Burn Baby Burn - Delft University Architecture Building in Ashes

(photo:geenstijl)

"Life is a comedy to those who think, and a tragedy to those that feel"
-Goethe

Conflicting reports on the cause of a fire today that burned down the Architectural Studies Building at the Technical University in Delft.

Some say it was due to a leaking water pipe (?do they mean non-functioning sprinklers?) or a short circuit in a coffee pot. The irony of the architectural studies building burning due to a construction flaw is not lost on commentators like GeenStijl.

"Class, we're going to have a new assignment for this semester, starting today..."

Apparently there was also asbestos released when the building burned and partially collapsed. Asbestos: cancer-causing, but apparently ineffective when put to the test.

I might add that the building didn't exactly appear to be an innovative structure itself. I'm thinking that it might have come from what Bill Bryson termed the "fuck you school of architecture" _ but that's irrelevant.

On the tragic side, there are also reports that the building housed (one of) Europe's largest architectural libraries, not to mention furnishings designed by Gerrit Rietveld.
(creative commons, from wikipedia)

NOS had some pretty sad images of a woman who apparently lost her life's work sobbing outside the building.

De Telegraaf has footage of the building burning, for those who like to watch things burn.


I used to joke with a co-worker that "Grote Brand" is one of the most ridiculous headlines imaginable. All fires look big when you're up close, and the fact that a the fire itself is being reported, not the body count, tells you that it's probably a non-story.

But a fire always makes for good pictures.

In fact there was another "Grote Brand" today in the Eastern city of Enschede (on the anniversary of a fireworks disaster that killed 22 people on May 13, 2000 _ a weird coincidence).

(gs)

"I call architecture frozen music"
-Goethe

MORE

Rocks' Rocks!

My son is shocked by this "punctuation."

(end of post)
Easter egg:
http://quotation-marks.blogspot.com
MORE

If I could put just one question to Shell (and Greenpeace)

(flickr:james at 42)

Having recently seen Shell's first quarter earnings, I have a question: why does the company not disclose how much money it invests in renewable energy?

Don't get me wrong (and if you're hoping for a good big oil-bashing article stop reading now). But when the CFO starts talking about how the company is investing heavily in oil capacity in the Artic Circle (subtext: which is opening up to exploitation due to global warming) you to have to wonder about what they think of the future.

(zorzimo croquezz)

Actually on second thought they break it down pretty clearly that they see fossil fuel use growing massively in the future.

"We are increasing our investment, ploughing most of our profits into finding, producing and refining oil and natural gas. Our investment levels have more than doubled since 2000, to $25 billion in 2006."

"Affordability has been the main problem for new alternatives like biofuels, wind and solar. Even at recent high oil and natural gas prices, they cannot yet compete on price on a large scale."

-Shell website

So it doesn't bother me that Shell won an award from Transparency International last week about disclosing revenue streams: it's the equivalent of saying "at least they're honest in that regard."

(nelgallan)

But returning to the question of how much $$ investment they're putting into alternatives: it's a really basic one for me. I think it would help people judge *how seriously* a huge energy company _ for better or worse _ takes renewables as a business as time goes by.

It doesn't help that Shell has stopped disclosing numbers on alternative electricity generation, which they used to do. The reasoning, if I recall correctly, was that it's become such a significant amount that it's now considered a normal business and folded into their "power generation" numbers. And/or that it's commerically sensitive.

Yet, they began reporting on profits from oil sands separately this very quarter (US$250M). Why one "new" energy source and not others?

I notice their ''external ' review panel' was complaining about the lack of disclosure of investment in renewables last year so maybe we'll get more when they release their sustainability report this year.

For balance in this post, I have an open question for Greenpeace as well.

(gunnar.olafsson)



Why is the organization so monolithic in its viewpoints? I'm not saying that they're right or wrong, I'm just surprised that members appear to move in such lockstep / groupthink.
I'll just throw out two examples:

Everybody at Greenpeace opposes nuclear energy.
Everybody at Greenpeace opposes genetically modified organisms.

Yet these are complicated ethical questions.

And Greenpeace is such a large organization _ wouldn't you expect there to be some dissenting views among the ranks? I've never encountered any.



MORE

Faunafonds - Diplomatic Immunity for Animals

(flickr: marco raaphorst)

I can't decide whether this is lunacy or genius:

There's an agency called `The Faunafonds´ in the Netherlands, whose sole purpose is to compensate people for any damage they say they have been caused by animals on the country's protected species list.

So that makes the animals double-untouchable: it's illegal to kill them, and the government covers the costs of any damages they are responsible for.

There's a fascinatingly specific table of damage caused by each species in each of the past 5 years _ for instance the "Water Vole" (Dutch: woelrat), which caused EUR700,000 in damages last year, but less than EUR20,000 this year.

(photo: wikipedia).

The Dutch press didn't exactly jump on the story, but what they did write was mostly wrong. I don't like to point fingers because _ well, I live in a glass house _ but it looks like a lot of papers picked up this copy from ANP:

"The financial damage done to fruit growers by song birds grew explosively last year ... Especially "Conference" pears, which have been planted in a wider area in recent years, have suffered from birds."

But:

"The damage caused by songbirds remained pretty much the same"

-Faunafonds annual report.

It turns out there was a hanging bill (if you can forgive the pun) of EUR200,000 left over from the year before, hence the increase in costs.

(photo: dimomar)

ANP, correctly, pointed out that the agency paid out EUR6 million in claims, but missed the total taxpayers' bill: EUR10 million (US$16 million).

Now, that's peanuts for most government agencies, and the Faunafonds does provide work for 12 people, according to its annual report (Dutch).

But the main story wasn't songbirds.

It's those wacky GEESE!

Yup. They caused nearly EUR3,600,000 in damage all by themselves _ more than half the agency's payouts. Up EUR600,000 from a year earlier.

One explanation:

"The reason that the damage done by migrating geese and other waterfowl rose is the increase in market prices of cattle feed (grains?), due to worse weather conditions, which led to seedlings being less able to grow, and geese were able to do some damage there."

-Faunafonds

Another explanation comes from the Agrarische Dagblad, which appears to have done some actual reporting:

"Investigator Bart Ebbinge attributes the increase in damages to an increase in the number of geese. In addition, according to him, farmers chose to register damage claims, since that was more profitable than the management subsidy."

Uh huh, so now we learn there's a 'management' subsidy farmers can opt for instead. Why am I not surprised? What a country...

(roel)

Damage from wild swine tripled to EUR49,000. There's going to be a big stink later this year if the government goes ahead with plans to allow hunters a one-time mass cull.

(edwinridderhof)

After the `more´, the key table from the Faunafonds report.




You have to click on it to see individual species. If it's still too fuzzy, it's on page 15 of the annual report.

It looks like the damage from wild hares quadrupled last year, but my personal favorite is the entry on "Hawk": EUR944, a one time claim only, in 2006.

I bet there's a good story there...

MORE

Queens' Day 2008 Amsterdam / Guest Post / Bearing It All

Here is a series of late breaking photos from some friends of mine who witnessed an amusing incident near the Nieuwmarkt: a guy in a teddy bear outfit with an enormous foam-spraying penis got arrested by the cops.

WARNING: this is not exactly safe for work.
On the other hand, it took place about 100 yards from the Red Light District, so I don't think the locals would have been offended.













No more than two beers per person, no fake penises, what's next, no insulting the royal family?
MORE

Queens' Day 2008 / Koninginnedag

(Too cool for school)



The rest of the world spun along its merry way today, but in Holland it was Queens' Day.

 

(Tiejgetje)

Queens'Day (or is that Queensday in English? from 'Koninginnedag') is the celebration of the birthdays of Queens Juliana (RIP) and Beatrix.

A combination booze-fest, garage sale and the 4th of July. It's traditional to wear orange.

 

(he eventually got back up)

After the "More" are some photos and a couple of clips I took in Amsterdam.


(The grass is always greener on the other side of a boat)