroying all of what was left of the neighborhood of old, the neighborhood where thousands upon thousands of new Americans found their first new world homes.

Unfortunately this is the story of much of the West side. UIC continues to creep in to Taylor Street. Vacant lots or conspicuously cheaply built new section 8 housing occupies CHA properties, which were often acquired using eminent domain or the threat to us it.

The old transient hotels which occupied the West loop were ripped down for the very corrupt Presidential towers development and for the stretch of the Kennedy near Greek Town.

The city's way of dealing with the aftermath of race riot destruction on the West Side was to subsidize and aid a developer in finishing the job and destroying all the remaining buildings, including an extant stadium, to simply replace it with a new stadium and fields of parking lots which take up over 12 city blocks. More public housing property occupies land to the parking lots' North and their Southwest.

With the parking lots to its East and huge expanses of public housing property to its West near Western, it is no surprise that the neighborhood between Western and Damen is vacant and struggling. Pockmarked with urban renewal within the area as well both near the Ike and along Lake St, it is hard to maintain neighborhood community when it is separated to the North by rail, the South by expressway, and to the East and West with vast parking lots and with vacant public housing fields, respectively. The neighborhood was doomed with a critical mass of failed public housing and now vacant lots and by massive public policy failures on the East and West which created vast troublesome and vacant property stretches on both sides.
The troubles in the area can be seen by the fact that demolition continues on the most intact stretches of Washington and Warren.

There is a map, by Scott Newman, which shows much, though not all, of the area I just spoke about in the years before 1910. It is instructive since the area has changed so much. A look at the neighborhood before eminent domain gone amok and before the planning era gives both a better understanding the change wrought and clearer context to what little remains. For a building and neighborhood is defined by how it speaks to that which surrounds it. The buildings which remain were not designed for the environment in which they now struggle to endure. Without further adieu (click on the pdf link at this page):

The West Side Before the Bulldozers.

This post is to be continued...

Every time I have to buy new blades for my razor I feel like I was ripped off. Really, 30 dollars for six cartridges? You have to be kidding me! I thought there must be a better way, and I imagined to myself a future where I would shave like a man should -- with a knife, not some silly feminine comfort 5 blade piece of crap plastic thing. Anything more than two blades, for the record, is simply egregious.

Voila, I have found the solution! The modern shave is all wrong. It feels wrong, uncomfortable, and ineffective. Well, it seems there is a reason for this! This is not the way men are meant to shave!

Firstly, I've been giving or throwing away any cans of shaving cream I have. I haven't used the stuff for several months. My face has cleared up. My shaves are faster. I use only hot water, but oil or soap works too.
Shaving cream is a racket, like Mr Jeff Tucker says:

The Shaving Cream Racket

Here is a man who says he took Tucker's advice and it worked wonders for his face:

A satisfied dude

But I've recently come upon an even more important part to correct shaving: the straight razor!
Have any of you men ever gone to a real barbershop where men cut men's hair and there's an old style barbershop pole and they shave your neck with a razor?

Yeah, well this is the thing they use. (By the way, Salons are for women, and it doesn't matter if they say they're unisex. Only men should be cutting men's hair.)

This is what men used to shave with before the recent past.

Here is an account of what I'm talking about, how to use it, care for it, etc.

Using a Straight Razor

I've resolved to use this shaving method from now on, no longer shelling out 30 dollars every so often for something which likely costs a sixth of that to manufacture.

I urge you to consider doing the same.

The Valley and Eminent Domain

There was an old neighborhood called 'The Valley' on the West Side, bounded by Ashland on the East to Ogden on the West and from Roosevelt to about 15th street.

It has been wiped off the face of the earth by the UIC Medical District's ability to use eminent domain for expansion. It was once Chicago's most important Dutch neighborhood. There are only a couple of homes remaining, but here are two links, one to pictures of the area circa 1970s and the other an account of childhood in the neighborhood pre-1920. This is a fascinating account, and particularly interesting to me as it confirms my ideas about what environment is best to raise children in. I want them to be surrounded by things that are fascinating and make them think about the world. To my mind, there are few environments better for that purpose than an old urban neighborhood possessing Jane Jacob's ideals regarding urban cultural and commercial diversity.

Here are these fascinating web pages:

photos of The Valley
The Account of Childhood in The Valley during the Progressive Era

Here is another link detailing the neighborhood's last gasps in the 90s. It is easy to understand the anguish a family feels when forced to move from a home that many generations have grown up in. And it is instructive to note the destructive power of government, fully on display on that section of S Ashland. Drive down toward Pilsen and one will find to his West fields of nothingness supposedly waiting for Medical District development..
only, apparently Costco is going to build a store at 15th and Ashland. Seems the medical district wanted to seize private homes for income properties and corporate welfare.

What an ode to eminent domain this is!!! Corrupt? Chicago way? Naaahh. And neither was Maxwell Street's demise either, right?

Poor, poor obliterated West Side. Note that this shit doesn't happen in wealthy areas. Here's the article about the last families:

House on the Rocks

The standard argument for powerful government is the proclaimed need to help the poor and disenfranchised. Here, shamelessly displayed, is their propensity towards the opposite. Nearly every battered and struggling ghetto or "ghetto" (where the term is given by rich outsider NIMBY folks) can legitimately trace its struggles to large scale government acts.

One can go through the map and point to their destructive influence.

HUD
CHA
FHA
IDOT
Daley's vacant property policies
DEA

More on this later.