Toronto G20 Conference: A View From The Wreckage

Here are my observations from this year's G20 conference in Toronto. I have inserted as little political commentary as possible, opting instead to share my personal experience.



June 25th, 2010



10:51 PM

I arrive in Toronto to a surprisingly vacant parking lot on the Esplanade, in the heart of Toronto's bustling financial district.










10:56 PM

Quietest Friday night I've ever seen in Toronto. Barely a soul out in the usually packed financial district.










2:12 AM

On the way back to my lodgings, I pass by the French delegation's bus. The hotel workers had been on strike for the previous few days. The hotel company is owned by a French company, so they decided to go on strike while the French delegation was there as a bargaining tactic. The picketers left hours before my arrival.






2:14 AM

The Esplanade is conspicuously devoid of returning bar goers.












June 26th, 2010



10:39 AM

I arrived a few minutes after a scheduled keynote speaker at Allen Gardens that I heard about on Twitter. The tent town built by protesters has already been broken up, and its occupants dispersed.








10:40 AM

The speaker went on anyways, with a small crowd. I was told there would be a 1:00 PM rally at the Provincial Legislature, Queen's Park.










10:56 AM

In the meantime, I headed to Bay Street, the heart of Canada's financial district. I figured if there were pre-rally disruptions, they would be here.









11:04 AM

All's quiet at Queen's Park. I decided to walk down to the security barrier surrounding the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, where the summit was being held.









11:11 AM

The Art Gallery of Ontario was one of the many high profile venues that closed for the conference. Mirvish cancelled all of their shows, including the high profile Rock of Ages musical. The Blue Jays were also forced to move 3 home games to Philadelphia.







11:18 AM

University Avenue. One of Toronto's busiest streets. Empty.











11:29 AM

Arrival at the Security barrier. A few officers hanging around, but surprisingly quiet.











11:30 AM

The police decided to use tightly meshed chain link fences to make climbing the barriers extremely difficult. I used a Canadian bill for scale, which may be slightly deceptive to Americans (since our bills are slightly shorter, and wider). It still appeared to be somewhat climbable, but I didn't dare test my theory.






11:36 AM

I caught the subway at Osgoode station to head back to Queen's Park. It was quieter than it usually is at 1 AM on a Sunday.










11:55 AM

A scene from the University of Toronto, which was also closed for the conference.











12:06 PM

The people in orange hats are the legal representation for the protesters. They're prepping for a long day.










12:10 PM

Queen's Park begins to fill up with all of the usual suspects. Union activists, environmentalists, and anti-war protesters seemed to be the bulk of the crowd.









12:30 PM

Things seemed quiet, so we decided to go for lunch. When I saw Greepeace approaching, I knew it wouldn't be quiet much longer...










12:34 PM

...and then I saw people in their midst who appeared to be Black Bloc anarchists. They are notorious for their role in the Seattle WTO protests of 1999, where they caused major property destruction. Given that they show up to protests specifically to attack corporate buildings, I had to stay close by.






12:43 PM

Things got pretty busy at Queen's Park. Despite the rain, an estimate put the crowd at 5000.











12:48 PM

A crowd protesting the Ethiopian genocide filled the streets of Queen's Park. I told my photographer not to worry about them. They had nothing to gain from being violent. Spoiler: I was right.








1:00 PM

The Queen's Park subway station. Moments after this photo, I was told that this stop, among others was closed. First sign that the police were prepared to funnel the crowd down University Avenue, to avoid anyone getting to Bay Street. Given the number of anti-bank banners, this was probably wise.






1:14 AM

A frustrated streetcar driver looks on as protesters and police shut down University Avenue. Combined with the subway closure, passengers has little option but to wait for the march to end. I have no idea when this streetcar was actually up and running again.







1:41 PM

The demonstrators have now officially shut down University Avenue. Frustrated motorists driving south on University are stuck for minutes on end, trying to plow through the crowd.









1:56 PM

The crowd continues south on University. They are flanked on either side by police. I instructed my photographer to stay as far north as the police. The last thing I wanted was to get caught with police and protesters on either side. I wanted to maintain an exit strategy.







2:26 PM

After a long march south, the protesters are all funnelled to the east side of the street. This bolstered my theory that the police were trying to contain the protests between Queen's Park and the barrier. A classic pincer formation.








2:37 PM

My first sighting of riot police.












2:45 PM

I was proven wrong. Rather than contain the crowds (which would lead to immediate confrontation), the police formed a human funnel to shunt the protesters west on Queen Street. They were betting that dispersing protesters towards bohemian West Queen West would give them fewer targets. Given that they decided to use dispersment, rather than containment as their strategy, this was not unreasonable.




2:47 PM

The view from Queen West. Seems remarkably quiet. Few protesters left in sight.











2:55 PM

A little bit of hipster irony. This was going to be my caption photo had there been no destruction. Clever stunt, I must say.

I chatted with some riot police to see if anything had happened. No reports of violence. I decided that nothing was going to happen just yet. I began heading east to meet a friend at a pub. As I reached University, I noticed the police were once again blockading. I was talking to bicycle police, and pointed out that that the riot police one street south were putting on gas masks. They looked back, looked west down Queen, and noticed that the protesters were marching back East. There appeared to be police officers fighting with protesters, so the police told us to head north immediately, or we would be collateral damage. He wasn't being threatening; just acknowledging a reality.

At this point, we left. As we walked north, we bumped into someone who had come from further west on Queen West. He informed us that rioters were breaking every window in sight. We then turned east to try to get far enough away from the protests to head back south to where we were staying. The protests seemed to follow us in lockstep each time we went South. It turns out that many of the protesters who were funelled west simply headed south, and turned back east to avoid the police. Hence the riot police with gas masks a block south.


3:48 PM

We eventually ended up walking south on Church. As we crossed King Street, we saw a cloud of smoke. It appeared too dark to be tear gas.









3:48 PM

It turns out the smoke was coming from a burning car in the middle of the road. We later found out it was a police car set on fire by protesters with Molotov cocktails (one of at least 3). We decided it was time to get out of downtown.

I met my friend at the pub (C'est What?), and told him there was a car on fire down the street, and protesters were rapidly moving our way, leaving behind a swath of destruction. We headed a block north of Yonge and College to another bar.

After ordering a drink at Bar Volo, the owner walked up to our table, and told us to move away from the window. There were people breaking windows of shops just south on Yonge, and he didn't want his customers to get hurt. We hopped in a cab, and fled to north.

We spent the next few hours at Rebel House. Ironically, this was the launching point for one of Canada's biggest political clashes, the Upper Canada Rebellion. The irony was unintentional.


11:46 PM

We returned downtown around 11pm to have a quick drink at Duggan's, a local microbrewery. Upon leaving, downtown was once again eerily quiet. Some business owners had the foresight to board up in anticipation of the riots.








11:52 PM

We were greated by hundreds of riot police outside of our lodgings. We litterally had to be escorted accross the street. There didn't appear to be anything amiss.









12:42 AM

From the roof, we were able to discover what the police were up to: resting.















12:45 AM

More riot police arrived. They appeared to be regrouping in prepartion for more protests. The next day, we found out that hundreds of people were arrested just outside. There also appears to have been a journalist abused and detained in this flurry of arrests. I suspect we'll hear much more about this.







June 27th, 2010



1:56 PM

I decided to drive around the Queen West/Bay Street areas to survey the damage. This Bank of Montreal was one of many banks that was attacked.









2:09 PM

After being questioned by police, we resumed photographing. Given that I was driving around taking photos, this was unsurprising.

The CIBC accross the street from Bank of Montreal was another of the Banks smashed in. It surprised me how quick the vandalized establishments were boarded up. No remaining shattered glass visible from the road.




2:11 PM

The Gap was one of the predictable targets for protesters. There were dozens of less prominent shops that were also vandalized.










2:12 PM

Starbucks. The absolute favorite target of anti-corporate vandals.











2:13 PM

The vandals also targetted the CTV news building, as well as several media vehicles. Their commitment to free speech seemed questionable by this point.









2:13 PM

A window at police headquarters broken during the riots.











2:14 PM

Yet another CIBC location with broken windows.












2:15 PM

I continued along Queen Street, passing by the Four Seasons Centre, home of the Canadian Opera Company. My favorite building in the city. As I crossed the intersection, I heard a loud rumble. Yet another protest march coming down Queen Street, following a police car. I quickly pulled a U-turn, and headed north on University. I kept going, and exited the city.






There are plenty of lessons that one might learn from this experience. This was my second G20, after last year's meeting in Pittsburgh. This was far more chaotic, possibly even worse than the Seattle riots in '99. The lesson that I want to impart is simple: major political meetings should never be held in large cities. They are a magnet for violent protesters, and endanger local residents. The destruction, and the billion dollar security tab will hopefully make politicians think twice about foisting these events upon major cities. Like I said before the meeting, it should have stayed in Huntsville, a small tourist town outside of the city where it was initially supposed to take place. This is my personal opinion. You decide.

My Review of The Great Reset by Richard Florida in C2C Journal

Here is my review of urban guru Richard Florida's latest book The Great Reset in C2C Journal.

**Do Not Watch Splice Under Any Circumstances**

★ ☆ ☆ ☆





**Spoiler Alert**


Ordinarily, I do my best to avoid spoilers. However, I think it would be a disservice in this case. Simply put, Splice is the most disgusting movie I have ever seen. It is the only movie that has ever made me feel physically ill. Inter-species sex? Really? I can't imagine why anyone would want to see that. I guess it wouldn't be so bad if there were redeeming qualities in the movie. There weren't. Sadly, the critics loved it. It was widely considered an intelligent exploration of the moral dimension of genetic engineering, and a parable for the difficulties of parenting. What rubbish. It had all the moral complexity that you would expect from a dinner table political discussion.

Splice is about a genetic experiment, which leads to the creation of a human/animal hybrid. The experiment began as an attempt to create a new medicinal compound, quickly spun out of control. In short, it is a diatribe against genetic engineering. While I'm sympathetic to this position, I was disappointed by the simplistic approach director Vincenzo Natali took to the issue. He aimed for a purely visceral reaction, which is exactly what he got. However, I'm not sure it actually caused anyone to think any deeper about the issue.

For a movie that has been praised for it's treatment of complex moral issues, the dialogue was surprisingly amateurish. The rushed conversations were filled with talking points, and flippant reversals. It felt like a made for tv movie, with slightly better special effects. While Adrian Brody wasn't terrible, Sarah Polley put in a performance unworthy of a b-movie. Instead of the suspense that it aimed to create, the film elicited little more than unintentional giggles, and a good deal of disgust from the audience. Guillermo del Toro should be embarrassed to have lent his name to such an amateurish production.

It seems that the entire purpose of Splice was to 'push the envelope.' Given that critics seem to mistake edginess for thoughtfulness, this was probably a good marketing ploy. Ironically, I wouldn't be surprised if this tactic was self defeating. After all, this project received $2.5 million from TeleFilm Canada, a Canadian Government funded cultural agency. Given the number of people who left the theatre in disgust, I wouldn't be surprised if there were calls to review Canadian film subsidies. Though I'm against most forms of censorship, it's hard to blame people for not wanting to fund films that they find incredibly offensive. If there is a market for inter-species sex scenes, film companies should be able to raise the money themselves. Somehow, I doubt that this market exists.

My Article on The G-20 Summit at Newgeography.com

Check out my article on the costs of the upcoming G-20 Conference in New Geography, the premier online journal of urban issues.

Toronto's G-20 Conference: Financial Boon or Boondoggle?

Ever since the ill fated 1999 WTO meeting in Seattle, there has been some debate over the merits of hosting meetings of international organizations in major cities. While some argue that there are economic spin offs from the tourism generated by these conferences, others argue that the security costs far outweigh the benefits. In the lead up to the G-20 meeting in Toronto, there has been a flurry of controversy over the price tag for conference security. The combined security tab for the G-8 and G-20 could end up as high as $900 million dollars. Unfortunately, there has been little discussion about whether the economic spin offs could justify this cost. It seems unlikely, but it would be unfair to jump to any conclusions without looking at the facts.

The tourism industry does have the potential to reap some gains from the G20. The best case scenario for the industry would see 50,000 rooms booked for the conference. Unsurprisingly, Greater Toronto Hotel Association Terry Mundell is excited. "It's a good news story for us," he claims. If we assume (optimistically) that each room goes for $300/night, the hotel industry could make $30 million out of the deal. On top of this, people will obviously be spending money while they're in town. Let's assume that these 50 thousand people consume 4 meals/day at $100/person. This would be a cool $40 million for the restaurant industry. Maybe these folks will have a few drinks. Let's budget in $100/night. After all, these are affluent folks. That's $10 million for the bars. Maybe a few souvenirs to bring back for the kids? Let's say another $10 million. And what if they need some Tylenol? Toothbrushes? Toss in another $10 million. We're up to about $100 million in direct economic benefits. But wait, people need to get to Toronto, and to get around the city. We'll be generous and throw in $100 million for airfare. Add to that $100/day in cabs, and we have another $10 million. This brings the grand total to $210 million. Far from negligible. Unfortunately, that's about double the official estimate of $100 million. Like I said, this is a best case scenario.




On the cost side of the ledger, it is important to note that the costs will be divided between the G-8 Conference in Huntsville, and the G-20 in Toronto. Let be extremely generous and assume it is an even split. Of the $833 million already announced, we'll say $400 million is going to the Toronto conference. This still leaves us with a shortfall of $190 million. Remember, this is an extremely optimistic scenario.

Here's the bad news: even under the optimistic scenario, we still haven't factored in opportunity costs. So far it has been confirmed that three Blue Jays games will be moved to Philadelphia, and the University of Toronto will shut down during the conference. In anticipation of former Jays star pitcher Roy Halliday's first return to Toronto, the team had budgeted for 90,000 fans to attend. At an average revenue of $39/fan, that's a loss of $3.5 million dollars. It's hard to say how many fans would have come into the city from out of town, but it wouldn't be at all unrealistic to say that the city is going to lose at very least another $3.5 million in spin offs.

Even without any similar cancellations, Seattle business managed to lose at least $10 million in revenue as a result of the WTO meeting in 1999 (not to mention the $2 million in property damage). Furthermore, if the G-20 wasn't going to be in Toronto, we don't know how many hotel rooms would have been rented out for other events, or whether the conference goers will crowd out other patrons from restaurants. This is the difficulty with these types of estimates. They take into account the benefits that we see, but not the unseen opportunity costs. It's hard to count a family that decided not to go on vacation, or someone who didn't bother going to the restaurant because it's too busy.

One might argue that the short term costs will be mitigated by long term benefits. After all, some people might like the city so much that they'll want to visit again. Perhaps some number of people will even want to move to the city. I had a similar experience during the G-20 in Pittsburgh last year (though haven't followed through). If we look at it this way, any shortfall could be seen as a tourism advertising expense. Will this pay off in the long run. Unfortunately it is impossible to tell.

So let's assume that the shortfall for the conference is $200 million dollars. That seems pretty reasonable at this point. Let's further assume that there will be a non-trivial long term tourism benefit to the city. In fact, let's assume they make it all back. I still don't buy into the idea of holding major international political conferences in major cities.




My biggest objection is the inconvenience to citizens of the city, which will likely include many people being caught up in violent protests, and police retaliation. No one should have to get tear gassed in the name of boosting tourism. I was there in Pittsburgh when stores were being smashed in, and the police were gassing protesters. Given that I was wise enough to stay away from the protests, I didn't personally witness the chaos. Having said that, there is plenty of footage showing the violent clashes between protesters and police. After Seattle, London, Pittsburgh, and many other cities where these conferences have ended violently, politicians should have learned their lesson. Forget tourism dollars. These conferences are about solving major economic problems. The G-8 meeting is being held in tiny Huntsville, where the G-20 originally was supposed to be held. That's how it should be. It's easier to import police to a small town than to evacuate the downtown of a major city. Hopefully it doesn't take another Seattle to impart this lesson to governments. It probably will.

Foursquare: The Next Airmiles?

I've had a few people ask me lately why I use Foursquare. Superficially, it seems like nothing more than a gift to stalkers all over the world. Users don't receive any direct monetary benefit, and it is impractical as a tool to coordinate social events. When I joined up, I had the exact same question: what is the benefit? The answer lays not so much in what you get from it now, but in the potential it has to function as a conduit for rewards programs.

Foursquare is pretty simple. It is a location based social application. You download it on your smartphone, and the GPS enables you to find the venue you're at, and 'check in.' There are a number of badges that you can earn, and if you've checked in more than anyone else, you become the 'mayor' of the place. This is the most that you will get out of Foursquare itself, but increasingly, venues are partnering with Foursquare to introduce their own rewards.

Though few establishments have began to utilize Foursquare as a marketing tool, there are some significant early adopters. The most notable of which is Starbucks. Starbucks has introduced a rewards program whereby the mayor of each location is entitled to a $1 discount of frappuccinos. That may not seem like much, but it is a start. Now that a major player like Starbucks has entered the fray, there is a good chance that competitors will feel the need to compete with similar rewards programs. McDonald's is actively developing a similar program in collaboration with Facebook.

There are two major hurdles to the spread of such reward programs. The first is that the market for location based social apps is still wide open. Competitors Google Latitude and Gowalla could well end up becoming the dominant technology. The second is a little trickier. Not enough people use any location based social app. Until they become widely used, there will be little incentive for venues to introduce rewards.

In the end, consumers will decide which platform wins out. Maybe location based social apps will die out altogether. It's difficult to forecast which technologies will be adopted by consumers. Only the market can determine this. Regardless of whether Foursquare thrives, the potential for location based social apps is immense. Immediate discounts, combined with social recognition could make location based apps more appealing than Airmiles for some people. I'd bet on it.

Cracking Down On Unpaid Internships | Why Not Just Ban College?

The US Department of Labor is cracking down on unpaid internships. The rational is that internships have become exploitative, leading to little or no benefit to interns. The D.O.L has listed 6 criteria under which unpaid internships can be offered:

• The internship is similar to training that would be given in an educational environment – even though it includes operations of the employer’s facilities.

• The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern.

• The intern doesn’t displace regular employees – he or she works under their supervision.

• The employer receives no immediate advantage from the intern.

• The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the end of the internship.

• Both the employer and the intern understand that the intern isn’t entitled to wages.

The most important caveats are the third and fourth. Given the rhetoric around the issue, it is clear that the biggest concern the D.O.L has is that internships are replacing paid entry level positions. While I understand the concern about not replacing paid employees, preventing the employer from receiving any "immediate advantage" is ludicrous. After all, no employer would take on an intern if they didn't feel they'd receive some immediate advantage.

While I've never been an *unpaid* intern, I have had two different internships. In my last internship program, I worked alongside two unpaid interns. To say that they didn't provide any advantage to our employers would be insulting. They were often required to wake up at 5am to do field research, and earned the organization plenty of positive media attention. By this criteria, our employer should be in serious trouble.

Aside from the contribution that they made, these internships certainly paid off. I haven't seen one of them in a few months, but the other is now a full time employee with the organization. She will tell you that her internship was more valuable than anything she ever learned in school. I would agree entirely. Though I've never been an unpaid intern, I have done plenty of volunteer work. I certainly gained more marketable skills from my internships and volunteer experience than from school (and I've got a Masters degree).

If the Department of Labor is serious about cracking down on unpaid internships, maybe they should look at banning post secondary education. After all, students PAY to go to school, with no guarantee of a job after graduation. The work is often more arduous than an internship, and is far more time consuming. Four years of paying to go to school is fare more of a financial hit to students than a 3 month unpaid internship. You could argue that students go to school voluntarily, and that they have reason to believe that it will benefit them in the long run. Then again, the same argument applies to unpaid internships.

It seems that the argument against unpaid internships is based more on a class warfare mentality than actual concern for individual interns. I know some interns from this summer who are still looking for work (unsurprising, given the economy), but I know many who have moved on to rewarding jobs. I certainly don't know of any who are worse off now than they were before. If the Department of Labor is opposed to individuals increasing their long term prospects, than they might as well just ban college.