text:
Weekend links: A city oozing like batter
Those who want to preserve what they see as those aspects of the city's character related to height limits may have valid concerns about a slippery slope or even opening of the floodgates. Once you start carving out enclaves for exceptions, where does that end? At what height? What borders? The solution would be to offer up not incremental changes, but a new, comprehensive plan that is well-thought out, with new limits that will encourage the desirable changes while still preserving the old character that exists elsewhere. One chance to rework limits set over a century ago -- one change that would take the city well into the 22nd Century.
The sleepy 9-5 government town is becoming a city. It's time to consider the changes that will direct growth where it can best be accommodated. Instead of rising up like cake-batter, vertical growth can be directed where it will be least disruptive and positive, relieving pressure on neighborhoods that still offer a different vibe.
It's a conversation that is gaining considerable momentum. Rep. Norton might not be meeting lobbyists on the question, but her statement acknowledges that this is a conversation that is gaining prominence and relevance. When the conversation reaches a critical mass, the city will be forced to consider a change. That's when they should present the federal government with a comprehensive plan that won't be crushed by the thousand cuts that lobbyists can cause.
Wasn't it just a few years ago that GGW hyped some noted urbanist coming to DC for a speech from Vacounver (?) where he would surely blast the Height Act and its supposedly negative effects on Washington. Instead he came, he spoke, and he told us all how lucky we were to have the Height Act which had encouraged the building of a lively, and livable, and walkable city. I seem to remember even David Alpert writing a great piece essentially in support of the Height Act after that speech.
Yes, it's nice everyone is intersted in trying to find ways to make this city even better than it already is, but let's not waste our time on an issue that's already been discussed adnauseum and is already settled.
Let's work on other matters that really do need to be addressed. For example, we have a real homeless problem in the city here. That problem is something where a solution is still lacking. Let's spend some time on that instead of on on issue, i.e., the Height Act, where it's a solution in search of a problem. (I.e., the 'solution' is making very valuable property in already dense areas even more valuable for current owners. The 'problem' with regarding the Height Act issue is pretending the current height doesn't work ... i.e., pretending that the downtown neighborhoods such as Dupont Circle and Logan Circle and Georgetown and even K Street and beyond, are already lively, livable, and walkable.)
Instead, we need to have a consensus that places outside the Old City in the District do not need the height limit.
Wow -- nice ad hominem attack on people who have different preferences than you have.
There's no arguing with such an obvious truth. Also, everyone with any sense of place and taste would obviously agree that residents of those places should be able to park for free indefinitely on the street.
Amusing comment. YOu might want to revisit the CEntral Park example, with the sun-blocking monstrosities of recent years - he says, with his middle finger raised at Donald Trump.!! The neighborhood around Central Park is the strongest argument for a height limit of some kind -- to have sensible regulation everywhere. It's also an example of the need for consensus, since the Trump building went up over the objections of everyone in the neighborhood.
First off, let me say one thing in favor making some valuable properties even more valuable: That would mean greater tax revenue for the city...and perhaps more money to provide services for the homeless. Also, if it's done smartly, providing more housing should relieve some of the pressures that have made DC one of the most expensive cities to rent. There are many factors that play into homelessness, and high rental costs contribute to that. There might also be more money for public transportation and more money for schools, etc,., etc. Remember, it's not just the developers and landlords that will be contributing more money of the District tax base. If more of the workforce actually lives in the District , that would be a a huge boon to the District's treasury.
Yes, the argument over the Height Act isn't new, but there is a new dimension with the declaration that the central core is about to reach maximum build-out. I think this is generating new momentum to the move to reform the law, and urgency that's never been there before. It doesn't have to be a choice between the destruction of community by the scale of unconstrained development versus rigid adherence to the old regime. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. There can be neighborhoods which would thrive with more dense development, alongside neighborhoods that maintain the smaller scale that so many crave.
Perhaps the Height Act could wait until after the city (not just the core) reaches full build-out. Something that's great about the city is there's always a "next" neighborhood, and part of that is the Act. The study in the link showed that DC actually has about as much floor space as similarly sized cities, but it's spread out over a larger area (hence the "Oozing like batter" headline).
This fits better with the pro-Height-Act narrative than the anti-Height-Act narrative. It also means that, as DC grows in population, more neighborhoods will be subsumed by downtown. We're approaching the point where the DC-imposed limits need to be raised to the federal limit, but given the underutilized land around the city and in places like Prince George's, I think we could hold off on the federal limit for another decade at least.
The benefit would be a more European city in terms of development pattern. I'm not talking about the romantic low-lying character, I mean a more mixed-use pattern for the whole city, which takes pressure off transportation infrastructure by spreading out loads and promoting more walking.
by OctaviusIII on Apr 21, 2012 3:58 pm • link • report
As we currently finance infrastructure, electric vehicles present more or less the same challenge, but impose a far higher cost on infrastructure than bikes do. yes, there are problems with relying on the gas tax for infrastructure, but except for a few locales, its not bikes creating those issues.
About those replaced buses. Not sure if there are many bus riders on this blog, but I have ridden on two buses whose frames seemed on the verge of coming apart. I have HEARD many more, passing by. Are these the replacement buses for those that were taken out of circulation because some caught on fire?
Saying that tall buildings are prohibited in DC is misleading. While they are prohibited within the legal boundaries of DC, they are permitted within the region's urban core (Rosslyn, Pentagon City, etc.).
Speaking as someone who lives in Rosslyn, it is far more pleasant to have DC level building around on a daily basis. Is there a good reason NOT have 23 story buildings in Friendship Heights? No, not really. But it does make the DC side more livable than the Bethesda side.
Raising the general height limit to 160 feet to match the current limit on Pennsylvania Avenue should be a no-brainer. That would allow buildings around 15 stories... not 23 that others are suggesting. If that height is sufficient for America's Main Street in the heart of the ceremonial core, then I cannot imagine why it would be so horrible elsewhere.
That doesn't mean that everywhere will suddenly spring up to 160 feet... local zoning and NIMBY opposition will take care of that. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't have the legal ability to do so where it makes sense.
800k people fit in DC when pretty much all of what we currently call "downtown" was mixed-use rowhouses and apartment buildings. Perhaps we would still have more of that residential and historic character left in some areas like Foggy Bottom if buildings elsewhere downtown were actually allowed more reasonable heights. Then again, perhaps not, but we'll never really know now.
And the problem with allowing taller buildings only in the suburbs is that we do not have a regional taxation system. Jobs and residents lost to the cheaper suburbs means less revenue for the District. Those are real economic costs. It's easy to say everything should be kept the same when you're not the one paying for the upkeep.
Buildings on the north side of Pennsylvania were allowed to be 160 feet under a special exception because they are then identical height to adjoining ones on the south side of F Street that are 120 feet.
The vast majority of DC is outside the historic l'Enfant City and hence plenty of space for taller buildings that would presumably bring in extra revenue.
So what? "Special exemption" or not, the law says 160 feet. When you're standing on Pennsylvania Avenue, that's exactly what you get. Nowhere else in the city do we quibble over building heights in relation to the land elevation.
The issue with endorsing higher buildings outside the L'Enfant City is that there is generally little support because there is either not the infrastructure or there is little community support. For as much as those like Harry Jaffe like to say "we should build up to the height limit in areas around transit centers", that is practically very difficult to do. Look at what's happening in Eastern Market, Brookland, and Tenleytown as prime examples.
The idea that somehow we should have to build out every portion of the city before we start to think about changing height limits is the wrong approach. We should be offering height bonuses to developers in exchange for community benefits such as green/park space and transit enhancements. For example, in NoMa, offering developers a 25% height bonus (build up to 160 feet) to their projects in exchange for building public parks. Or, perhaps, using the same bonus offers to entice developers to pay for an extension of the streetcar along Benning Road to serve new developments at the Pepco lot. In addition, allowing extra heights elsewhere may also help take development pressure off of areas that we actually want to remain as they are, albeit lower density.
Families want houses in strong neighborhoods. Which is what Arlington is, parts of Alexandria, Montgomery County.
As Adam L. wrote in reply, looking to the suburbs to provide growth ignores one of the fundamental points of the debate. DC doesn't get the tax revenue from those buildings in Arlington. THis is probably the most compelling reason to change the rules, but there are other reasons to build more centrally. Arguing that suburbs can take the load ignores the desire of business to be in the center or very close to it. Finally, it ignores the efficiencies and the social benefits that would come from increasing the density of the urban core, in the form of greater consumer demand and services provided for them, the relief valve this would provide on escalating rents due to scarcity in the city, and the good things the District could do with enhanced tax revenue.
I'm also with Adam L. in criticizing the argument that we should allow the whole city to build up before we consider raising the vertical limit. I don't think this cake batter approach is a good one. Those opposed to changing the Height Act don't want to mess up DC by building taller buildings, because they like the smaller scale. Locally targeted changes in the height limit would do more in the long-run to preserve the low-rise character of other neighborhoods because it will take the pressure off from the advancing cake batter. I would hate to see all those charming streets in the city with their townhouses get crowded out with big apartment blocks. That's one of the reasons why I think the Height Act should be reformed.
There are plenty of cities that have real middle-class neighborhoods. Unfortunately, it's true that DC doesn't have that now. The houses in DC go to either upper or lower-class. The lower-class neighborhoods are being gentrified with condos precisely because there are no opportunities to build more vertically in more upscale neighborhoods. If we changed that dynamic, we could preserve the family -friendly houses, even as we raise the incomes and quality of life in those neighborhoods.
Your comments ignore the fact that nearly all the growth in DC over the last decade has come as the result of increased development in downtown neighborhoods, particularly apartments and condos in Wards 2 and 6. Wards with predominantly single-family homes grew only a fraction. It's also a bit elitist to suggest that people wouldn't want to raise a family in an apartment building; many would take offense to that.
That said, the entire idea behind building higher in certain areas (as appropriate) is so that we can preserve other areas that want (and should) remain as single-family rowhomes or detached houses. And many developments are including more rowhomes just as you suggest for those who do need more space than they may otherwise find in high-rises. McMillan plans are a good example: http://envisionmcmillan.com/sites/default/files/Conceptual_Plan.pdf
Hey, I am not above offending people. And I don't want to be muzzled.
Please tell me where are these people? Where is the Great Clamoring For High Rise Apartments by couples with one and two and three children? Seriously, where?
And where are the discussions of family living in high rise apartments? Tell me. I'd like to participate! I don't think there are any.
I do not buy your argument at all.
To fundamentally change this 100 year-old game by increasing height limits is to ignore why probably half of the land in DC is under-invested. We should fix this problem first.
I don't understand why skyscrapers in DC would be so wonderful. More tax revenue for the city? Tax revenue would also increase as property values citywide increase. Efficiencies and social benefits of tall buildings in the urban core? See Rosslyn, Pentagon City, et cetera. Cheaper rents for everyone? Raw economics: downtown skyscraper rents are expensive in any city and cheaper rents are always in less desirable areas.
Having density dependent on the amount of infrastructure available to support it (street width) is a good thing.
Even if we agreed that there wasn't a population of families that are clamouring to live in apartments, building high rise apartments helps reduce the financial pressures to convert townhouses into condos, group houses, etc. If the supply of apartments in the district were greater, I would expect the desirability of group house living arangements to be diminished. This would effectively create more housing for the families.
Well, my cousins for one. GGW Contributor Dan Reed for another. Caroline Armijo
in Chinatown probably know a good number of people, as would many on the DCUrbanMom.com website.
But besides your disbelief that families would actually want to live in anything other than single-family rowhomes and detached houses don't you believe? That most of the District's growth over the last decade has come from downtown development? Or that building higher density in certain areas helps preserve more space for other types of housing stock? I think Arlington is a prime example of how both high and low density development can work for the benefit of everyone.
EotR will change too; it's just a matter of time. I have a feeling that it's already changing in historic Anacostia. The biggest issue is that urban fabric east of the river is fundamentally different than the types of areas that have experienced the most growth in Wards 2 and 6. The area East of the River has a more traditional suburban layout of single-family homes on long, winding secondary streets. And there's not really anything wrong with that, except that you shouldn't expect to see the same type of walkable developments tied to the street grid that we see elsewhere in the city.
And many of the vacant lots you talk about are not particularly close to transit, employment centers, or other amenities that would make them the ideal candidates for redevelopment. Those lots that are, such as the PEPCO site along Benning Road, will be unable resist development for too long.
Why is street width an appropriate infrastructure indicator to determine density? Shouldn't proximity to existing transit and availability of electrical, water, and sewer capacity (installed or proposed) determine allowable density? This is why the correct approach to increasing denisty should include a well thought out "comprehensive plan" that Fischy referred to previously. Limiting density based on street width doesn't account for the true availability of infrastructure.
They're suburbs in that they're outside Washington, not that they're typically "suburban". But the tax revenue goes elsewhere. And while prices may not lower substantially in the District, there will still be more room for people who are willing to pay them. That's not an insignificant concern for a city where half of the property is tax-exempt as is 60% of the workforce. In addition, it all depends on your definition of "skyscraper" but I (nor do many industry groups) consider a height of 160 feet to fit the bill or significantly change what people already love about Washington.
From developers' viewpoints, of course they want to use every rationale to build more in already successful neighborhoods, residential and commercial. They don't want to take the risk of developing underused areas.
But it's the job of planners and the community to plan development where development is needed, not just to pander to the desire of developers for more access to proven successful areas.
Here is a Congressionally-imposed mandate on what we can do in DC, even in areas miles away from the Capitol and the mall. And yet the woman who runs for office claiming to be "our champion" says she's strongly in favor of it.
I generally support the height limit, but am open to some tweaking of the limit or even considering the granting of limited exceptions in certain neighborhoods. But - unless we're talking about the federal core and its immediate environs - this is a decision that DC residents should make, and not Congress.
I've lived in this region for over 20 years and traveled all over the US and abroad. Sorry, "preservationists" but compared to other cities, height limits haven't made DC "exceptional". It's made the city exceptionally ugly and boring.
The DC Heights Act has squashed architectural creativity and given us a city of of low, squat buildings that all look like tombs, massive tissue boxes, and big-box stores. Very few DC buildings have distinctive or interesting facades.
And the aversion to tall buildings has spread beyond DC. This region is the only place I know of where 10 and 12-story buildings are called "towers" and 15 to 20-story buildings are rare standouts. As a result,the entire region has a sprawling, low-slung, unsophisticated, cookie-cutter feel to it that is horribly boring to look at. Look around. EVERY building, whether, government, commercial, or residential, looks like everything else around it. Even our houses - urban and suburban - all look alike.
The hysteria that we'll lose all our sunlight and never see the sky because of "massive towers". DC will never become New York, even if we allow 50-story buildings downtown. And the notion that eliminating the Height Act will lead to the construction of ugly buildings are totally false. If anything, we can get much better than what we get now - unimaginative look-alike, same-height boxes.
The review process for taller buildings - even skyscrapers - could be made very strict - even more so than it already is - to prevent the development of monstrosities.
In the end, taller Buildings will provide more available space, more people and more tax revenue. And before we hear more of the "DC did quite fine with height limits when it had 800,000 people in 1950", there is a world of difference between today's DC and the DC of the Truman era.
DC has an opportunity to move forward and reap the benefits. Or it can preserve the status quo and keep installing traffic cameras whenever it needs more revenue.
Yes, the District of Columbia once had 800,000 people, but I suggest you jog on over to DCist this weekend for photographs on how that was achieved. Giant swaths of horrific slums - alley dwellings more often than not lacking both electricity and indoor plumbing. There were some vibrant neighborhoods in SW that were destroyed for freeways and awful modernist structures, but there were also those alley "dwellings."
There was a case that made it to the Supreme Court regarding this area, and Justice Douglas - in his opinion - used figures from the then most recent census to show how so few residents in the affect census tract had the most basic amenities including heating, plumbing, or electricity. He supported taking and razing.
Also, you might want to read David Brinkley's "Washington Goes to War." In it,
he recounts how so many young women found housing in Washington during and after World War II. Many actually rented rooms and beds in shifts, especially those who had wartime jobs at night.
And, of course, subletting of basement apartments or taking in a boarder was encouraged as part of the war effort, as well as a way to supplement income.
The 800,000 figure is interesting, but some of the anecdotes behind it tell some memorable stories.
DC also doesn't need to increase height to increase its density which, at 10,065/sq.mi., is already on par with or greater than the other major Mid-Atlantic/Northeastern cities including Baltimore (which itself was around 10K only thirty years ago). In many ways DC is more urban than other cities with similar densities, since instead of having a few skyscrapers clustered together, DC has a much greater number of highrises of more moderate heights. This is the main reason for those "canyons" of office buildings downtown. Also, DC isn't going to run out of space anytime soon. NoMa is chugging along very well, and there are many other areas that could use redevelopment in the city, but don't get me wrong I'm not saying we should tear down rowhomes or start construction in Rock Creek Park.
The only valid reason for taller buildings in DC is to lower the cost of living, but the effect of taller buildings would hardly make that much of a difference.
We should definitely maintain the status quo. DC is unique to this country in many ways and should remain that way. I mean Friendship Heights and Silver Spring have plenty of existing high rises (and more under construction) and are right on the border on the Red Line; Bethesda is about 5 min up Wisconsin from the DC line and Rosslyn is right across the river, again both centered on Metro stations. If you really must have 400ft skyscrapers in your life though you can move to Baltimore or Philadelphia.
Done and done.
Plus, they're a declining slice: only 1/15 of new households in the entire region, 2005-2010, are married couples with children. 93% of the demand for new housing is coming from NON-families, many of whom would like to live in apartments.
When DC had many more people most of the townhouses in the Old City had 3 or 4 units per house. Today many of those have 1 renovated unit with 1 or 2 residents. Often one of those sits on their computer whining about how DC needs more density.
Paris has many times the density of DC with a city-wide height limit of 6 stories. People expect less square footage to live in the central city other places and people in DC have to come around. Our existing townhouses can easily be converted into 3 or 4 units each and with the additions already allowed more units can be added.
Building more urban horizontal McMansions for the well-heeled where one person will live in over a thousand square feet in an expensive high rise doesn't help density much.
I think DC's defacto system of encouraging more renovation of neglected neighborhoods, instead of raising the height limit in already successful ones, works well.
go to arlington, falls church, etc. Few people are going to squeeze a family into a condo in DC when there are condos nearby in places with better public schools.
"Paris has many times the density of DC with a city-wide height limit of 6 stories. People expect less square footage to live in the central city other places and people in DC have to come around. Our existing townhouses can easily be converted into 3 or 4 units each and with the additions already allowed more units can be added"
In general Americns won't accept the densities Parisians will - and I'm not even sure the conversion you envision is legal in most DC neighborhoods - and I strongly think its not desired there. It certainly doesn't sound compatible with the townhouses being a resource for families.
Has everyone completely given up in DCPS?AA
"Paris has many times the density of DC with a city-wide height limit of 6 12 stories."
"The height limit for buildings in Paris is 37m (121ft)" There. Fixed it for you.
* Maintains historic views, character, and sunlight
* Promotes development in underdeveloped areas
* Preserves the number of highly desirable rowhouses and SFHs
* Increases the overall level of development which increases tax revenue, jobs, and amenities
* Creates additional condos/apartments which are more affordable than comparable rowhouses/SFHs
* Increases opportunities for new and different types of architecture
* Myth: DC can't accommodate 800K people without allowing greater height.
The thing is that there is heavy resistance to building the city further out. Brookland doesn't want more retail or density near its metro station. Similar initiatives have been fought to a standstill in Tenleytown and Friendship Heights.
What may help is to ease some of the Height Act requirements in areas where there is not the same resistance to density. This would have the added benefit to other DC residents of easing pressure on their own neighborhoods, allowing them to remain the sleepy commuter suburbs they want to live in.
Really, been to Loudoun County lately?
I mean within the borders of DC, which should have been apparent from the context of my comment.
There is a plan to raise the height limit in Paris to much greater heights. But only in the outer arrondisements. No one would ever suggest high rises in central Paris.(Tour Montparnasse cured that quick).
Haussman's Paris plan and the l'Enfant Plan are incredibly similar. We can learn a lot by looking to how Paris has managed to keep it's urban center dense and yet livable.
Yes, much of central Paris has those 6-story Haussman buildings but that's also part of the problem. There are no neighborhoods like Spring Valley, Brookland or Hillcrest. There would be few of our iconic rowhomes. Much of the city would be 6-story buildings covering every available piece of property. While that approach may be favored by those that want that cake batter development, that's not exactly desirable to many. In addition, while Paris can create its built-up business districts on the outskirks of the city, unitary taxation systems ensure that the central areas are not set at a total disadvantage.
To me, views are things I look at. That is, if I'm looking at the Capitol Dome, I'm likely looking at it from the ground and I'm looking toward it down a street. The street is framed by buildings. Taller buildings won't obstruct that view at all.
Likewise, if I'm looking at the city from afar, I can't tell if the buildings are 10 stories or 12. What I can tell is that they're all about the same height.
I just want to make clear that these are two very different things from a policy perspective. Maintaining DC's 'flat' skyline while adding density and height is perfectly do-able and reasonable. It won't harm views down street corridors. It won't change the image we have of DC, either. As noted, some sections of PA Ave already are built to 160 feet. If the limit were uniformly 160 or even 200 feet, this wouldn't be an issue. Similarly, if DC's standard had always been 200 feet instead of the current limit, no one would notice. There's a severe status quo bias.
If you think people in the US are going to go for living in 195 square feet then preach it! Paris density, baby!
Heck, I think you'd be hard pressed to sell people on 400 square feet.
You can get to very high densities (greater than half of Paris density) without going crazy - these densities already exist in Dupont Circle. Row houses along the streets and at most corners you have a bigger apartment/condo building. This is doable in lots of places in the city but of course the usual suspects will always rage about TRAFFIC!
Increasing the height limit around the edges of downtown would allow for more office space in the core, which is good for smart growth (easier to structure public transit service, easier to find a place to live if both people work in the core, etc.) Increasing the height limit would probably mainly affect commercial properties (perhaps there would be some residential increase around the edges of downtown where there is residential too).
But as someone else said, a good start would be increasing the density allowance around Metro stations in the city to ensure that we're actually maximizing the capacity those stations can handle. The real problem isn't that we can't build high enough, it's that the density is too low and companies have to jump through a bunch of community hoops to build something worthwhile. See the Hine project (like 200 feet from the Metro) or the project at 14th & Wallach (also like a block from Metro) where the community hems and haws for years about one story or a few units and setbacks etc. It's just a game to try to preserve the status quo at all costs - even if the status quo is a hideous carryout.
That's why we need the zoning rewrite, so we can figure out what densities/uses are appropriate where and not make everyone jump through hoops to build things that benefit the city.
Congress Heights, Capitol Heights, Deanwood, Benning Road, Anacostia and Minnesota Avenue. All the EOR areas where development is sorely needed and welcomed. Office towers mixed with residential units would be wonderful there. But it has to have an incentive- like higher heights- because local developers don't want to go there.
I work near the Navy Yard metro. We have a grand total of one metro line, the Green line. Great if you live in Congress Heights or Petworth. If you live in Virginia on the Yellow line, or one of the bus lines to the Pentagon, the transfer can add 10 minutes or more to your trip. One reason a lot of folks here drive to work. Similar issues for Marylanders commuting to Orange line arlington, etc.
Sure these are better places for encouraging transit commutes than a campus in Loudoun or Frederick, but its NOT the same level of convenience to the entire regional work force as is the center of DC. Places where metro stations have 2 or 3 or (L'enfant) 4 metro lines, occasionally with commuter rail as well.
batter is far from a perfect substitute for higher density at the most desirable locations.
You'd think. But that's not really the case, and not really the problem. Walk up Connecticut some day and take a look at St. Matthews and how what was a monument is not overshaddowed by buildings higher than it .... litterally by the monuments of commerce. You get the same thing in NYC but worse. Even the highest monuments get overshaddowed by buildings ... buildings that for the most part are nothing more than steel structures with walls of glass hung from them. Buildings that, unlike real monuments, are meant to last maybe a lifetime, but never for eternity ... as a monument is. And that's the problem. If you allow the buildings to go higher, you end up overshadowing all the monuments that ARE this city ... and the monuments, and monumental views, involve far more than looking at the Capitol buidling. A monumental city has all sorts of monuments. What about Union Station? It's place and prominence as a monument is currently threatened by a developer's trying to play with the rules as to where 'ground level' get measured. If they're successful, the beautiful icon Union Station will be overshadowed by some disposable glass curtained block-like office building. And if you're successful in raising the height limits, hundreds of other monumental sites within our fair city will be similarly threatened.
Unlike NoMa or SW or the Capitol Riverfront, none of those areas are adjacent to downtown.
Sure, they're all good candidates for dense development. But they're not substitutes for the kind of office and employment growth the downtown core will need in the coming years.
Development isn't actually like cake batter. It's not as if you take some away from here and put it over there. The economics change. Those EotR areas aren't likely to be huge office attractors anyway. They could be good for residential, but that doesn't address the office issue.
I'd be interested in a Canary Wharf or La Defense area, but you can't just pick an underdeveloped area and then say 'this is it.' The associated investment must be made. Canary Wharf, for example, was catalyzed by a huge investment in a Tube extension and as the hub of the Docklands Light Railway system.
The larger point is that the idea you propose is faulty - just because some areas haven't seen development yet isn't a good explanation for why more density in the core is unwarranted.
If anything, more density in the core will make those close-in but underdeveloped neighborhoods more attractive, since they're now closer to more stuff than they were before, all else being equal.
Even the highest monuments get overshaddowed by buildings...
You're moving the goalposts. I was talking about views and street corridors, not about shadows.
"What about Union Station? "
Why does this make me think of the old office buildings around Grand Central Station in NYC, some of them about 100 years old now?
batter is far from a perfect substitute for higher density at the most desirable locations.
Right on.
This is the broadest point to be made - the height limit has costs. We're already incurring those costs right now. As the city continues to grow in the face of strong demand, the costs will rise.
Now its not about the uniqueness of DC, but arguments against hirises in any city.
I often wondered why Philadelphia was allowed to build up so much around Independence National Park, marring the historic sightlines. Surely Congress can control private development that abuts public property to preserve an area vital to our national identity. Who wants to start www.TearDownPhilly.org?
At that point the solution will lie in building a really good multi-nodal public transportation system that will connect all the little downtowns of the region like Tysons, Bethesda and anyother's deemed smart growth. Why did London create the Docklands or Paris create La Defense? Becasue they feel modernist skyscrapers are incompatible with 6-8 story urbanism. Why do they think that? Answer that question honestly and you might find a good solution to this height problem.
"At that point the solution will lie in building a really good multi-nodal public transportation system that will connect all the little downtowns of the region "
That suggests an answer or at least a way of looking at the answer, doesn't it?
when someone suggests 60 story buildings, the alternative is nodes with 40 story buildings, with intense transit service.
When people are suggesting 20 story buildings, is it realistic to expect that level of transit service for 10 story buildings? The economies of scale for transit mean that the arguments are NOT the same as the height, and density, increase.
Also, IIUC none of the argument really apply above 70 stories or so - at that point issues with elevators, constructuion costs, etc mean that straight economics almost never dictates higher buildings - they are usually built for prestive, either for the anchor tenant, or for the municipality.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 23, 2012 10:39 am • link • report
If the economics of elevatiors etc. set a (hypothetical) height limit at 70 stories, wouldn't another technological inovation similar to improved elevators raise that limit?
If there's an economics of scale argument for transit, why are there well used transit systems for 6-8 story Paris as well as skyscraper ladden New York city?
I think you're needlessly complicating the question I was asking. Technology and transit can be designed to handdle a variety of conditions (optimally). My question given that assumtion is what other metrics ought to dictate ideal height limits.
If the economics of elevatiors etc. set a (hypothetical) height limit at 70 stories, wouldn't another technological inovation similar to improved elevators raise that limit? "
Sure. And improved tunneling technology could mean different economies of scale for transit. And computer driven cars powered by solar generated electricity might mean that theres no more need to centrally located anything (I don't think so, but I can't rule it out). We can't answer what the economics will look like with game changing technology.
"If there's an economics of scale argument for transit, why are there well used transit systems for 6-8 story Paris as well as skyscraper ladden New York city?"
I think thats been answered numerous times. Its because the residential areas there achieve very high density without a lot of height - A. Because of very low sq ft per person, by American standards and B. most of the residential area being 100% 6-8 story apts, without even townhouses, let alone SFHs. That impacts ridership, as well as gas prices that impact modal choice.
DC now isnt built like Paris. Its not going to get to look like Paris without a transformation that would alters its character rather more than a few buildings taller than the current height limit would, I think.
"I think you're needlessly complicating the question I was asking. Technology and transit can be designed to handdle a variety of conditions (optimally). My question given that assumtion is what other metrics ought to dictate ideal height limits."
It sounds like you won't be satisfied with anything other than an architectural design type answer, unconstrained by economics and technology. My sense is that economics and technology ARE constraining - both in making it harder to achieve a less auto centric region without relaxing the height limit, but also in placing natural limits on how big buildings can get. I don't think we can just hand wave those issues away.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 23, 2012 11:34 am • link • report
If the economics of elevatiors etc. set a (hypothetical) height limit at 70 stories, wouldn't another technological inovation similar to improved elevators raise that limit?
Plausibly, yes. But it's not just elevators, but all of the other systems required to go up. At some point, the marginal costs of an additional floor will exceed the marginal benefit.
The calculation would be different in every city, since the value placed on the additional density is different.
If there's an economics of scale argument for transit, why are there well used transit systems for 6-8 story Paris as well as skyscraper ladden New York city?
Don't confuse height and density. Both Paris and New York are very dense. The whole reasoning in DC to relax the height limit would be explicitly to increase density.
Also: density's impact on transit ridership will actually decrease at high levels of density, mainly because the density puts so much stuff within walking distance that transit often isn't necessary to accomplish many trips. Instead, transit is used for longer trips to meet needs that can't be met in the immediate neighborhood. It's a giant efficiency thing.
I think you're needlessly complicating the question I was asking. Technology and transit can be designed to handdle a variety of conditions (optimally). My question given that assumtion is what other metrics ought to dictate ideal height limits.
I don't think that's a useful way to think about the limit, because that's not how cities work. First, they're far more complex than the argument would imply. Second, cities are essentially large agglomeration economies. Asking what the ideal level of agglomeration is seems to fundamentally miss the point about what an agglomeration economy is.
Simple question why do I care about protecting how people see whatever random monumnet you decide is important? Seriously I don't think St Matthews (which by the way is a nice big church but in no way special like the White House), would be in anyway dimished by if their was a big building across the street.
Your basic premise is that the status quo should always be maintained, I think that is ridiculous and is a contridiction to the idea of progress. Why don't we just stop building anythign and making improvements, lets let things stay the way they are.
I wasn't confusing density and height, rather I was trying to make your point that if Paris and New York are both very dense, why wouldn't we low skyliners vote for a Paris model?
"Asking what the ideal level of agglomeration is seems to fundamentally miss the point about what an agglomeration economy is."
I don't think anyone in their right mind would say cities aren't complex, but one usually simplifies to be able to move forward analytically. What metric(s) should one use to identify the height limit in DC, and how long should we leave it in place until we revisit this question?
Step 1. Determine the FAR, that, under current conditions in North America (and specifically in the inner part of this region), makes a high service transit node feasible, when at (or maybe when close to?" build out.
Step 2. For that FAR, look at the building profiles possible under different height limits. Squat and filling the lot, slightly stepped back, huge plazas, etc. Determine a preferred mix of building profiles.
Implement the FAR based on the economics. Implement the height limit based on the FAR and the result of step two.
Revisit Step 1 when technologies and economics change such as to suggest a different answer. At that time, also revisit Step 2. I dont know, for sure, but probably not more often than every 20 years.
maybe every 50 years, like with the zoning code?
by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 23, 2012 12:24 pm • link • report
I wasn't confusing density and height, rather I was trying to make your point that if Paris and New York are both very dense, why wouldn't we low skyliners vote for a Paris model?
Sure, vote for that model. It will require a lot more than just a height limit, however. Are you up for the challenge of rezoning pretty much every rowhouse 'hood in the city to accomodate 6-7 story development across the board?
I don't think anyone in their right mind would say cities aren't complex, but one usually simplifies to be able to move forward analytically. What metric(s) should one use to identify the height limit in DC, and how long should we leave it in place until we revisit this question?
First, separate height from density. The height limit shouldn't impede density as it does now. Perhaps that means adjusting it or scrapping it entirely.
Second, adjust the regulations with some regularity, perhaps adopting the concept of a zoning budget:
Paris did that for Notre Dame. For one cathedral.
here in DC we have the Washington National Cathedral, it stands out for miles around.
Do we have to do that for BOTH cathedrals? Plus the Basilica up by CUA? How about for the Greek Orthodox cathedral (?) or for Adas Israel?
Note at the time of the Hausmann plan, France had a concordat with the RCC, which was effectively the national church, recognized by the govt.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 23, 2012 12:41 pm • link • report
Implying that the Paris model would work (with the radical zoning re-write) are you ceeding the point that there's a finite if subjective limit to height and density? You're still not dealing with La Defense vs. Tyson's Corner issue as a way to absorb growth. Most cities have many centers, in fact, New York has two downtowns, the financial district and midtown. Why couldn't Rosslyn (amongst others) be the counter point to DC's downtown? Why don't they re-build the area between Wall street and Midtown? Because New York woulnd't be livable and therefore economically not as desirable as cities that strove to balance economic demands with livability. Call it the agglomeration of quality of life if you prefer.
No, I'm not moving the goalposts. The Height Act is as much about 'light and air' as it is about views. And if you go look at downtown Philadelphia, you'll see that they're all very much linked anyways. You are though helping to illustrate my point that once those advocating for an increase in height really understand the issue (and don't for example think 'it's only about the view from the middle of the street') they invariably come around to supporting the Height Act.
I think we saw some of this playing out when the wired streetcar proponents were saying 'but we can have it go down adjoining streets from the Capitol so that the wires aren't seen when viewing the Capitol from the Mall'. They showed they just 'didn't get it' ... I.e., the intention of the Height Act and Overhead Wires Act and ext isn't to leave a few 'vistas' from which photographs can be taken but instead to leave this city as an open sky city filled with sun and trees and everything green you'd think a smartgrowther would want ... except for the few monuments (yes, including churches) which should be piercing the sky giving this city the monument look it was designed to have.
As Thayer mentioned, we have Tysons Corner, and Bethesday, and etc. to take care of the 'we're out of office space' issue ... if it ever comes to be that we really are ...
Implying that the Paris model would work (with the radical zoning re-write) are you ceeding the point that there's a finite if subjective limit to height and density?
No, I am not. I am saying that to the extent such a model would increase the density we have in DC right now, all available data shows that any increase would be beneficial. That's what I'm endorsing - the increase. I'm not sold on any particular model yet.
Why couldn't Rosslyn (amongst others) be the counter point to DC's downtown?
They could be, and to some extent already are. My point is that such polycentricity, particularly without a very dense surrounding residential fabric has large costs. Rosslyn's got Metro, yes, but its connections still aren't as good as Downtown DC's are. Just as an example.
Why don't they re-build the area between Wall street and Midtown?
They could, if the zoning allowed it. New York's zoning currently does not.
Because New York woulnd't be livable and therefore economically not as desirable as cities that strove to balance economic demands with livability.
Desirable and livable for whom? Or, for how many? Let's say more density there would slightly decrease livability. But you've also increased the stuff (either via daytime pop from office or nighttime pop from residents), and that increase in people offsets the small decrease in livability (which I'd dispute anyway).
Therefore, adding density makes it more livable for more people.
Call it the agglomeration of quality of life if you prefer.
But you're not really agglomerating anything in that scenario, but rather hording the increased value amongst a limited (and static) number of people.
[QUOTE]""Yves Contassot, the French Green Party representative for the 13th arrondissement, voiced his party's dissent: "A tower is not eco, to build it requires an enormous amount of energy compared to a traditional building." He argued that the enormous amount of energy needed just to get people and water to the upper floors is five or six times more than that allotted by the "plan climat," the set of environmental protocols France adopted several years ago. Contassot added that the skyscraper as an architectural form is "passé." ""[/QUOTE]
So any piece of high priced downtown land is hording value from the rest of us? We could lower the value of Nantucket by allowing condo towers, or make Georgetown more valuable by re-building it like Clarendon. You're premis also assumes that there shoulldn't be any inequality of wealth in our society becasue not everyone can share in high priced realestate. Zoning is the legal way they keep Greenwich Village from being developed, but the real reason is obvious, or they'd change the zoning to make it affordable for recent Colledge grads and young families to live in the Village...wait a minute, it wouldn't be the Village any more. Hmmmm!
I agree with your premis that increased density would be good, but one has to balance what's worth preserving with precieved gains from a change. I think we're a long way off from risking what so many love about this City when there are so many prooven ways to deal with what you are trying to do. My guess is if they would build beautifully designed stone skyscrapers like they did in the 1920's and 1930's in New York, you'd have more takers, but the reality is we'd get Rosslyn or better yet, Hong Kong. Who want's to live in a forest of glass and steel towers?
So any piece of high priced downtown land is hording value from the rest of us? We could lower the value of Nantucket by allowing condo towers, or make Georgetown more valuable by re-building it like Clarendon. You're premis also assumes that there shoulldn't be any inequality of wealth in our society becasue not everyone can share in high priced realestate. Zoning is the legal way they keep Greenwich Village from being developed, but the real reason is obvious, or they'd change the zoning to make it affordable for recent Colledge grads and young families to live in the Village...wait a minute, it wouldn't be the Village any more. Hmmmm!
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.
Nantucket is irrelevant to this conversation, we're not talking about natural areas or low intensity development.
I have no idea where you got the idea that my premise is one that abolishes inequality.
No, my premise is that these restrictions have costs. The cost is both that the existing real estate becomes outrageously expensive, but also that the prevention of letting the market add density where it is clearly warranted is a cost as well. That demand must be met someplace else, and someplace else is likely not a good substitute.
I agree with your premis that increased density would be good, but one has to balance what's worth preserving with precieved gains from a change. I think we're a long way off from risking what so many love about this City when there are so many prooven ways to deal with what you are trying to do.
I don't disagree, to an extent. We can indeed add more. We must balance interests, and I'd argue the current scheme is not balanced at all - it favors preservation and the status quo far too much, it is not counterbalanced by the need to acommodate our demand for space at all.
You're right that there are proven ways to do it, other than increasing the height limit. - the problem is that we're not doing them, either.
Who want's to live in a forest of glass and steel towers?
Ah yes, Hong Kong. Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded.
AlexB.-Georgetown is the only part with a real preservation board. In the old l'Enfant City preservation often just means saving the facade of the historic building and building whatever behind it up to the height limit. Maybe off-topic but DC's "facadeomies" aren't preservation.
"You're right that there are proven ways to do it, other than increasing the height limit. - the problem is that we're not doing them, either."
If you're good with both strategies, why not focus more energy on the strategy that has the most support, why swim upstream?
If our system favors preservation over the "demand" for space, what neighborhoods should loose their preservation status, Greenwich Village, Dupont? Again, build a neighborhod or architecture worth preserving and my guess is you wouldn't have the need for so much preservation. Till then, you can take those 20 story glass towers to Roslyn and I'll suffer in the amenity desert of Downtown DC.
Because I reject your assertion that adding density and upzoning rowhouse neighborhoods (which is what would be required) has more support. Have you seen some of the NIMBY battles that go on over even modestly dense proposals?
"when we build, let us build as if we build forever, even it means the planet is toast within 60 years"
Unfortunately most increased height and lot coverage is for single occupants who want a sunroom, exercise room, or bigger great rooms.
Unfortunately most increased height and lot coverage is for single occupants who want a sunroom, exercise room, or bigger great rooms."
single individuals, or single families? My impression is that many (most?) single unit town houses in the L'enfant city are inhabited by at least two adults, and in many areas commonly by a family of three or four. Would carving (or recarving) those houses back into multiple dwelling increase the density that much? They would like decrease the diversity of family styles.
Hirises for the singles, OTOH, may make townhouses more affordable to families.
No, we don't really differ. I'll support more density in the neighborhoods, too. I don't think that changes the need to adjust the height limit to allow for more density downtown.
It's not an either/or.
Hi-rises for the singles, OTOH, may make townhouses more affordable to families.
Where is this the case?
Thats only going to be the case where the inner city is desirable enough to attract families AND large numbers of singles. In such areas the townhouses are going to be relatively expensive - and of course more expensive than condos are. But they will be cheaper than IF all the singles crowd into (and subdivide) the townhouses.
In most cities hirises have only been built as the city has become more desirable, so TH prices have risen at the same time. It would be interesting if some city could ban hirises and then legalize them all of a sudden, just to test this theory, but Im not aware of any city that has done that.
Setting the maximum building height is to consider the trade-off between economics and esthetics. Because these two considerations are so different, it will always be fraught with subjectivity. Trying to determine an "optimal" height will frustrate any numerate person that attempts it.
Strangely, it is a lot like the speed limit, which is also a trade-off -- between mobility and safety -- that similarly resists analysis.
Boston? St Louis? San Francisco? Los Angeles, Miami - are any of these cities illustrative of the argument you are trying to put forth? Is that clearer?
Also, you'd be inching us torards a Paris type model, which seems to be a bit more popular than the Hong Kong model, a place that seems to be too crowded.
Someone above said we should not focus on families. This is another serious point of departure I have with commenters here. Of course we should want to attract families. That is what builds sustainable growth, meaningful growth.
I'll try to close my mouth now.
The argument assumes that you're not replacing townhouses with hirises - you'd be replacing retail corridor buildings with mixed-use hirises (retail on the bottom, residences above). Houses only become rarer if you tear them down. The relative percentage of townhouses might go down but the supply stays the same and the total supply of housing goes up.
Houses would be cheaper relative to what they would otherwise be in that city without hirises because people who would rather have something else in the city (a condo/apartment) are not competing for those houses anymore.
Isn't it obvious that if you build more supply of housing in general, that prices for housing will be lower in general? Housing prices don't just go up at a constant rate. They certainly haven't if you look at city housing prices for the past 30 years.
There wouldnt be fewer. You wouldnt tear down townhouses to build hirises (just as we dont do that now). You would build hirises where we build them now - as MLD says, on parking lots, old low rise commercial properties, etc. Just build them a few stories taller. Which means more units for the singles and couples, and less need to do what Thayer proposes, which is carve up townhouses to create apts for singles and couples.
"Isn't it obvious that if you build more supply of housing in general, that prices for housing will be lower in general?"
No one suggests limiting the production of cars or clothes to keep the price down. Housing seems to confuse people.
For the record, I love irises! Who doesn't?
Again, I am just not buying what you're selling.
If an area isn't designated historic, I'd propose up-zoning those areas to mid-rise buildings, areas like TelnleyTown, AU park, Brentwood, etc. I'd also relax zoning to allow for more office nodes. If we're going to need a multinodal transit system anyway, why expect all office growth needs to happen in downtown?
Why would a change in the relative number of town houses due to building taller hi rises on lots where there were no houses, and where hi rises would have been built anyway, make townhouses scarcer?
"Again, I am just not buying what you're selling."
I understand that. I just don't get the logic behind it.
but folks constantly say that hirises make adjacent townhouses LESS desirable, and the larger the hirises, the more so.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 24, 2012 10:02 am • link • report
"I don't think smart growth by itself gets us there. We need to stop thinking of smart growth as a goal but instead as a tool to achieving the more demanding goal of creating better, greener, more sustainable people habitat. If we want to win hearts as well as minds, we need to start paying much more attention to placemaking, to the quality of what we advocate. In fact, I would go further. If we want to deserve to win, we need to pay a lot more attention to making great places. It's not just about the numbers: to paraphrase Gil Scott-Heron, the revolution will not be quantified."
for those who do want to read the whole thing...
I wouldn't disagree with that last graf at all, but here's the thing: I don't think tall buildings inhibit placemaking at all.
No, it's not just about the numbers. But that doesn't mean you ignore the numbers. Again, it's not an either/or.
"it's not just about the numbers" means just that, it's about both! How do you get an "either/or" from that?
You're defensiveness makes it hard to find concensus, which we need to do to get the ball rolling. Hey, at least we broke 100 comments on this thread!
I've read Kaid Benefield's pieces on this before. He's a great writer, but I fundamentally disagree with him on one assertion that he makes (in the paragraphs before your quote) about sometimes needed for forgo some density in favor of a sense of place.
He writes: "They must be significantly more dense than sprawl, but also sometimes forego additional increments of density in order to maintain light, limit noise, provide privacy, and respect a human scale."
I disagree with him on that because I think he's presented it as a false dichotomy; ergo, my comment that it's not an either/or. We can maintain light, limit noise, provide privacy, respect a human scale without arbitrarily capping density.
I say this because in Kaid's post where he discussed those issues, the real issue that impacted the sense of place was not density at all, but some other confounding variable.
You're defensiveness makes it hard to find concensus
Like I said, I agree with the sentiment of Kaid's paragraph that you quoted. We have consensus on that.
The problem with consensus is that it's easy to reach consensus on the abstract things. Maybe I'm jumping a few steps ahead, but density is not the problem that needs addressing.
Add a Comment
- Community stories show the shift to a walkable lifestyle
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Some are pushing to limit sidewalk cycling
- Where is downtown Prince George's County?
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners


text:
Peace Day Pinwheels for Peace
Friday, September 21 @ 4 pm
The International Day of Peace is devoted to commemorating and strengthening the ideals of peace both within and among all nations and peoples. This year we invite school age children to realize a culture of peace for all with us by crafting paper peace pinwheels. The finished pinwheels will be placed in the ground in front of the library to celebrate Peace Day. Enjoy peace snow cones while crafting or watching the pinwheels spin together outside.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Motown Sound – The Complete Albums, Singles, & More (That Motown Sound/Earl Of Funk/bonus tracks)
CD (Item 599009) Motown/Hip-O Select, Mid 60s — Condition: New Copy
A legendary studio musician finally gets his due – as keyboardist Earl Van Dyke steps out in a massive collection of 60s work for Motown – one that features two full albums, 21 bonus tracks, and some very detailed notes! First up on CD 1 is the excellent That Motown Sound album – heavy batch of Motown soul instrumentals that features backings that are often very similar to the vocal versions on Motown – but which are topped with sweet organ solo work from Earl – who has this lean, mean style that's mighty nice – kind of a Jimmy McGriff groove that really fits the soul of the recordings! Most of the backings are exactly the same ones used for vocal hits, but the use of Hammond really transforms them nicely – making the whole record a sweet popcorn soul version of Motown – almost a bit grittier, with a nice sort of backroom jukebox flavor. Titles include "Try It Baby", "Can You Jerk Like Me", "Money", "Can I Get A Witness", "Come See About Me", and "All For You". Then, CD 1 continues with a huge amount of added bonus tracks – some compilation tracks, singles, and more rare bits – with titles that include "Soul Stomp (live)", "Opus & Funk", "6 By 6", "There Is No Greater Love", "You Name It (live)", "He Was Really Sayin Somethin", "Hot N Tot", "Mobile Lil The Dancing Witch", and a massive four-part version of "The Flick"! CD 2 starts with Earl Of Funk – a set that's overflowing with great original tracks, plus some sweet funky covers too! The style here is quite different than Earl's previous work – and quite different from most of Motown too – with a hard-edged approach to the grooves that's much more like the work going on in the funky 45 underground on other labels – especially on the drums, which often snap nicely and give the album a great breaking sort of sound! The set was recorded live at the Hi Chapparal club in Detroit, with audience noise dubbed in later – and titles include "The Flick", "Cissy Strut", "Thank You Falletinme Be Mice Elf Again", "Fuschia Moods", "The Stingray", "The Whip a Rang", "Someday We'll Be Together", and "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye". CD 2 then moves on to include another 8 bonus tracks – a few core instrumentals with vocals stripped off and Van Dyke's organ added in – and a few singles too! Titles include "Ode To Benny B"," Gonn Give Her All The Love I've Got", "Fever In The Funk House", "Greedy Green", "Behold", "Up On Your Feet", and "Runaway Child Running Way". The set features 45 tracks in all – and full notes to finally unlock the mystery of this music! © 1996-2013, Dusty Groove, Inc. |
You might be interested in: |
Related searches:
Ballads: Mellow O'Jays galore – a great set of some of the group's more mature ballads from later years – served up with a harmony sound that's mighty darn nice! The trio really sparkle here – ... read more Soul (CD) 8.99 |
Ballads: Sure, they're a funk act – but Kool & The Gang also have a great way with a ballad, too – and as the 80s moved on, the laidback mode worked just as great for the group as their groovers! ... read more Soul (CD) 8.99 | ||||
One Who Really Loves You/Two Lovers: A pair of incredible early Motown albums from Mary Wells – one of the label's first truly great singers – in a great single set from Kent UK! Mary Wells never sounded better than in her Motown ... read more Soul (CD) 19.99 |
Love's On The Menu/Suite For The Single Girl: A pair of overlooked 70s gems from Jerry Butler – back to back on a single CD! Love's On The Menu is understated genius from Jerry – the kind of record that follows nicely off of his best ... read more Soul (CD) 14.99 | ||||
Love Songs & Other Tragedies (with bonus tracks): A tremendous solo act from GC Cameron – a singer who first rose to fame in The Spinners, but who really sounds wonderful on his own! GC's moved away from The Spinners here – into a wide range ... read more Soul (CD) 13.99 |
Very Best Of Willie Hutch: Sweet funky soul from the great Willie Hutch – best known to most as the composer of the fantastic soundtracks for Foxy Brown and The Mack, but a heck of a great soul artist in his own right, with ... read more Soul (CD) 4.99 | ||||
Only Four You (Japanese paper sleeve edition): A lasting classic from the funky female foursome who were one of the biggest acts on Motown in the mid-80s – working here with super tight production and arrangements from Rick James – who ... read more Soul (CD) 32.99 |
Moving Violation (with bonus track): The cover's a bit gimmicky, but the album's a stone classic – a wicked later Motown moment from the Jackson 5 – and one that has them working with the super-grooving team of Holland-Dozier-Holland! ... read more Soul (CD) 4.99 | ||||
Castles in the Sky (with bonus tracks): Soaring soul from The Futures – a Philly group who'd already worked for years in the underground before cracking the racks with this debut LP in 1975 – schooled strongly in their best vocal ... read more Soul (CD) 14.99 |
Close Encounters/Love Starts After Dark: A pair of great albums from one of the coolest soul arrangers of the 70s – back to back on a single CD! Close Encounters is a cool collection of space-themed club tracks from Gene Page – and ... read more Soul (CD) 14.99 | ||||
Johnny Kemp (with bonus tracks): Classic 80s soul from Johnny Kemp – a sweet-voiced singer who steps out beautifully on this Columbia debut! Johnny's got a sound that's somewhat informed by some of the crossover soul of a few years ... read more Soul (CD) 14.99 |
Hannibalism: An excellent collection of work by Mighty Hannibal – aka King Hannibal, aka Hannibal – a great soul singer from the sock-boogaloo late 60s years! At his prime, Hannibal recorded some excellent ... read more Soul (CD) 12.99 |


text:
Talk of the Town 02-06-13
Read More »
Artist Statement for Photographic Exhibit "Simplexity":
Simplexity: An emerging theory that proposes a possible complementary relationship between complexity and simplicity.
Local photographer Burdette Parks is the featured artist for the month of August in the lobby gallery of Pendragon Theatre. An exhibit of his photographs titled "Simplexity" opens on August 7th with an Artist's Reception from 5:30 to 7:00 and will run through Labor Day.
According to Mr. Parks' artist statement for the show:
"The natural Order (pun intended) of Nature is Chaos. Nature tends not to do things in an orderly way. The natural world is a chaotic jumble of random occurrences of complexly ordered systems. There are too many variables and influences at work for order to be sustained. So when we observe nature in it's unadulterated state, we see mostly the resulting chaos.
In this series of images, my goal as a photographer has been to make images of the natural world that simplify nature's inherent chaos. This, I think, is a rather normal impulse for many photographers when framing and composing an image. But for this series, I have concentrated on the essentials. I worked to emphasize the graphic qualities of the subject, eliminating unnecessary detail and focusing on shapes, forms, colors, textures and relationships. As one focuses in more and more closely to natural subjects, the truth of the old aphorism that one can find a world in a grain of sand becomes abundantly clear. Things that appear extremely simple, even orderly, from a distance become intricately complex on closer inspection. On the other hand, by reducing the apparent detail in a larger perspective (akin to squinting at a landscape) detail is diminished and basic forms predominate."
The display system for the images in this exhibit is a marked departure from the more traditional matting and framing of prints under glass. In collaboration with a skilled woodworker, a unique shadowbox-like presentation was created with the images "floating free" within a finely crafted natural wood box. The images were printed on specially coated photo-canvas using archival pigment inks. After drying, they were given two coatings of sealant to protect the surfaces from scrapes, water and UV light. (Though like any photo image, they should not be displayed in direct sun.) The canvases were then "stretched" onto wooden panels, positioned over background panels and locked in place. "Floating" within the box gives the images an added impression of depth.
William Blake: "To see a world in a grain of sand, and a heaven in a wildflower."
Burdette's Photo Bio:
Burdette was born and educated inNorth Dakotareceiving a BA in Theater Arts from the University of North Dakota. He developed an early interest in photography through his father, an inveterate and prolific family picture taker. That interest was cemented in 1964 when he sold two nature slides to the North Dakota State Travel Department. In college at the University of North Dakota, Burdette did yearbook photography for the Journalism Department, learned processing and darkroom basics doing work-study at the University News Bureau and was mentored in photography by a commercial photographer and a successful photojournalist while pursuing first a pre-med degree and ultimately a degree in Theatre Arts. A brief invitational stint with the U.S. Army got him toTexaswhere he managed and owned live theaters over fourteen years in bothSan AntonioandAustin.
During more than two decades directing and producing live theater, Burdette incorporated photography—doing publicity and production photography for his own and other theaters. His first formal gallery show was in 1980 at aSan Antoniogallery and for thirty years a sculptural piece of his has graced theSculptureGardenat the San Antonio Museum of Art.
In 1982, he took his act on the road with one-man theater performances. Frankly, B. Franklin was his first foray into the exhilarating realm of solo performance and his first in-depth exposure to Ben Franklin (if you overlook an earlier episode asFranklinin the musical 1776.) In 1985 he wrote and began performing a second solo show, Shakespeare Live! – resulting in him traveling with two alter-egos, Ben and Will—Benjamin Franklin and William Shakespeare—not bad company.
Since 1990, he has been living in the Adirondacks with the wife he met through the amorous influence ofSaranacLake's Pendragon Theater and since 2001, has enthusiastically resumed a decades long affair with photography.
Photographically, the shift from film to digital happened for Burdette in 2001 and he has been diligently working to keep pace with this rapidly advancing technology ever since. Specializing in fine art landscape/nature work, he has had work showcased in numerous juried shows in the Adirondack region (photographs of his were awarded Best of Show in the Art's Council of the Northern Adirondack's 2009 Cover Art competition and an Honorable Mention in their 2011 show) and has been featured in numerous exhibits. As a relatively early convert to digital photography, Burdette has accumulated a vast store of information on this rapidly evolving medium and has been sharing his discoveries and enthusiasm through classes and workshops. And as a year-round resident in the endlessly scenicAdirondackPark, he is constantly striving to refine and improve his vision of this special landscape.
While people and theatre remain strong photographic interests, Burdette finds the natural studio of the Adirondacksa beguiling place to explore expanding photographic horizons. His web address is: www.roundlakestudios.com.
For further information about Pendragon's gallery or any of the summer offerings, contact the theatre at 518-891-1854, on the web: pendragontheatre.org or via e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com.
The Honorable
Clyde Rabideau
Mayor of the Village of Saranac Lake,
The Saranac Lake Board of Trustees and the
Saranac Lake Local Development Corporation Members
Cordially Invite the Honor of Your Presence
To a Grand Reception
Welcoming and Saluting the Commencement of Biotech Operations of
In its New 3 Main Street Saranac Lake Location
Wednesday Evening, August Eighth
Commencing at Five O'clock
In Riverside Park
The Evening's Theme is
"The Good Old Summer Time"
Old Fashioned Ice Cream and Root Beer
Will be served to the Music
Of a Dixieland Band
With Complimentary Boater Straw Hats
Tours of the New Myriad RBM Facility Will be Conducted During the Reception
RSVP-By August Sixth-VSL Community Development Office
39 Main Street
This Event is Primarily Underwritten By
J. Hogan Refrigeration and Mechanical, Inc.
Peru, NY
Celebrate the Adirondack's rich snow-sport heritage and support its future!
28th Annual NYSEF Summer Benefit – Saturday, August 11, 2012, 6:30-9:30 pm
Turf & Field Club, Lake Placid Horseshow Grounds
Lake Placid, NY, August 11, 2012 – The New York Ski Educational Foundation (NYSEF) is hosting the 28th Annual Summer Benefit, Saturday, August 11th in the Turf & Field Club at the Lake Placid Horseshow Grounds from 6:30-9:30 pm. Join NYSEF for a special evening to support local youth – step into the past with wooden skis and leather boots, traditional European cuisine, cocktails, music and silent auction.
Adirondack tradition has a history rich in snow sports and Olympic heritage. Let's preserve that heritage by supporting and investing in its future. Lake Placid has hosted two historical Olympic Winter Games, and continuously aspires to update and maintain the venues for World class competitions and training; and to mold young athletes to pursue their dreams.
NYSEF is a 501(c)3 nonprofit dedicated to providing professional guidance and support to athletes of all ages in Alpine, Freestyle, Cross-Country Skiing, Ski Jumping, Snowboarding, Biathlon, and Nordic Combined. NYSEF athletes represent the United States Ski and Snowboard Teams competing at Olympic, World, Jr. World and National Team levels. Join us for an evening to support the continuation of this tradition!
Open to ages 21 and up – advance purchase tickets are $80/person, $150/couple and $40/ages 21-35. Tickets are $90 at the door. For details and to purchase tickets visit NYSEF online at: www.nysef.org or call the NYSEF office at 518-946-7001.
LAKE PLACID, N.Y. — The 2012 summer skating continues this weekend, Aug. 10-11, with Friday's Freaky Friday and the Saturday Night Ice Show at the Olympic Center, in Lake Placid, N.Y. Friday's Freaky Friday event begins at 4:30 p.m., while the Saturday night's show is slated to begin at 7:30 p.m. Both events will be held in the center's 1932 Rink Jack Shea Arena.
Ashley Cain (Coppell, Texas), the 2012 U.S. junior national championship silver medalist, is Saturday night's featured skater.
Joining Cain will be skaters participating in the 80th annual summer skating program. The skaters will perform their individual and group numbers during this entertaining event. Admission to the show is $10 for adults, $8 for juniors and seniors. Children six and under may enter for free.
The ever-popular Freaky Friday show will also feature skaters from the summer skating program, who create their own unique routines for this event. The skaters abandon their regular routines in favor of creativity, humor and amusement. The routines are judged on entertainment value. Admission is free.
To learn more about the Lake Placidsummer skating program, log on to www.lakeplacidskating.com. For more information on ORDA's Olympic venues and events, visit www.whitefacelakeplacid.com.
Final 2012 Concert features violin and horn soloists
"On The Orient Express" is the last concert of the Lake Placid Sinfonietta's 2012 season. The concert will be held at theLake PlacidCenterfor the Arts on Sunday, August 12 at7:30 PM. The concert's program will include a flamboyant solo by ConcertmasterDaniel Szasz(Porembescu's "Balada") and a double Horn Concerto by Telemann featuring Sinfonietta member David Pandolfi and his son Adam Pandolfi, both on horn. Tickets are available through the LPCA box office, 518.523.2512, all seating is reserved. There is no charge for students 18 and under (as available.)
The Lake Placid Sinfonietta is also using this concert as an opportunity to give back to the community. In the spring, many orchestras collect donations for local food pantries through a program called Orchestras Feeding America. In keeping with that initiative, and in recognition of how difficult summers can be for families without enough resources to buy groceries, a food drive is being held at this concert. Non-perishable food items brought to the August 12 concert will be collected and given to volunteers who will deliver the food collected to the Ecumenical Charity Program's Food Pantry.
Concertmaster Daniel Szaszis featured in this concert in "Balada" by the composer Ciprian Porumbescu, which he arranged himself for violin and orchestra, and in Franz Lehar's "Hungarian Fantasy" with the orchestra. Mr. Szasz enjoys a world wide reputation as a soloist and is the founder of a spring music festival inRomania. The "suite in F Mojor for Two Horns" will feature longtime Sinfonietta principal horn David Pandolfi with his son Adam Pandolfi, also on horn. Both david Pandolfi andDaniel Szaszare members of the Alabama Symphony where they hold the positions of Principal Horn and Concertmaster, respectively.
Other selections on the program include Johan Strauss, Jr.'s "Vienna Blood Waltz" and Gustav Holst's "Brook Green Suite. The evening will end with the traditional "Finale" from Haydn's "Farewell Symphony" which features the musicians leaving the stage one at a time, extinguishing a candle as they go until the stage is empty.
For more complete information on the orchestra, the musicians, and programs please visit the Lake Placid Sinfonietta's website at www.LakePlacidSinfonietta.org of call the Lake Placid Sinfonietta office at 518-523-2051.
St Joesph's Addiction Treatment and Recovery Centers will host it's 11th annual golf tournament on August 13th at Lake Placid's Crown Plaza Mountain Course. Registration begins at 11am and the Scramble format starts at 1pm. This year's tournament includes a $10,000 putting contest and a $50,000 Shootout. $340.00 per fourseome or $85.00 per individual. Awards Program and Bar B Que following the competition.
Registration: Call 891-5353 x286 to register or for more information
MONTHLY MEAL Wednesday August 15th
The Saranac Lake Adult Center sponsors their Monthly Meal on Wednesday August 15th. Bingo starts at 2pm, social hour begins at 4pm with dinner at 5pm. The dinner menu includes hamburgers, hot dogs, potato salad, pasta salad, ice cream sundae bars. The cost is $5.00 per person. call 891-2980 for reservations.
SaranacLake's 3rd Thursday Art Walks will continue this Thursday. The Village of Saranac Lake will again host the talents of regional and local artists of various genres from 5:00 to 7:30pm.
Beginning a self-guided tour through Downtown and a couple of outer-lying venues, visitors can go to any participating venue, get a schedule and map, see and experience at their own pace established artists' work and emerging talents from all over the North Country. There will be more than 30 venues this time marked with festive balloons.
This event will extend from Pendragon Theatre on Brandy Brook Rd., off of River St., to the Saranac Laboratory Museum on Church St. and then on Main St. between River and Church Streets, up Broadway to BluSeed Studios on Cedar St. and then on Bloomingdale Ave. between Broadway and Depot St. at the new Adirondack Carousel.
At Pendragon Theatre, visitors can enjoy the works of photographer, Burdette Parks, and next learn about "The Story of Saranac Lake" in the John Black Room at theSaranacLaboratoryMuseumonChurch St. The Adirondack Artists' Guild will be showing Marylou Reid's new clay work, "Totems and Vessels," as well as works of other members. The Cantwell Room in the Saranac Lake Free Library will host the "Summer Show" of the Paint and Palette Association with a "Meet the Artist" reception that evening. Visitors to the NorthWinds Fine Arts Gallery on Broadway will see its members' works plus "Cutting Corners," the current show of local artist, Heidi Gutersloh. Up onCedar St., BluSeed Studios will showcase Jack LaDuke's new photography, "Sun and Shadow," and visitors can enjoy a "Meet the Artist" reception there from 6-8pm.
Please note that fine arts photographer, Mark Kurtz, now has his studio upstairs in The Annex, above the Adirondack Artists' Guild, along with the drawing and sculpting studios of Maria DiAngelo and Matt Paul.
Art Walk visitors will also be able to enjoy many types of music Thursday evening throughoutDowntownSaranacLake. Soulful singer-songwriter, Theresa Hartford will grace the Berkeley Green stage while several other musicians entertain visitors along the sidewalks, including the sax quartet, "Adirondack Saxes," indie-folk group, "The Lemmon Drops,"Potsdampianist, Matt Bullwinkel, folk singer, Michael Shepard, the trio, "Dust Bunnies," and accordionist, Hannah Huber. At The Waterhole's "Party on the Patio," Rusty Dovos will perform starting at 6pm.
In addition, various other artists contributing to this event include 6 members of the Lake Placid Poets' Guild; woodcarvers, Rachel Lamb and Mark Paul; artist, Charlene Deleel and young friends; string instrument builder, Charlie Marshall; rug hooking demo by Judy O'Toole; artist, Cal Rice; children's photographer, Kristin Parker; wildlife photographer, Craig Dickey; photographer, Shaun Durant; crafter, Sarah Humphreys and 2nd-grade photographer, Cade Corris.
SaranacLake's 3rd Thursday Art Walks 2012 also has a Facebook presence so please find us and Like the page to get more information.
Creative Healing Connections, a North Country nonprofit group that provides arts and healing retreats, is hosting a benefit cocktail party at the new home of Larry and Nancy Master in Lake Placid on August 16th. The home just received a Platinum LEED Certification.
"We use the arts in nature to help women with cancer and chronic illnesses, female veterans and female military spouses to heal," commented CHC board president and founder Naj Wikoff of Keene Valley. "What an incredible opportunity to see a platinum LEED certified home that is lovingly built with the planet's health in mind, while learning about healing women in nature."
LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. LEED is an international standard created to help building owners with green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions. LEED certification provides independent, third-party verification that a building, home or community has met their standards so that the homeowner or home buyer can be assured that it was constructed in an environmentally sound manner and built to last.
Founded in 1999 and also built to last, Creative Healing Connections gives scholarships to nine out of ten of its female participants, and this event will help raise scholarship funds for 2012 and 2013.
"In May we held the nation's first retreat for female military spouses and partners in Saranac Lake," said CHC director Martha Spear of Upper Jay. "It was a huge success and we are so grateful to all our funders for making it possible."
"We are offering three more retreats this year," remarked CHC co-founder Fran Yardley, of Tupper Lake, who also leads retreats. "Two for female veterans in August and one for women with cancer and chronic illnesses in September. All the retreats are filling up fast." Yardley, a storyteller, will be one of several featured guests at the Masters' home.
"While this event is a fund-raiser for CHC, we want anyone to come who is interested in enjoying this private house and garden opening," said event co-chair Susan Rose Hockert of Wilmington. "Entry to the event is free, with an optional donation of $50 per person suggested."
Larry and Nancy Master are "best friends who have been married for 40 years," according to the website of the Adirondack Community Trust where they have a donor advised fund. Larry serves on the board of several environmental and conservation groups, while Nancy serves on the board of the North Country SPCA. The new home is the fulfillment of their lifelong dream to live lightly on the land.
"I am very happy we can do this for Creative Healing Connections," said Larry in a recent phone call.
"Relatedly, please save the date for our 2013 Mad Hatters Ball featuring Roby Politi as the Mad Hatter: Thursday, March 21st at 5:30 p.m. at Heaven Hill Farm in Lake Placid," added Franny Preston, of Saranac Lake, who co-chairs the event with Hockert and Erin Perkins of Lake Placid.
To RSVP for this event please contact director Martha Spear at 518-390-3899 or email@example.com.
Thursday, August 16: Art Walk: Come visit the Saranac Laboratory Museum and enjoy some live music. As an architectural wonder, the building itself is a work of art. Also on display are new exhibit panels and historic photographs of Saranac Lake in the John Black Room. 5:00-7:30. Free of charge.
Summer skating continues in the 1932 rink this weekend..,
Lindsay Davis and Mark Ladwig make up one of the most promising pairs heading into this year's season.. They'll headline The Saturday Night Ice show. The two have been skating together since May and before that, Davis claimed the 2010 U.S. junior bronze medal and Ladwig is a 2010 Olympian, a two-time U.S. pairs silver medalist and a 2012 U.S. pairs bronze medalist. Admission to the Saturday Night Ice show is $10 for adults, $8 for juniors and seniors. Show time at the 1932 rink is 7:30.. Friday's show is free and opens at 4:30pm..
To learn more about the Lake Placidsummer skating program, log on to www.lakeplacidskating.com.
For more information on ORDA's Olympic venues and events, visit www.whitefacelakeplacid.com
Summer skating continues in the 1932 rink this weekend..,
Lindsay Davis and Mark Ladwig make up one of the most promising pairs heading into this year's season.. They'll headline The Saturday Night Ice show. The two have been skating together since May and before that, Davis claimed the 2010 U.S. junior bronze medal and Ladwig is a 2010 Olympian, a two-time U.S. pairs silver medalist and a 2012 U.S. pairs bronze medalist. Admission to the Saturday Night Ice show is $10 for adults, $8 for juniors and seniors. Show time at the 1932 rink is 7:30.. Friday's show is free and opens at 4:30pm..
To learn more about the Lake Placidsummer skating program, log on to www.lakeplacidskating.com.
For more information on ORDA's Olympic venues and events, visit www.whitefacelakeplacid.com
Post 326
American Legion Open
Golf Tournament
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Craig Wood Golf & Country Club
Prizes For:
Gross, Net, Callaway, Men & Women
Longest Drives & Closest to the Pins
Entry Fee includes:
Green Fees & Awards Buffet at the American Legion Home
CWGA Members $30
Non-Members $45
For information & Tee Times contact
Craig Wood ~ 523-9811
Fri., August 24-All are invited to a free opening reception from 5 to 7 p.m. for an exhibition of works by nature photographer John DiGiacomo at the Guy Hughes Gallery in the Laker Placid Public Library. Proceeds from photo sales will be donated to the non-profit organization Reason2Smile, which supports a school and orphanage in Kenya.
August 25, 2012 (Saturday) – Mt. Pisgah, Saranac Lake, New York
One-Day Event – All Bike Riders and Abilities Welcome – Rain Date: August 26
The Century Ride starts at 8:00 a.m., 50-mile ride at 10:00, 25-mile ride at 11:00 and a free kid's ride at 1:00. This is a well-supported bike ride with feed stations, port-a-johns and a sag wagon. There will be prizes, a BBQ, tee shirts, music and homemade pies! Proceeds benefit youth programs of the Saranac Lake Kiwanis Club, including the annual Bike Rodeo that has distributed over 1,000 bike helmets to area youth.
This is a beautiful ride through Adirondack Park forest and farmland north of Saranac Lake. Great mountain views but no mountain climbing on the ride. Wide shoulders on the State Routes, otherwise quiet back roads. Along the route are Paul Smiths, Mecham Lake, Lake Clear, Gabriels and St. Regis Falls.
Registration fee is $40 for the Century Ride, $35 for the Half-Century and $30 for the 25-mile ride.
Active Duty Military and Law Enforcement Ride Free
Register Online:
or print a PDF of the Registration Form and mail with a check to Pat Stratton Memorial Ride, 33 Depot Street, Saranac Lake NY 12983. For more information contact Dan Reilly, 518-891-1616 or e-mail firstname.lastname@example.com
Starts and ends at Mt Pisgah Ski Area, 92 Mount Pisgah Rd, Saranac Lake, NY 12983 (44.345596,-74.125682). SeeGoogle Map for route and support locations.
Visit our Sponsors, who make the ride and the donations possible:
HomEnergy Services Gladd Electric Scheefer's Adirondack Builders
Don Rumble Construction Wilkins Insurance Fitness Revolution
Flowering Meadow Nursery AdirondackCraft.com H & M Steel
Towne Meeting to Perform at Will Rogers
On Saturday, August 25 at 7:30 p.m., Towne Meeting will perform a blend of vocals and acoustic sounds at Saranac Village at Will Rogers. Primarily considered a folk group, they will perform a variety of genres from acoustic rock to country.
Their group consists of family and life long friends, many of whom have sung and played music together off and on for many years including Dennis Hulbert, Justin VanCour and three Saranac Lake natives and graduates, Miles Moody, Rich Sutphen and Gary VanCour. All members provide vocals and guitar performances among other instruments.
Towne Meeting has performed around Northern New York and Vermont for the past three years. They have produced three CDs titled Stillwater, A Christmas World and Looking Back. They are currently planning to record a fourth album.
there is a $5 suggested donation. Refreshments will be served. For more information, please contact Debbie Kanze at (518) 891-7117.
The Lake Placid Center for the Arts invites you to a One-Night-Only Concert featuring Martin Sexton on Saturday, August 25 at 8pm. Billboard calls Sexton, "The real thing, people, a star with potential to permanently affect the musical landscape and keep us entertained for years to come." This performance is a Benefit Concert for Dewey Mountain – a historic Adirondack recreation center which yields not only community but Olympiads of the past and future, and the evening will include a live auction.
Tickets are $30 general admission or $60 VIP Package which includes sound check party, meet and greet with Martin, refreshments, and preferred seating. Purchase your seats today by calling 523-2512.
American soul man Martin Sexton is best known for his incendiary live performances. There is perhaps no better way to experience Sexton's live concert energy than via one of his solo shows.
The New York Times noted that Sexton "jumps beyond standard fare on the strength of his voice, a blue-eyed soul man's supple instrument . . . his unpretentious heartiness helps him focus on every soul singer's goal: to amplify the sound of an ordinary heart." And Rolling Stone adds, "His outstanding taste in songwriting as well as a soul marinated voice that can easily be compared to the likes of a young Steve Winwood or Van Morrison."
About Martin's latest album:
MARTIN SEXTON – Fall Like Rain
Martin Sexton's brand-new EP, finds this artist again asking relevant questions and challenging the status quo. Entertaining us all the while, he continues to call for unity in "One Voice Together" and adds: "In a world of warfare, peace is bad for business . . ." A timely cover of Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth" reminds us it's time to "stop, hey, what's that sound, everybody look what's going down." On this record, the artist subtly and seamlessly blends infectious tunes with a powerful message.
His "soul-marinated voice" (Rolling Stone) shimmers on the soaring falsetto on the title track: "I wanna feel, I wanna fall like rain, without the shelter, so I can see which way the wind is blowin' today."
Why an EP? Sexton says, "These songs are relevant today and I didn't want to wait to release a full-length album. And in a down economy, we're getting new music to people for the price of a soy latte."
A native of Syracuse, N.Y., and the tenth of 12 children, Martin Sexton grew up in the '80s. Uninterested in the music of the day, he fueled his dreams with the timeless sounds of classic rock 'n' roll. As he discovered the dusty old vinyl left in the basement by one his big brothers, his musical fire was lit. Sexton eventually migrated to Boston, where he began to build a following singing on the streets of Harvard Square, gradually working his way through the scene. His 1992 collection of self-produced demo recordings, In the Journey, was recorded on an old 8-track in a friend's attic. He managed to sell 20,000 copies out of his guitar case.
From 1996 to 2002 Sexton released Black Sheep, The American, Wonder Bar and Live Wide Open. The activity and worldwide touring behind these records laid the foundation for the career he enjoys today with an uncommonly loyal fan base; he sells out venues from New York's Nokia Theatre to L.A.'s House of Blues, and tours regularly across Canada and Europe.
Happily and fiercely independent, Martin Sexton launched his own label, KTR, in 2002. Since then he has infiltrated many musical worlds, performing at concerts ranging from pop (collaborating with John Mayer) to the Jam scene to classic rock (collaborating with Peter Frampton); from the Newport Folk Fest to Bonnaroo to New Orleans Jazz Fest to a performance at Carnegie Hall.
Regardless of his reputation as a musician's musician, Sexton can't keep Hollywood away. His songs can be heard in many feature films and television including NBC's Scrubs, Parenthood and Showtime's hit series Brotherhood.
Stage, film and television aside, when Sexton isn't touring he often mixes entertainment with his sense of social responsibility, performing at benefits for Paul Newman's Hole in the Wall Gang camp, the Children's Tumor Foundation, Japan earthquake/tsunami relief (The John Lennon Tribute), and Hurricane Irene relief efforts in Vermont, to name some.
In 2007 Sexton began his most successful years to date with the release of his studio offering Seeds. The album debuted at #6 on Billboard's Heatseekers chart, and the Los Angeles Times said, "Call him a soul shouter, a road poet, a folkie or a rocker and you wouldn't be wrong."
The live CD/DVD set Solo, which includes a DVD of his performance at Denver's Mile High Festival, followed in 2008.
In 2010 the album Sugarcoating found this one-of-a-kind-troubadour doing what he does best: locating larger truths. After hearing it, NBC anchor Brian Williams sought Martin out to sit down for an interview backstage at New York's Beacon Theatre. It's now featured on MSNBC's BriTunes.
The accolades continue. Billboard called Sexton's version of "Working Class Hero" for the Lennon tribute/benefit in 2010 "chill-inspiring." Released this November as part of The 30th Annual John Lennon Tribute album, the track is available on iTunes.
The New York Times noted that this artist "jumps beyond standard fare on the strength of his voice, a blue-eyed soul man's supple instrument," adding, "his unpretentious heartiness helps him focus on every soul singer's goal: to amplify the sound of the ordinary heart."
Billboard called Sexton "The real thing, people, a star with potential to permanently affect the musical landscape and keep us entertained for years to come."
About Sexton:
Sexton got his start playing on the streets and subways of Boston in the 1990s. Today he sells out venues nationwide—world-class rooms like the Nokia Theater in New York City and House of Blues Los Angeles. With his song "Diner" included on a recent episode of "Scrubs," the single "Happy" from Seeds reaching #1 on the AAA charts and the second single "Wild Angels" being included in a USA Today "Playlist" upon the album's release, the accolades continue. Sexton has earned the respect of fellow artists, people like John Mayer, who calls him "the best live performer I've ever seen."
Don't miss Martin Sexton live at the Lake Placid Center for the Arts on Saturday, August 25 at 8pm. Tickets can be reserved by calling the LPCA Box Office at 518-523-2512. For more information on these and other upcoming events, visit online at www.LakePlacidArts.org. More information on Sexton can be found at www.martinsexton.com


text:
Looking to sell it all asap. Any questions PM me.
Are you still selling this stuff?...cause if so, I'll take the Slaughterhouse poster
Is that blue Psychopathic jersey a BMX jersey, DAMN, they haven't sold them in fuckin years!!! SICK dude!!!
Im still selling this shit. Will sell cheap!
I am interested in the Slaughterhouse poster and the beanies, private message me please
stinky juggalo clothing
THATS WHY IM SELLING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I havent worn this juggalo stuff in about 5 years. I wanna get rid of it!
I want the 1st Dickies shirt! Hmu! Money prolly isn't a problem.
Tech N9ne "Something Else" Pre-Order Now!
¡MAYDAY! "Believers" Pre-Order Now Available
Wrekonize "The War Within" Pre-Order Available!
Rittz "The Life And Times Of Jonny Valiant" Purchase Now!
CES Cru "Constant Energy Struggles" Purchase Now!
Kutt Calhoun "Black Gold" Album Now Available!
Brotha Lynch Hung "Mannibalector" Album In Stores Now!
Tech N9ne's Hostile Takeover: The Story Behind The Tour
Prozak "Nocturnal" EP Now Available!
Krizz Kaliko "Neh' Mind" EP Now Available!
Tech N9ne – 'E.B.A.H.'/'Boiling Point' Combo EP Now In Stores!
Tech N9ne "Boiling Point" EP Now Available!
Stevie Stone "Momentum" EP Now Available!
Tech N9ne "E.B.A.H." EP Now Available!
Kutt Calhoun "Kelvin" EP Now Available!
Ces Cru "13" EP Now Available!
¡MAYDAY! "Thrift Store Halos" EP Now Available!
© 2013 Created by Strange Admin.