It would be Canada's largest housing development. In addition to being a demonstration of land use under Indigenous authority, it'll be a beautiful example of public lands extracting revenue for public good--in this case the good of the Squamish. dailyhive.com/vancouver/sena…
I've been following this for a few months now and what fascinates me the most is, in addition to seeing what Indigenous land use looks like, this is very different by Western standards. You see this in East Asia a lot but not the West.
The homes would be mostly market-rate and affordable for Squamish. The logic from the nation's council is straightforward:
A) Vancouver is suffering from a housing shortage and they want Squamish to live there
B) Being the owners of these homes generates revenue for the Nation.
A Vancouver city councilmember said the density and lack of parking was inconsistent with the "livability" of Vancouver.
But NIMBYs have no power here under Squamish Nation's land use authority
On October 6-7 theres a conference happening based in Montreal where a Squamish representative will present the project. For those interested link below: vivreenville.org/rendez-vous
It's the Tumblrification of Twitter. We have to make takes to deal with people who will read it as uncharitably as possible and/or people too inept who cannot understand that observations isn't inherently an opinion or what common sense is.
I was responding to a tweet asking about discomfort with wives being breadwinners, I noted that (Pew says) the vast majority think of men as the breadwinners, so while it'll be uncomfy, its good that this norm is dying. Then like 10 people act like I wouldnt marry a higher earner
So I have to re-tweet the same take but with tons of qualifiers and gender studies buzzwords that say the same exact thing, but sound feminist, so the obtuse patrol doesn't get mixed up. This is not how I would have to talk even in my gender studies class.
Even Color of Law got this wrong. The famous HOLC redlining maps were hardly used. The real redlining maps by the Federal Housing Administration that prohibited Black people from getting loans were destroyed and never recovered after a Civil Rights lawsuit governing.com/context/redlin…
The HOLC maps were just New Deal area descriptions of lending conditions written by local experts for homeowner-supporting banks that lent to Black people. Federally backed mortgages NEVER did and those maps were destroyed before people got their hands on them.
This map of Chicago is a rare surviving secret FHA map. It is quite different than the HOLC maps which were always public
I don't have a problem with people hating on 5-over-1 buildings. I have a problem with people trying to pretend that streamlining construction designs are fundamentally Capitalist or praising streamlined Capitalist buildings like Brownstones and Victorians just cuz they're old
You like mass constructed boxes with pretty ornaments on them built by Capitalists and were hated by the architecture critics of the time.
Housing construction standards in Communist countries dismissed unique designs considered inefficient at the goal of mass housing.
Architects under Capitalism: All these buildings look the same cause Capitalists are lazy money grubbers
Architects under a system that prioritizes shelter over the aesthetic whims of the bourgeois (From Russia's most popular Christmas film The Irony of Fate, 1978):
Today I learned I can't say ma'am anymore, I guess. I'm in the store a woman impatiently cuts in front of me to self checkout and I'm like: "Ma'am, I'm next in line."
"Who are you to be calling me ma'am?!"
Me: "Uh."
One of the store clerks found it hilarious and after she stormed out the clerk tells me she thought I was calling her old. So I guess I'm stuck with Miss and Misses except I have to guess if you're married or not which I dont have to do with ma'am.
It's probably best to to avoid ma'am for like gendering purposes but me and the store clerk was pretty sure she was inferring I was calling her old.
Honestly, a 60/40 split in Women/Men college enrollment is pretty shocking. I didn't realize it was that stark. It has to be because boys are under performing in grade school academics. There aren't programs aimed at boys improving their academics so they just drop out.
Feminism talks a lot about boy's issues. It just never gets coverage because the language is not from an average man's POV. Broader liberal society, including men, don't really talk about men's issues at all because the implication is they have none.
This leaves a vacuum open for the right to weaponize these issues but of course all those incels and MRAs blame women for men's issues when feminism accurately prescribes the problem as toxic masculinity but the language and its speakers are easily derided.