That which you do for me….

Well, that's another 90 TED talks wrapped up in Vancouver last week. Sitting back and trying to sift through there are a few sharp pointy rocks which stick out of the sand dunes.

The one I keep going back to is "That which you do for me…. which you do without me…. you do to me." Those were the words of Pastor Jeffrey Brown http://www.recapevents.org He was the last speaker in the "Just and Unjust" session which started with Monica Lewinsky. Sure it was a talk about rebuilding a community devastated by gang violence but leave off the last part of that and what you have is "rebuilding a community" that's the heart and something which touches all of us.

Which brings me back to how the week started- at the Aspen Institute with "Athens to Aspen" Our readings were Willa Cather's "Death Comes for the Archbishop" and Robert Frost's poems for the Kennedy inaugural "Dedication" and "A Gift Outright". The obvious question : what do any of these have to do with each other?

Simple answer, hubris.

Frost is full of it  from Dedication:

" They are our wards we think to some extent 

For the time being and with their consent, 

To teach them how Democracy is meant."

To "The Gift Outright."

"The land was ours before we were the land's"

Manifest Destiny from Vietnam to land management, hubris pure and simple.  (Yeah, want to talk about "entitlement"?)

Follow this with Willa Cather's languid poem to the Southwest with it's oh so easy benevolent Catholicism and you're digging at a  deeper root. There is our Archbishop being very Sun Tzu like,  water taking the easiest path.

His mission is to convert, ever so gently to convert … The wide New Mexico sky seduces you into forgetting and blood disappears beneath the sand.  (Man, do I want breakfast at Tia Sophia's after reading this)

These are both poems in praise of  the will of the Western mind. 

Do we choose stillness and patience sitting quietly in a Pascalian empty room where you wait for the answers to fall like gentle rain? Or do we choose the more active path and insert ourselves into the story? Obviously, the Darwinian answer is "both". 

But, and this is a big but, the endgames between active and passive are quite different.  The core of that difference I believe is  what his holiness the Dalai Lama expresses so well. It is "us and them". 

How do we get beyond something as basic as our tribal tendency to separate into groups?  That's pretty deep in our reptile brains- how many seasons of Suvivor now? Just sayin' 

So, let's forget about trying to become one big group which strives towards the blissfully undefined common good because that ain't gonna happen. Even when we come together because of an exterior threat it's not long before we drift apart again (witness the US Congressional Kumbaya moment after 9/11 and look at it now).  Let's start with the little things- like inclusion.  Let's start with the little things- like listening. Acknowledge the difference. Don't try and change it. Learn from it. 

 "That which you do for me…. which you do without me…. you do to me."

Referendum 1, letter to the editor

Quoting the flier for  the Aspen City Charter Referendum "Keep, Aspen, Aspen":

"All too often, city council is pressured to bend the rules because the  applicant is a nice person, a long time local or otherwise virtuous."

Really? That's how the "Keep Aspen, Aspen"  sees the history of Code Variances in Aspen?

Let's ask the Moss family who tried to expand the Aspen Inn with a balanced ratio of open space to building space. They were monkey wrenched by Council into bankruptcy and foreclosure. In return we got the Saint Regis and Grand Aspen both of which are exponentially larger than the Moss Cantrup plan and have no open space. Next ask the DePagter's about trying to renovate the Holland House. They asked for 9 more rooms. Six years of permit requests later they gave up and sold. Six months after that the new owners bulldozed and we drifted to the "shoot the puppy" years of development proposals which make 9 more moderately priced rooms look damn good in the rear view mirror. For real heartbreak talk to the Paas family. The Limelight is the poster child which Council uses to show the ideal mix of Community gathering space and Commercial yet it was the ping pong permit stipulations from Council which stretched the construction time and the financing to the  breaking point and crashed the project face first  into the Great Recession. The Paas sold to SkiCo. Now SkiCo is replicating the Limelight model, which should properly be dubbed the "Paas Plan",  as a template for other community conscious ski resort hostelries. 

All of these families helped build Aspen during the "non-billionaire" years. All of these families wanted to "Keep Aspen, Aspen" and build a home for their families and their future. No one gave them "special treatment". These long time locals  were pummeled by permits until they broke. Special treatment was reserved for the ones who swept up after them- the developers with endless resources, lawyers, investors, wads of cash and tons of time.

The more difficult you make refurbishment the more you kill our middle class long time local and create a vacuum ripe for the very type of development you're trying to stop. Endless requests for Code variances  are clear indication that the Code is broken. Fix the code. 

Please vote NO on Referendum 1.

The proposed Wheeler Opera House Annex-updated

This is in response to an article in the Aspen Daily News about a proposed Wheeler Opera House Annex

Well I'm disappointed. I can't hide that. I'm very disappointed. The proposal may be "shovel ready" but the main purpose seems to be more office space instead of supporting our Performing Arts Community or any Community for that matter.

I've outlined the continuing Performing Arts Center follies in a previous post  and I'll stand by that. I firmly believe Aspen can become a Performing Arts powerhouse but not by adding more office cubicles. It's a quick way to spend the $28 million in the Wheeler RETT fund so that no-one else poaches it but it does little else.

Some problems:

1. We already have a "black box" theatre.

2. Most "black boxes" get one set of seating which rarely gets changed for the simple reason that changing stadium seating needs a lot of time and labor and that costs money- more money than the average small theatre has to spend on labor. The other consideration is that an swiss army knife concept to theatrical production needs storage. You need storage for all those other configurations. The rule of thumb is 3x the storage space as the performance space.

3. Putting a theatre in the basement means a lot of public stairs and an ADA entrance. Once you've done that you've cut into your precious seating to the point of insolvency.

4. For pities sake if you want people to know you have a theatre in the basement you don't make them walk through offices to get there. This is prime box office store front space not prime copier machine space.

5. This does not offer any community gathering space - something which you will be bulldozing when those ready shovels start digging in the pocket park next to the Wheeler. At very least  you need to replace the park you're demolishing.

Here are plans of a proposal which will work.

1. This plan gives more wing space to the backstage at the Wheeler. The new lift gives easy access to the 3rd story and additional storage effectively doubles the wing space for performance scenic elements.  Refurbishment of the Wheeler backstage should include modernizing the arbors, audio and lighting.

2. A second smaller performance space gives  single performer touring shows and cutting edge experimental production a venue with the same coveted central Aspen location. This will free up the larger Wheeler stage for bigger touring shows and for longer running local productions. The increased variety of performance arts in a central location will reinforce the Aspen core value of diversity.

3. Using the Annex Theatre roof as a public garden increases the social networking value of the Wheeler complex. This also allows the view from Wagner Park to remain consistent with greenery masking the stage right wing addition. Sight lines are shown on "Plate #3 Wheeler Annex Patio".

4. The new Annex provides "pocket shops" for basic production needs. This is not sufficient for productions to be built in Aspen;  but it is sufficient to provide repair and maintenance on site for incoming tours. Backstage support facilities on site and in town allow for educational opportunities in the theatre arts. This supports a variety of interests in our younger citizens and cultivates a new generation of performing arts enthusiasts. 

5. This is a preliminary proposal and is only intended as a starting point for discussion.  Consultants who contributed include Glen Boyette (34 year production supervisor for AOL Time Warner and Turner Broadcasting), Isabel Rubio (award winning wardrobe manager and costume designer) and Allan Trumpler (Art Director on numerous Feature Films, Scenic Artist for Broadway and senior instructor of Film, Theatre and Video production for the University of Colorado Denver). Their expertise gives a fresh viewpoint which emphasizes basic functionality. It is highly recommended that Wheeler staff members and all the Performing Arts organizations in Aspen comment on this proposal to determine if it speaks to their specific needs.

Caveats:

No architects or engineers were consulted for this proposal. The design addresses production issues alone. Should the City decide to proceed with this design structural and code issues will certainly effect many of the items in the proposal. However, the 5 goals mentioned above should remain the ultimate goals. First, a more functional Opera house capable of hosting larger and more modern productions. Second, an additional smaller space which serves the double duty of allowing for a more intimate theatrical experience and freeing the Wheeler Main Stage for larger productions. Third, incorporating a public green space for both artists and audience where they can meet, converse and dream. Fourth, supporting Performing Arts education in our local community. Fifth, inviting everyone into the conversation. The Performing Arts are a collaborative process. That is our strength and it is to that strength we should play.

Update:
I paced the lot and it's 40' so here is the same idea with another 10' of width. This also highlights the inherit problem with the "black box" concept- you need to store all the different seating/staging somewhere…

All comments welcome.

DaDa at City Hall, letter to the editor

Aspen is a town where one vote can make a difference, or at very least  get you into a runoff, so I take my responsibility as a voter seriously. After all, City Council is spending $100 million dollars a year on my behalf so the choices offered had better be more appealing than giving me back my share of that $100 mill along with my food sales tax refund (FYI that would be about a $15.5 K per resident refund). 

City Council is basically a management and oversight position.  Management with vision is a balancing act between practicality and risk.  

Why is our code book thick enough to inflict blunt force trauma? Why does our zoning map look like an order of spotted dick without custard? Why are building heights like a giant plinko board , 42 feet, no 28 feet, no 50 feet where will the height restriction bounce next?  What's the ratio of messy vitality to floor area? Which file cabinet has the wind power contract?  If a parking meter fails in a forest do we only lose half the money?  Why did  one of our planners when asked if we could change the zoning  respond  "I'd rather wake up a bear"?

There is a certain DaDaist quality to City Council meetings. I wouldn't  be surprised to see a melting clock and a man with a rhinoceros head ringing a 2am gong.   

Rhinoceros by Ionesco

When we have  3 hours of public comment on a murphy bed for the cemetery we have a government entrenched in the Surreal. Our surfeit of cash has allowed us to duck out of reality.

That's what I'd like on City Council, a Realist. Convince me that you can take the helm on our 15 department bureaucratic juggernaut. For instance they could put all 15  department heads without a 80% approval rating from their staff on 3 month probationary notice …. but hey- that's a management technique… no politician wants to purge the bureaucracy…. they'd rather wake up a bear.

Ken Kreibel's bearcam

The intent of infill, letter to the editor

The word "infill" is being flung about as an invective by proponents of the City Charter Amendment  (the ballot initiative which would force building variances to a popular vote). Is infill evil or is the way we have interpreted infill the problem? 

Infill is one of the strategies of "Smart Growth". Smart growth is a middle line between all out no holds barred frothy mouthed rabid development and the implacable phalanx of no growth stone faced NIMBYs. Smart Growth incorporates walkable neighborhoods, slamming the door on urban sprawl, mixing  residential and commercial uses within zones  while preserving open space and farmland. 

Infill isn't only a way of countering urban decay and traffic congestion;  it's a way of increasing density in one area to allow open space in another. 

So why is "infill" a dirty word in Aspen? What follows is a personal opinion.

Did we use vacant land in the City core for infill? No.

Did we replace decaying unmaintained buildings for new vibrant community oriented buildings through infill? No. 

Did we promote diversity by intermingling low cost residential housing with commercial downtown real estate through infill? No.

Did we encourage spaces for small start up businesses through infill? No.

Did we increase our open space through infill? No.

Did we decrease our traffic congestion through infill? No.

Have we improved the quality of life of our citizens through infill? Hmmm…that depends on how much you miss those 'Stube waffles  at the joiners table.

Aam Cafe

Wienerstube

Yet these are all the goals of infill and "Smart Growth". We chose to keep the "build" part of the strategy and ignored the "why" we build and "what" we build part of the strategy. Why did we do that? It couldn't possibly be because "build" makes quick bucks and all the other goals cost time, political capital and money.

This is what we do; we forget the intent of the rules we impose upon ourselves and then we cry foul. Pushing responsibility for 524 pages of land use code onto the voting public will not solve the problem. Holding our Representatives accountable to the intent of the code, that just might work.