Categories
News

UVA ranks No. 2 in undergrad business schools [February 29]

The March 10 issue of BusinessWeek ranks UVA’s McIntire School of Commerce at No. 2 in undergraduate business schools. (Wait, doesn’t this sound familiar?) The University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School took the first slot, but UVA is hot on its heals. “In several of the measures we use to determine our ranking, the two schools were virtually the same,” says Business Week. UVA received the highest ratings from students out of all of the 96 schools ranked. “The fact that graduates’ average starting salary increased by $5,500—or more than 10%—to $58,000, had a good deal to do with that,” the magazine observes. Wahoowa!

Previous "This Just In" articles from this week:

Van Halen reschedules concert [February 28]
Band will play JPJ on March 11

National angst clouds our “sound” local economy [February 28]
Annual Chamber of Commerce survey reveals business owners are both positive and uneasy

Mountain lion terrorizes Crozet [February 27]
Women and children fear

NFL backs down from Jesus [February 26]
Churches can show 2009 Super Bowl on large screens

Categories
News

Van Halen reschedules concert [February 28]

Van Halen postponed their February 22 gig at John Paul Jones Arena, but fans need not fear: The band will return to make up the show on March 11. Tickets and parking passes from February 22 will be honored on for the new date, according to JPJ’s press release. If you already have tickets and can’t rock out on a Tuesday night, you can still get a refund at the point of purchase. And, if you haven’t snagged your ticket yet, they are still available, so grab a few and get ready to run with the devil.


Van Halen will make up the February 22 show that they postponed by returning to rock JPJ on March 11.

Previous "This Just In" articles from this week:

National angst clouds our “sound” local economy [February 28]
Annual Chamber of Commerce survey reveals business owners are both positive and uneasy

Mountain lion terrorizes Crozet [February 27]
Women and children fear

NFL backs down from Jesus [February 26]
Churches can show 2009 Super Bowl on large screens

Categories
News

National angst clouds our “sound” local economy [February 28]

A press release today from the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce revealed the results of their 2008 Member Economic Survey, and characterized our fair city as a small center of calm within jittery America. “Business in Greater Charlottesville is sound,” the press release quotes Robert Hodous, vice chairman of the Chamber Board for Economic Vitality, “and shouldn’t be confused with the daily diet of negative national news accounts.” However, it’s noted in the release that the country-wide economic mood “may be causing some business angst” in our area. One example: According to the survey, 52 percent of the respondents have no expansion plans for 2008, a significant rise from previous years’ surveys.


A rallying cry from Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce President Timothy Hulbert accompanied the release of its annual economic survey:  "Our Chamber remains on course, focused on keeping the engines of enterprise fueled."

Previous "This Just In" articles from this week:

Mountain lion terrorizes Crozet [February 27]
Women and children fear

NFL backs down from Jesus [February 26]
Churches can show 2009 Super Bowl on large screens

Categories
News

Mountain lion terrorizes Crozet [February 27]

State gaming officials have told residents along St. George Avenue in Crozet not to go outside by themselves for fear of a mountain lion attack, reports WCAV-Channel 19 News. So far, only a few dog food bowls and trash cans have been disturbed, presumably all the work of a vicious beast. “From its nose to its rump is about five-foot long,” said one resident by the name of Marlene Humphreys. “The tail itself is about two-and-a-half to three foot long.”


This feline may not look that dangerous…until it tries to claw through your bedroom window.

Just a few weeks ago, Humphreys watched as the mountain lion tried to claw its way into one of her bedroom windows. Ever since, she’s tried to get the authorities to help. Finally, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries stepped in, and has promised to bring in motion-sensing cameras and a cage to catch the cat. According to WCAV, the cage could “take months.” Until then, Humphreys is huddling inside with five little girls and three dogs. “I’m praying,” she said. “I’m praying.”

Previous "This Just In" articles from this week:

NFL backs down from Jesus [February 26]
Churches can show 2009 Super Bowl on large screens

Categories
News

Atwood proposes “machine” for W. Main

The drought this year must have made a definite impression on local architect Bill Atwood. He appeared for the fourth time before the city Board of Architectural Review on February 19 with a starkly different design for a proposed six-story, mixed-use building that would take the place of the Under the Roof building on W. Main Street—and just about everything about the building’s exterior was related to harvesting rainwater.


A rendered view toward W. Main Street from 10th and 1/2 Street of Atwood’s proposal for the Under the Roof site.

It’s one of the more bizarre looking buildings to come before the BAR, with a rather typical front façade covering a building that looks like some beached war vessel. Water towers crown the top like Prussian helmets and beaks extend from the 10th and 1/2 Street side like protective spikes. It’s all part of a system to keep more water from hitting the ground.

“We had been looking at green roofs and whatnot,” says Ashley Cooper of Atwood Architects, “but we feel like as far as this area is concerned that water is the big issue and that’s one of the first places to start with building design.”

Atwood seemed to acknowledge the oddness of his latest creation in a letter to the city included in the staff report: “After many months of observation and research we feel that Architecture today and tomorrow needs to change beyond the Frank Gehry ‘looks for looks’ sake,’ to energy efficient, water saving, perma-culture sensitive machines.

“Our Architectural culture today must change today to generating new forms reacting to very functional demands creating new Architectural machines.

“The discussion begins here.”

Indeed, the discussion did begin there, and it will need to continue there. The BAR liked the rainwater harvesting idea but had some issues with the form. They suggested pulling the “machine” to West Main rather than hiding it behind a faux-historic façade. Some thought the water towers were obtrusive, and that the beaks ought to be more sophisticated. Any outcropping that extends that far will probably require an air rights easement with the city.

“We thought the meeting went surprisingly well, and we’re working to evolve the design,” says Cooper. She says they would like to resubmit an update this week.

C-VILLE welcomes news tips from readers. Send them to news@c-ville.com.

Categories
Arts

At a disadvantage

Akira Kurosawa’s 1950 film, Rashomon, features one of the most borrowed/refigured/ripped-off/homaged plot structures in the history of movies. In it, a heinous crime is committed. Four people have witnessed the crime. Each one tells their own version of events. Each person has a different perspective on things. In the end, which version, if any, is “the truth”?


Even the discerning scowl on Dennis Quaid’s face can’t stop a bullet from finding the President (William Hurt, center) in the dizzying, dull flick, Vantage Point.


Vantage Point
is the latest film to bend Kurosawa’s groundbreaking (at the time) framework to its own purposes. This version presents us with a ripped-from-the-headlines crime. In Spain to attend a historic political summit aimed at ending global terrorism, the President of the United States (amusingly referred to as “POTUS” throughout the film) is assassinated by an unknown killer’s bullet.

Capturing this tragic event on tape are the cameras of an international news crew camped out at the site. A harried network producer (Sigourney Weaver) tries to figure out what just happened, but her efforts are ended by a bomb that rips through the plaza, killing an on-air reporter and countless others.

Trailer for Vantage Point.

Following that, the film rewinds (how clever), taking us back in time 20 minutes to show us the “vantage point” of yet another witness. In time, we get a shell-shocked Secret Service agent (Dennis Quaid), a goggle-eyed tourist (Forest Whitaker), a lovelorn Spanish cop (Edgar Ramirez) and at least three others. The film rewinds six times, giving us a total of seven different versions of the same tale. Each person allegedly has one additional clue as to what really happened. The film never bothers to share any of these clues with the audience, setting up the main problem with any film that tries to replicate Rashomon—namely, it’s not worth paying attention to the first few stories, since you know you won’t learn the “true” story of what happened until the final flashback.

As you might expect, it gets a bit boring watching the same events over and over (and over and over and over and over) again. Instead of giving us a totally different perspective and, therefore, a wholly different take on the story each time, the film just keeps repeating the same tale, filling in a few gaps it neglected to inform us about the time before. It’s kind of like listening to your senile grandfather tell a story: “Oh, wait. Did I forget to mention the building was on fire? Let me start over.”

The biggest problem is not that Vantage Point wastes so much time in telling its tale, but that it ends up going virtually nowhere. Those toughing it out in search of an answer will find none. Who are these terrorists trying to kill the POTUS? Why are they doing it? What’s behind it all? Moroccans? The Vice President? Aliens? The film never bothers to clarify. Aside from a couple of thoroughly expected twists, the film’s narrative peters out, stranding us with one of the most frantic cop-out endings in recent memory.

It seems like a lot of work went into the surface concept of Vantage Point—from the fractured storyline to the Cloverfield-esque videography to the Bourne Identity-like action scenes. Too bad nobody paid as much attention to foundations like acting, directing and plotting. No matter what perspective you choose to look at it from, Vantage Point is a mediocre political thriller told in a confusing and ultimately pointless manner.

Categories
Living

Under development

The inaugural Virginia Wine Expo seemed to be a success, if the thousands in attendance on the first of the two-day event were any measure. Held in the giant, multichambered, corporate heart of the Greater Richmond Convention Center, Expo doors opened to the public at 1pm, and by 2:30 it was so packed you couldn’t get down the aisles, let alone make it up to one of the winery booths to get a taste of wine. Mass tastings like that can make it easy to start to hate wine—the crowds, the novelty wine t-shirts, the overflowing spit buckets (or worse, no one spitting and the Mad Max-like highway conditions on the way home). But my Saturday at the Virginia Wine Expo earlier this month had the opposite effect: It reinforced exactly what it is I love about Virginia Wine.

Before the official kickoff, members of the trade were allowed in early to taste wine and listen to guest speakers, including the keynoter, Bruce Schoenfeld, the wine and spirits editor for Travel + Leisure magazine. Schoenfeld delivered his talk, subtitled “The Allure of Emerging Wine Regions,” to about a dozen of us through a sound system that had two settings, “faint” and “feedback.” Two years ago, he said, when he first came to Virginia to taste wine, a winery employee asked him, “How close are we?” How close, in other words, are we to being the next Napa Valley? Schoenfeld’s answer to this question and his message to the Virginia wine industry was, “Slow down. Don’t rush. Because believe it or not, this is the fun part.”

Schoenfeld has spent plenty of time in some of the world’s greatest wine regions, but it’s the developing areas that have given Schoenfeld his most interesting experiences, and the reason he cites describes my own love of Virginia wine: It is still a work in progress. Virginia is still figuring out what grapes to grow, what techniques to use in the winery, and how to make the rest of the world care. This process of learning, Schoenfeld argues, and the experimentation and variety that accompanies it, makes Virginia such a wonderful place to be a wine lover right now.

And that variety was on full display at the Wine Expo, all right. I tasted, in addition to the ever-present Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay, such obscure varietals as Tannat, Touriga Nacional, Norton, Chambourcin, Rkatsiteli and one I had never heard of called Symphony. Not that obscurity for obscurity’s sake is a virtue, but Virginia wineries are having real successes with uncommon grapes like Cabernet Franc, Viognier, Petit Verdot and Petit Manseng.

I disliked a lot of the wine I tasted on the 16th in Richmond, but that, Schoenfeld pointed out, is O.K. “Every great wine region,” he said, “makes more bad wines than good ones.” The successes matter, not the failures, and Virginia’s successes have had a lot of press lately, thanks in part to good PR, and in part to the undeniable fact that the wines are rapidly improving.

But something can be said for a certain kind of failure. “Sometimes,” Schoenfeld said, “an inspired failure is more interesting than a guaranteed success.” It is relatively easy for places like California and Australia to churn out wines that are good in a homogeneous and facile way, but are these wines that engage your mind or teach you something new? If Virginia ever stops the kind of experimenting that produces unique wines like Horton Vineyards’ sparkling Viognier and Cooper Vineyards’ chocolate-infused Norton, or great wines like Barboursville’s Nebbiolo and Linden’s single-vineyard Chardonnay, and starts making the vinious version of soda pop, then I, for one, will stop drinking.

Categories
News

Between the sheets

The actual e-mail, like so many others, is gone. It was from Frank Dubec, the publisher of this newspaper, who is a little more Yahoo in the Swiftian sense than you’d think for a guy charged with balancing budgets.


Bobcattin’: The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority’s Paper Sort Facility takes in 4,000 to 5,000 tons of recyclable material each year. Last year, it recycled 429 tons of office paper.

The first time I read Frank’s e-mail, it bothered me. I was at home, and I printed it out. I’m not sure exactly why I needed to see it on paper; it was already there on the screen, and would be until the time I deleted it weeks later. Holding that piece of paper, seeing Frank’s words static on a page, made it more real, documental, easier to understand and then dismiss, never mind the same words glowed on the screen not 2′ away from my head. The next morning at the office, I printed it again, took a pen and marked it up with notes in my own vaguely third-graderish scrawl.

His e-mail began something like this: “Unless this is an experiment in forced obedience….” In so many words, he said I was a dumbass for trying to get everyone in the office to spend a week emptying every scrap of paper they used into two large cardboard boxes.

My initial nervousness that I had already sunk this project dissipated after mapping out my plan with a pen on Frank’s e-mail. Suddenly, his was just another electronic missive from a boss, not assignment-killing criticism.

Like the e-mail, those two print copies are long gone. They could be in the bucket of a Bobcat, or in one of the many mountains of paper just off of Meade Avenue. The two sheets could be in a tractor-trailer, crumpled tight amongst tons of other workday clutter, rocking their way to Richmond. Or they could already be there, fibers ripped asunder, drying into pulp, waiting to be put together again, a fresh sheet of paper, ready for the next time you or I hit “Print.”

Western promise

I sit by the printer at work and, seemingly without pause, the yellow light blinks and gives way to its green counterpart. Something deep inside the plastic casing clicks, and then there’s a whir. The beige box spits out page after page, which, if retrieved quickly enough, still hold the warm smell of ink, a scent that, if one were to close eyes and lift it to nose, smells vaguely ripe, moist, even a little post-coital. Most of the time I don’t notice.
 
But sometimes I do, and on those days certain promises made 10 years ago come to mind. We’d been promised a paperless office, a workplace devoid of the scattered, cluttered clumps of paper humpbacking everyone’s desk. Everything, a voice deep from Silicon Valley seemed to whisper, was changing. E-mail would replace the letter, the PDF the fax. Entire libraries were being put online. Copiers soon would have their place alongside Archie Bunker’s chair in the Smithsonian, another relic from a time that had, thankfully, passed.

If that voice were right, then why this constant mechanical chugging 2′ from my head? Why this rolling range of papers forever changing the topography of my desk, just to the left of my computer, that smallish gray machine sent to eliminate the wave of waste now threatening to crest and bury it?

If this voice were to be trusted, then what about the four cardboard boxes—not two—tucked away in the dark corner of the newsroom? For weeks they’ve sat there, boxes full to their tops of the best tactile argument against this paperless office myth. Roughly 140 pounds of paper, 6′ if stacked from the floor. That’s a welterweight boxer. That’s a fat supermodel.

There are around 5,000 sheets of paper that, if laid end to end, would stretch farther than 10 miles. Combine that with the approximately 800 envelopes and beginning Downtown, you could damn near walk out of the city on a path made from a week’s worth of our paper.

Years after technology promised to save us from drowning in a sea of paper, most of us are still bobbing along, swirling eddies of faxes, printouts, handwritten notes surrounding us, copies of copies of copies. So why is paper—everyday, foldable, analogue paper—so integral to the work we do? And what happens to all that paper when, like the vast majority of people riding the desk rodeo, we toss it away after its use has come to its end?

Pulp and the paperless fiction

It wasn’t always supposed to be this way. Back in the mid-1970s, the kernel of the idea that would later grow into the Paperless Office formed in the unlikeliest of spots—Xerox, the heart of the paper business. While the main of the company was pumping out copy machines, a small research team was looking at the possibility of an office that didn’t run on paper.

This wasn’t new intellectual ground. The county had already seen the advance of the telegraph and phonograph almost a century before—two devices meant to vie for the informational supremacy that paper had long held. Edison, when he first invented a cylinder that could record a human voice, suggested one of its main uses to be dictatorial, a replacement of the business letter.

Eventually, the paperless ideal was reshaped by the technological forces of the 1990s: Ethernet-connected computers, the World Wide Web and Hypertext Markup Language, better known to geeks workwide as HTML. All of these transmitted information between users without the need or burden of paper. Instead of reams of office stock, information could now reside virtually, in the form of word-processed documents or online. Paper, as informational currency, was on its way out.

Or so some thought. The idea of the Paperless Office began to spread from geeked-up information architects to soft-bellied middle managers looking to save the company on paper costs. But the advent of the World Wide Web increased paper consumption not only in the office but at the homes of the now-wired workers. Abigail Sellen and Richard Harper, in their book The Myth of the Paperless Office, show that in 2002, the peak of the Silicon Valley boom, the output of the paper industry was greater than ever, and that the introduction of e-mail into organizations increased paper consumption by 40 percent.

That increase becomes real on a recent Friday morning when Bruce Edmonds and I roll into the Paper Sort Facility about 20 minutes ahead of a massive, three-axle truck bearing a mixed-paper bin from the McIntire Recycling facility. All of McIntire’s paper comes here. So does the paper from the city governmental buildings and commercial haulers, paper from the sundry city businesses, C-VILLE among them. If the two printed copies of Frank’s e-mail found their way into a recycle bin, they would have passed through here.

And all of this is overseen by Edmonds, whose official title with RSWA is Recycling & Litter Manager, but who describes himself as “kind of a Greenpeace guy.” Whether real or imagined, he carries himself as a man under constant scrutiny, shoulders hunched in anticipation of another barrage of criticism. It’s a little over 40 degrees today, and he’s wearing a Pittsburgh hoodie, hair pulled back in a ponytail with a purple band.

Last year, like the year before it, and the year before that, a foldable, marked up, dog-eared tidal wave washed through this facility tucked away in the corner of a Meade Avenue scrap yard. In a corner of Coiner’s Scrap Yard, two men work for eight hours a day, five days a week, and do nothing but deal with the incredible, never-ending amount of paper we produce.

A part of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, the Paper Sort Facility at Meade Avenue serves as the last port of call for paper leaving the city on its way to be recycled. In 2007, the facility processed roughly 429 tons of office paper alone, the equivalent of more than six M1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks, the kind used in the first Gulf War.
 
Paper here is classified in five categories. There is office paper, the six tanks. The facility also recycled 763 tons of mixed paper, the wrapping paper found on nearly every product, the paper six-pack holders of beer, the paper packaging around the reams of office paper that we tear into nearly every other day. It also moved 2,323 tons of newsprint and magazines, 818 tons of cardboard. All of it recycled.

From here, the five grades of paper make their way to plants in Richmond, Danville and Lynchburg, depending on where space is available. There, tons of paper are turned into pulp, and that pulp is turned into recycled paper, and that paper is sold to various companies that will sell it back to us, which we will, in all probability, stuff in a recycling bin and ship off to the Paper Sort Facility.

“Maybe it’s my personality and I don’t do a real good job of being real nice, but I tell people everything we take at McIntire, we’re recycling it or reusing it,” Edmonds said the first time we talked. Though he talks like a man on a drip coffee IV, he is exceedingly amiable, his tossed-off comments aimed at some ethereal, perpetual recycling critic stand as strange non sequiturs.

“I visit all of these plants because I trust no one,” he continued. “We just started taking those compact florescent bulbs, and last Thursday I drove down to Richmond and spent the entire day down there at the factory learning how they’re being recycled. And I paid for my own lunch, by the way. That’s the kind of guy I am. I’m one of those nut cases. And I tell people—and I’m going to be honest—they’re not overpaying me.”

Where is my mind? (On your desk)

If it’s easy to trace the path of paper once it’s outlived its institutional usefulness, it is hard to know just how much paper is being used. The city is reluctant to disclose the amount of office paper it buys. They work with three vendors, and while they have the numbers from two, they are unable to get quantities from the third. Since giving the two numbers would be an incomplete picture, says city spokesperson Ric Barrick, the city won’t release any numbers.

It’s the same story with Albemarle County, though they will say the county recycled 63.05 tons of paper last year. The city, with its single-stream recycling program that lumps all recyclable materials together, is unable to quantify the amount of paper it recycles.

UVA, on the other hand, runs its own recycling center and keeps record of the amount of paper that passes through. In 2005, UVA recycled 1,745 tons of paper—four times more than what the entire county recycled last year. In 2006, the total jumped nearly 200 tons to 1,937. From 2000 to August 2007, UVA has recycled roughly 13,402 tons of paper.
In the age of e-mail, PDF and wireless everything, UVA’s tonnage equivalent of a battleship hardly points to a paperless future. Where did the Paperless Office go so wrong?

Proponents of the Paperless Office saw paper as a simple medium for information. What they missed was paper’s functionality as a tool for managing and creating the information it transports. They saw costs to buy, store and deliver, but didn’t recognize what Sellen and Harper dubbed its “affordance”—what paper helps us do.

Paper can be marked up, shuffled, spread out, passed between different people, folded, thumbed through and left on our desks as a physical reminder. Sellen and Harper found that our desks serve as snapshots of our minds. The way we order the paper on our desks tells us which particular thread of thinking we were following after we return from lunch, and the papers at the tops of our piles show us what our mental priorities were. The notes, underlinings and marked-up pages give us a stop-motion shot of our mind at work.

Five years ago, I worked at a Washington, D.C. nonprofit. Like most of these operations, ours was powered by under-25 desk jockeys, we who traded low pay for the promise of work days capped at eight hours and the right to wear wrinkled jeans unbothered by the suited higher-ups. We quickly came to realize two things. First, the length of your title was precisely and reversely proportional to your actual importance. Second, those of us who had the cleanest desks didn’t do shit.

Our desks were monuments to output, real or, on some days, feigned. Some of us cultivated piles of papers like giant bonsai trees, tending them daily until they shattered the dichotomy of perfection and imperfection, crossing into some sort of office zen. We also noticed our boss, the man charged with the organization’s day-to-day activities, had as much paper on his desk as he did hair on his head.

He would often come and stand by our desks, making noises about mess and inefficiency. We kept quite. He had a furious temper and not a social skill at his disposal. None of us were surprised to learn, I’m sure, that after he left, the organization’s books were found to be in disarray. The board of directors saw his clean desk and felt confident in a man who was so obviously organized and well be-suited. We compared his desk with our own and stared into his windowed office from our cubes, silently judging.

These internal landscapes spread bare across desks mean little to anyone but us. Even now, I know exactly what “tour = vid” and “thurs paper w/ Cathy” means, notes scribbled from a meeting on a printed to-do list. But if I begin to dig through the stacks of other people’s paper that I’ve collected from the office, little of it means anything to me.

On top of a three-line memo titled “The Wonders of Winter” is the figure, written in black ink, 23/10. I don’t know if those numbers (a fraction? a ratio?) are related to the words below, or were scribbled completely independently in a moment of hurried work.

There is a yellow post-it, the size of a thumb, that says, “Follow-up. Idea: Flesh out: Get done.”

There is a list of our local entertainment picks—Sharon Jones, Tim Reynolds, UVA tennis—with check marks by some entries, others crossed out entirely. A name is circled, and a line in red ink drawn to the handwritten words “speculate; board chair.”

Paper haze

As facilities go, the Paper Sort isn’t much. Five tractor trailers sit at the wait in back of a large concrete slab where the large metal bins of paper are dumped. From there the cardboard and mixed paper gets baled. The office paper is kept loose because of its lack of heft and the fact that a good lot of it comes to the facility shredded.

Every Wednesday morning, for example, the city drops off its shredded documents. “Faithfully,” says Edmonds. “They’ve never missed it. It’s 9 o’clock, here the boys are.”

The truck from McIntire rumbles in, backs up to the slab, and its back hydraulic lifts come to life, unsheathing the bright chrome bars as the truck’s bed tips up. A small amount of paper trickles out, and then gravity kicks in and a seemingly endless pile of paper disgorges itself from the bin. Because the paper inside the bin is loose, the haul is probably only three or four tons. Cardboard loads, because they are compacted at McIntire, weigh more than five tons.

The driver stops the bed mid-tilt and backs up the truck, pushing the paper on the concrete into a semi-compressed pile. The bed starts up again with a hydraulic whine, and more paper tumbles on top of the pile.

This is the mixed paper, the Diet Coke 12-packs and Raisin Bran boxes, and it will be sorted through and baled. Larry begins to warm up the compactor. Once the truck leaves, Bobby will jump in the Bobcat to dump the loose paper into the humming, shaking mouth of the compactor. Every couple of minutes, a loud pop, gun-shot-like, will ricochet off the concrete floor and around the three walls. It’s the sound of a metal band being shot around the massive brick of compressed paper.

All the paper, loose or compacted, is stuffed into the trailers by Bobby with the Bobcat, a small front-end loader that is driven with two handles, the bucket of which is operated with foot pedals. It is a nightmare for an unseasoned operator; everything about it is reversed. Bobby, in his late 30s or early 40s and bearded, is to the Bobcat what Jimi Hendrix was to the electric guitar.


Waste not: “I’m under this environmental management system that Rivanna instituted at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars, meaning that we’re reducing our carbon footprint,” said RSWA’s Bruce Edmonds. “Every trailer that leaves here is fully loaded.”

Edmonds walks inside a trailer filled with loose office paper. It is packed tight against the back wall, floor to 10′ ceiling, as if an enormous hand had flattened it all to an end. This is Bobby’s work. Sheets and sheets of paper form a wall in front of me, starting at my feet and gradually reaching the ceiling. Intermixed with the regular sheets are the confetti-like strips of shredded documents, presumably from the city.

“See how good my guys are?” asks Edmonds, pointing to the trailer’s ceiling. “Notice they haven’t busted my trailer. These men, Larry and Bobby, are very trained.”

He looks over the stack of paper up to the ceiling.

“That’s tight,” he says. In my hour or so here, it becomes obvious Edmonds thinks about paper stacking the way a museum curator might think about the layout of a new exhibit. “See how tight that is? You get the wrong guy in here, I walk in here and in two seconds I can judge their work. One, I could see the sun. Two, it would only be about this high,” he says, hand at his chest.

Edmonds moves back to the bales. “Think about how tight that compaction is,” he says.
Think about it. You can tell Edmonds does. Not look. Not notice. Not ponder. Think.

End of the paper trail

In this wall of paper, single sheets stick out. Most look similar: inked over, marked up, margins filled with phrases, numbers and words with a collective meaning amounting to a dada poem. And here is what the Paperless Office people didn’t figure on—rarely do we read anything in the office without a pen in hand.

Paper allows us to read and write at once, as well as navigate through large documents. As Sellen and Harper discovered, at work we rarely read in a linear fashion. Instead, people page through documents, skim and skip, get a sense for certain sections. Ironically, linear reading is the mode that digital technology best facilitates. Begin to read a PDF longer than two pages, and a feeling arises that is akin to walking down a sewer pipe.

Technology hasn’t eliminated paper from the office—it’s simply given us another medium in which to work: dual use. And here we now stand, one foot firmly planted in the land of paper, the other put forward into the benefits and limitations of digital technology. The question, then, is this: Is dual use, the combination of paper and technology we use to do work, a viable compromise between the way we work and the connectivity of technology?

Or is dual use just an evolutionary way station on the path to an all-digital world?

More and more of our communication outside of work has moved into the digital realm, with almost no trail of paper, no proof weeks or years from now that these conversations ever happened. Quick text messages, lives lived via MySpace and Facebook, our cultural channels are increasingly leaving paper behind. Ten years from now, when your average 22-year-old starts his or her first office job having been plugged into this digital landscape from birth, will we still leave the same overwhelming amount of paper in our wake?

Looking at our paper use today, it’s hard to imagine we won’t. But then I remember my time as a graduate assistant at a Northern Virginia university, where I taught freshmen and sophomores. Just five years removed from my own undergraduate days when pen and paper were all you needed in class, and when not everyone I knew owned a computer, it was a jarring first day when students walked into English 201, flipped open their laptops and sat prepared to type notes (while—I tried not to notice—playing solitaire and surfing the Internet).

About a third of class readings came from the Web, so imagine my surprise when the time came for us to discuss the first one. I asked the students to take out the essay, which I had assumed they had printed then dutifully marked up.

Blank looks, confusion. Only one or two people had printed the essay. The rest had read it online and, if they were to be believed, typed any notes they took on their computers.

We had a quick talk about the necessity of printing everything we read and bringing it to class, and for the most part, that’s the way it worked from there on out. But even as I was explaining all this, the looks from these newly minted college students served to point out the absurdity of what I was saying. Read something, take notes, then print everything out? It hadn’t even occurred to them not to read a dense essay on their screens. I felt so old.

In a world where technology is the means of dissemination, but paper the way in which we interact with information, how much of paper’s necessity is vestigial, waiting to be discarded with an evolutionary shake of the shoulders? If you grow up with pixels as your visual medium, then what good is paper?

Back at the facility, the truck has emptied the bin and is driving away. Bobby jumps in the Bobcat and Larry punches in the code to start the baler. It kicks itself to life, and the rumble of the departing truck begins giving way to another motorized sound, the baler, higher pitched and hollow.

The truck will be back here again Monday, says Edmonds, full. In fact, he’s seen an increase in all grades of paper coming through here. All of it except newsprint. “The 30-and-under crowd,” he says, referring to the decline in daily newspaper subscriptions, “are going Net.”

Categories
News

Work begins on Downtown tower

As Downtown pedestrians noticed last week, the building at 200 E. Main St., known as the former Boxer Learning building, swelled in anticipation of the nine-story tower it’s preparing to birth, with yellow tape and steel poles expanding its presence on the Mall.

To ensure a smooth pregnancy, Lee Danielson, the project’s public face, came before the city Board of Architectural Review (BAR) with his new design firm, NBJ Architecture, to get final approval in anticipation of a building permit. NBJ’s most recent Charlottesville project was the Hilton Garden Inn at Peter Jefferson Place.


Prepare, Mall pedestrians, for the Boxer Learning building to enter a cocoon so that the Landmark Hotel may emerge.

“While we were very competently handled in the beginning [by the West Coast firm Hornberger + Worstell],” Danielson told the BAR, “the fact that we have somebody who’s basically so involved in Central Virginia, knows the Charlottesville way of life, he can provide the construction administration that would have been very difficult from San Francisco.”

Neil Bhatt, president of NBJ, reviewed some minor detail changes to the project. Though the BAR had some comments, they seemed almost as eager as Danielson and Bhatt to see the project go forward.

Danielson first received approval for what has become known as the Landmark Hotel, which would house 100 rooms, back in 2004, and the BAR loved the design. However, as his partnership with Colin Rolph had disintegrated, the project languished and the site was eventually sold to local developer Oliver Kuttner for $3.7 million in 2006. Kuttner toyed with his own nine-story design, but sold the project back for $4.5 million in 2007 when Danielson teamed with Halsey Minor, a local who made a fortune in the dot-com boom.

So after all the shuffling, the BAR was back with the design that it loved.

“Our commitment and our statement to Neil when he came on board was not to touch the design of this building, interior or exterior,” said Danielson. “As you all know, once you start making a change, it’s humongous amounts of money that go, through the old domino theory.”

Demolition work is slated for this week, and the official groundbreaking will take place March 11. Developers hope to have the building permit in hand by May 15.

“We’re not stopping,” Danielson said.

C-VILLE welcomes news tips from readers. Send them to news@c-ville.com.

Categories
News

The meat of the matter

What does a juicy burger, brie cheese, a latte, a stylish belt, manufacturing lubricants, and a bowl of organic steamed vegetables have in common? The answer is: cows! Those lovely creatures that dot the fields along the highway have for thousands of years provided humans with meat, dairy, fertilizer, clothing and much more. For both vegetarians and carnivores, it’s hard to escape our dependence on cows.


The image stops here: A bucolic picture of grazing cows is about as much as most of us want to know about where our meat comes from.

Yet, as far as our understanding of where our food comes from, the image of a grazing cow is about as much as most of us want to know. As Americans, we want our food fast, cheap, and without too much information so we can shop in blissful ignorance.

Even recalls of tainted beef are becoming so commonplace that the latest one on February 18 of 143 million pounds of beef may not do much to make the average consumer stop and think for long. The USDA report about the recall states that the meat was potentially unfit for human consumption because the cattle in question weren’t properly inspected. However, it is what the USDA report does not say that is most disturbing.

This recall is actually the result of a Humane Society undercover filmed investigation of “downed” dairy cattle that were too weak or sick to stand on their way to slaughter. Their video shows these downed cattle being jabbed with fork lifts, shocked with electric cattle prods, stabbed in the eyes, and sprayed with high-pressure hoses, in an attempt to get them on their feet so they could be legally sold for meat—all in the presence of USDA inspectors.

Video from the Humane Society’s undercover investigation.

The USDA report doesn’t even mention the horrendous abuses inflicted upon these cattle. In fact, USDA undersecretary Richard Raymond stated that, despite the recall, “We are very confident in our food system.” Well, Richard, I’m not!

I lost my confidence in the food system back in the 1990s while studying global agriculture as an anthropologist. Even though I had grown up on a dairy farm, I realized how little I recognized farming today. I learned that virtually all livestock is raised in large-scale confinement operations to cut costs and that abuse and suffering is an inherent part of this system.

With the burden of knowledge, I could no longer shop in blissful ignorance. I tried vegetarianism for eight years until I learned that laying hens suffer the most of all confined animals, and that the composted manure I used to fertilize my organic garden came from confinement dairies. There was no escape! Luckily, I spent several years living on traditional farms in France, which reminded me that farm animals can have good lives. My husband and I decided to create an ethical alternative to the factory farm model, and so we began raising beef cattle and chicken ourselves and selling it locally.

What else can a reasonable, thinking person do? Opt out of the industrial food system. Buy as much as you can locally. Go to farmer’s markets and talk to the farmers personally. Minimally, educate yourself about the origins of your food.

Don’t be fooled by the seemingly higher costs of local food. We actually pay dearly for cheap industrial food, in the form of taxes spent on agricultural subsidies, environmental pollution, tainted beef recalls, loss of farmland because farmers can’t survive on the low wages, and horrific animal cruelty in a system whose only goal is maximization of production. Thus there is no time for downer cows in a modern slaughterhouse where 6-7 cows are “processed” per minute.

It turns out that there is a very high cost to cheap food.

Elizabeth Van Deventer, her husband, and their three boys run Davis Creek Farm in Nelson County.