Interior or exterior! Let me know which you have a need for!
614-204-7749
Interior or exterior! Let me know which you have a need for!
614-204-7749
May
21
I will be at the Decorators’ Show House tonight from 5-8:15 p.m. The show goes until May 10. Please stop by, the address is 2575 Leeds Road in Upper Arlington.
|
Story Highlights
Architecturally, baseball parks are like mousetrapsNo one has found a way to build a better park than the O’s did with Camden YardsPeople feel more affectionately about ballyards than other sports’ stadiums |
In a front-page article in The New York Times, the architecture critic, Nicolai Ourussoff, expressed “disappointment” on behalf of “students of architecture,” because the new Met and Yankee baseball parks don’t embrace the modern but, instead, celebrate a “nostalgic vision.” Myself, speaking for students of baseball, I’m sorry, but in constructing some things, the trick is not to run away from nostalgia, but simply to monkey around with it and try to gussy it up a bit. Architecturally, baseball parks are like mousetraps. No one has found a way to build a better one than the Orioles did in 1992, when they gave Camden Yards to a grateful world. All of the 18 major league fields and scores of minor league parks built since then have been wise enough to follow that pretty model. Well, yes, the new billion-and-a-half dollar Yankee Stadium is a little grander — gold lettering on limestone, with something of a mausoleum aspect to its massive front palisade — but then, the Yankees are as nostalgic as everybody else in baseball; it’s just that Yankee nostalgia deals with the majestic instead of the lovely. People simply feel more affectionately about ballyards than they do other sports’ stadiums and arenas. Madison Square Garden, for all its fame, is merely an address, not a home. And a place like Gillette Stadium may be a cathedral to New England Patriot fans, just as Old Trafford is to Manchester United fans, but linear football stadiums — of both varieties — and the cereal boxes that accommodate basketball and ice hockey are pretty much just so many efficient people containers. Ballyards are quirky and idiocyncratic, living things because the architecture is part and parcel of the outfield itself — all the better that that’s in utter counterpoint to the infield, that diamond of inviolate geometry. In a subversive way, ballparks even sort of divert attention from the game itself. Football and basketball and soccer and hockey fans probably pay more attention to the action, but baseball fans are more engaged by the whole experience. It’s rather like how some people go to restaurants primarily for the food, others just as much for the ambience. If football fans act more like baseball fans, it’s when they’re outside the stadium, tailgating. Baseball parks are sort of made for interior tailgating. Well, two more major league parks — in Minneapolis and Miami — are coming on line. May we hope that they are wonderfully up-to-date with the toilets and the concession stands and the escalators and all that stuff and horribly nostalgic with the architecture and the atmosphere. |
March
30
Take your pick: newspapers, autos, mobile, solar - across the zombieconomy, boardrooms are sweaty-browed with the task of business model redesign. It’s the worst downturn for the better part of a century: business model redesign - lower costs, greater efficiency, choosing the most profitable customers and revenue streams - should be every boardroom’s first priority, right?
Nothing could be more wrong. In fact, today’s market leaders, from Google, to Apple, to Nintendo, are revolutionary for different reason altogether. Conversely, companies and investors focused on business models are simply applying yesterday’s obsolete logic to today’s novel problems.
Here’s the score.
Business models aren’t today’s fundamental economic challenge. There’s nothing wrong with simple, one-sided business models. In fact, the opposite is often true: business model innovation is exactly the wrong thing to focus on. Consider finance. Securitization was a breakthrough business model innovation for banks. Everything was remixed by everyone. Yet, toxic junk was mostly what was flowing through that new business model. Business model innovation amplified value destruction. Banks who didn’t play the securitization game - and stuck to simple, one-sided deposit-taking business models - are today’s survivors.
Creating something valuable in the first place is. Contrast banks with Threadless. Threadless has an age-old business model: selling T-shirts. The only minor-league innovation is compensating designers. Yet, Threadless is redrawing the boundaries of the possible in apparel. It is how production and consumption are organized - not merely how goods and services are bought and sold - that makes Threadless so radical.
When we can make valuable stuff, there are a plethora of business models to choose from, some old, some new, some untested, some tried and true. When we can’t, no amount of business model innovation can save us from implosion.
“Monetizing” + “business models” = zombieconomy. The reason monetization is a dirty word is simple. It blinds us to value creation, at the expense of value capture. When we seek to monetize, we end up chasing the same old lame competitive advantage. I win, you (you, and you) lose. Put another way: “monetizing” toxic junk - from CDOs, to Hummers, to McMansions, to Big Macs - is how we got into this mess.
It is by rediscovering how to make stuff that’s not toxic junk in the first place that we’ll get out of the mess lame, evil, brain-dead 20th century thinking has left us in. That’s the challenge of a new generation of revolutionaries. And it’s not about new business models: it’s about reconceiving authentic, deep, value creation.
Forget business models. Focus on ideals. Reconceiving value creation depends on new ideals. Ideals shape what we wish to achieve in the first place: freedom, peace, fairness, justice - all are ideals vastly more powerful than mere business models. That’s because they are what ensure the value we are creating is authentic, deep, meaningful value - not just the shabby, threadbare illusion of value.
Tomorrow’s prosperity was stolen by yesterday’s so-called leaders. In a world where people are becoming rapidly worse and worse off, there is nothing more revolutionary than an ideal. Here are five ideals that we think are changing business, economics - and the world.
So the next time you hear an old dude banging the business model drum, or worse, the sounding the “monetization” bullhorn, let him know the 20th century was yesterday. Today’s challenge is building a better economy - not hawking the same old mass-produced, toxic, self-destructive junk slightly differently. Challenge him with this: you’ve got a business model. But do you have any ideals? Because without the latter, the former is worth about as much as Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, or Detroit.