Rick, you know what we're watching? No. Nahh! That's so bad!  And you can follow us on on Instagram! Twitter for more gewesen content! Should we count ring the bell and be held in the notification squad. Bye! And also, follow us on our personal channels, link's always in the description below, different kinds of juicy content on both of our channels. Go check those out. Today, a new trailer drop last night. It's a new Anyard Kashyap film directed by him. It's called Choked, which is why I choked Rick. And it's going straight to Netflix. Which is... Soon. Looks like June 5th. So very, very soon. And it's starring a... Let's... Do you want to say the rest of those names? Because I don't know. Sure. Seyami Kerr. Uh-huh. Roshan Mathu. Amruta Sabash. Rajshree Deshpande. And you want to read the synopsis? That was a... Yeah, let me go ahead and scroll on down to the bottom of the slapshish. To what extent are you willing to go for money? Directed by Anyard Kashyap, Choked is the story of a hapless bank cashier whose life takes an unexpected turn when she finds a source of unlimited money in her own kitchen. What will happen when the world becomes suspicious of her newfound fortunes? Unlimited money. Ooh. Finds a source of unlimited money in her own kitchen. All right. Ready? Yeah. I'm intrigued. Three, two, one. Go! Got it. What is this? Oh! Caret! What are you doing? Eat it, man! I am feeding potatoes for the third time this week. Give me some paneer and paneer. I will feed potatoes to potatoes, right? Do you want to eat paneer or paneer? Those fingers? Oh no! Money. So they were fingers for a second. That's the truth, Sarita. But why did you come out?  Where is this money coming from? Who are you giving it to? Now you will see that all the black people have gone out. So, I am giving it to you. Let me show you. I can't work on you. I didn't ask you a question. I told you about the duty. Did you see the O in the choked was a drain? Yeah, it was a drain, yeah. I like that. Interesting. So yeah, it's so it's... I'm guessing something relating to when it happened that... What currency was it that basically they said wasn't... accepted anymore? Well, back in the great... Germany had that happen just before the rise of Hitler, where their currency was... It happened just recently in India. A certain note of currency, I believe, was not like within our year, but within the past couple years, I believe. A certain note was like deemed not allowed anymore. I didn't know that.  But anyways, yeah, and so also I don't recognize anybody in the trailer. It doesn't mean they're not famous.  The trailer looks very interesting. Like, what I'm mainly interested in is that it's on Yardkassia. But the trailer was good. It didn't... It wasn't like, wow, amazing. No. So it wasn't anything like that. But if you have that man attached to it, I'm going to watch it. Because I know the quality of work he tries to put out, and the fact that he also makes everything so real with his films. And so that's one I'm excited about, and it's also Netflix. So you don't have to pay anything to see it. If I'm just going to sit down and watch something in my living room, of course, I'm going to be like, okay, on Yardkassia, it's a new film. I'm going to go watch that. What did you think about it? Yeah, I feel the same way. If this wasn't his name attached to it, I would be like, okay, and I'd want to hear from other people. This would not immediately just the trailer in and of itself make me go, man, I want to watch this. The only reason I have any interest in this is because it's on Yardkassia. The story and the premise itself, I'm like, it was just enough to pique my interest, not necessarily garner my attention. So it's like obviously either drug money or something that she is finding right and just keeps coming to and she's spending it. And then at least how the stories go, the films we've seen in the past that obviously the mob finds out or whoever finds out and wants to come get her or she gets in trouble with the law like, where'd you get this money? Are you associated with them? So I don't know if it's something like that. I know on Yardkassia, it's a very creative director. And so I'm assuming he's going to do a lot more than just the story that we because we've seen a story similar to that before where somebody finds a bag of money, finds a whatever. Oh, yeah, there's countless stories of that. But the one thing in the summary that intrigues me, you know, up until this point, it's just as a story of a hapless bank cashier whose life takes an unexpected turn when she finds a source of unlimited money in her kitchen. Yeah. Okay. But the last the next sentence is what will happen when the world when the world becomes suspicious of her newfound fortunes? How does she go from being a hapless bank cashier in her kitchen to the world becoming suspicious of her newfound fortune? Maybe she becomes really, really rich and like a powerful person. Maybe because obviously he had the prime minister saying that these notes are no longer valid. Does she become the only person in India with valid currency? No, no, no, it's not like that. I believe that was an actual footage from Modi. That was that was what I was talking about. You were referring to. Yeah, I believe I believe you guys can let me know because I have no idea outside of I believe I heard once that some currency was no longer valid. Don't know anything more than that. So but yeah, I'm interested and one it's going straight to Netflix. So it's going to be pretty hard to miss because it's just going to be on my television. And so that's that's great. But you also have a lot of other stuff coming to coming to Netflix or Amazon. Just straight. Yeah, I think we should be getting the trailer for the Big B and Yushman Karana tonight. Really? Might be. I believe they said or tomorrow or something. And so I don't know if it's going to be subbed right away. Our subbers are hopefully going to be subbing that if and when it drops. So that'll be exciting. But that's going straight to Amazon too. But so you're getting a full on on your Kashi up film. A Big B film. The they just got Nawaz film. Right, right straight to streaming. Yeah, this is a crazy time. It is a crazy time. But anyways, let us know what you thought about the trailer down below. Let us know what and as well, I didn't mean sorry to interrupt you. I just and you may have you might have said this coming up. But stupid babies, let us know if we should know the names of these people in the faces of these actors that are in this show because we don't know. But that doesn't mean that they're not somebody. But he also might just be be like these are good actors and I'm going to let them be in my film. Yeah, that's great. On your Kashi up if you ever need white guys. Hello.


We're coming to the last lips lecture of this month. Today I have the pleasure of introducing David Vega Barakowicz. David is an associate at WXY Architecture and Urban Design and is also an adjunct professor of urban planning and design at Syracuse University. As a city planner and urban designer, David's work explores the instrumentality of codes and shaping the built environment. He's a former senior urban designer at NYC Planning and launched the Designing Cities Initiative at NACTO, the National Association of City Transportation Officials. At NACTO, David spearheaded the production of NACTO's Urban Street Design Guide and Urban Bikeway Design Guide, now standard design guidelines for cities across the country. He's the co-author of Startup City, inspiring private and public entrepreneurship, getting proposals done and having fun, which he wrote with Gabe Plein. David holds a master's of city planning from MIT and a bachelor's in urban studies from Columbia. Welcome, David. Thank you. It's good to be back at Columbia. This is my alma mater, so thank you. So, last week, the Minneapolis City Council voted to end single-family zoning city-wide. Effectively that tripled the city's housing capacity, allowing duplexes and triplexes in single-family neighborhoods all across the country, making up, which had made up about 70% of the land area, and really historically kind of ossified the city's racial and economic segregation. That vote, however, wasn't the first of its kind, and it was really coming off the heels of another really exciting moment in the land use movement that we're in right now, which was California's SB 50, Senate Bill 50, to upzone land around high-frequency transit stops and job-rich opportunity areas, which was really intended to lift California, which has been kind of experiencing this terrible housing crisis, which has been fueled by growth, NINBI-ism, and inflexible land use controls. The New York Times recently did an analysis that showed that most American cities, with the notable exception of New York, have vast areas that are reserved for single-family homes, exacerbating existing inequalities, limiting housing choices, and increasing sprawl. Well, the bulwark of Euclidean zoning, the single-family home, has recently come under attack. Transportation and mobility has equally been characterized by a kind of transformative upheaval, this time by technology. Automated vehicles like Waymo, a spin-off of Google Alphabet, have been trawling the streets and suburbs around Phoenix. Bird scooters descended like locusts on American cities, Santa Monica and Detroit shown here, and the digital mobility hasn't been limited to just transportation and mobility. E-commerce has inundated city streets, turning parking spots into kind of micro-consolidation hubs and bike lanes into grub hub highways. The New York Times recently reported that New Yorkers receive 1.5 million packages per day, and residential deliveries, which have no actual requirements to handle them in zoning, recently overtook commercial deliveries and volume. In the interim, Uber, Lyft, and Via have raced to become the all-in-one aggregator for transportation services of the future, in some markets even partnering with transit agencies to dispatch service or augment public transportation. Collectively, people have more options at their fingertips than ever, even as cities and regions continue to grapple with the chaos that has been induced by some of these radical changes. So this is an exciting time to be a planner, or at least it should be, and it's an opportunity for planners and the planning field to take action. But how? Amidst the kind of not-so-quiet revolution in land use and transportation, the planning field seems to be going in two different directions. On the one hand, we have the smart city, a kind of pent-up expression of 1960s-era futures, redesigned around the internet of things, shown here in Ford's kind of frictionless utopia characterized by automation, on-demand services, and ubiquitous data-different technology. On the other hand, we have the equitable city, kind of pitched focus on resolving entrenched and intractable issues of housing inequality and segregation, echoing the laments of progressive reformers from the era of John Lindsay to the days of Jacob Rees. Yet while we've found ourselves in the midst of a revolution in mobility and housing policy, our spatial thinking still remains entrenched in the era of New Urbanism, limited to half-mile circles around transit hubs, an idea not only re-emphasized by California's SB 50, but legislated as a statewide mandate. These half-mile circles drawn neatly around transit stops have dominated the kind of transportation land-use nexus since the 1980s, even as the number of Americans driving to work every day has increased to over 90% in most cities, even reaching over 75% in transit-rich cities like Chicago and Boston. A recent 2019 study led by Reed Ewing tested the basic underlying assumption that has been the foundation for much of our land-use and transportation policy for decades, which is that density and access to transit will actually reduce auto-dependency measured in vehicle miles traveled. Yet that study, which was led by Ewing, a well-known advocate for sustainable and compact cities, found that it is not only the localized density of individual neighborhoods that causes VMT to be lower in compact urbanized areas, but rather the relative accessibility of neighborhoods to the rest of the region. While studies like these may be unwelcome news to those who have devoted their careers to the promise of sustainable transportation, to the rezoning of transit-oriented neighborhoods, or the creation of light rail systems, the planning field needs to take a step back and reconsider some of the basic building blocks of our field, just as Minneapolis and California and to a lesser degree the self-proclaimed futurists of the tech world have done. Today I want to highlight and suggest three big ideas for the future of city planning. Most of these ideas have some foundation in the history of the field, but have either been forgotten entirely, disappeared from the profession's reading lists, or been deemed failures before their time. Collectively these three ideas, the national plan, mobility-oriented development and performance zoning, seek out a new nexus between land use and transportation, between local, state, and national planning, and to some degree aim to resolve the inherent ideological tensions between the dominant planning themes of our age, the smart city, and the equitable city. Every year as part of my introductory planning course at Syracuse University, I ask my students to select and analyze ten codes from their hometown's zoning ordinance. My goal with that assignment beyond getting students to actually read zoning, which is a challenge, is to really highlight the kind of absurd variation that we have in land use planning in local governments across the United States, and for suburban students in particular to understand how issues of lot coverage, use, density, and affordability have shaped their landscape of single family homes. This year I happen to have a number of students from China in my class, and when handing in their assignments, a group of these students came to me almost apologetically to tell me that most of their zoning codes were all more or less the same. The United States, like many countries, operates based on a system of land use planning that's almost entirely local in its scope and administration, even as individual codes strive to tackle regional, if not national, problems. The absence of national and state planning, however, has a rich and often overlooked history for planners, embodied by the brief surge of national and regional planning led by the Regional Planning Association of America, or the RPAA, a consortium of urban planners, intellectuals, housing reformers, economists, and architects whose wide ranging vision helped give birth to the new deal. The group was led, among others, by Lewis Mumford, the architect Clarence Stein, the housing architect Frederick Ockerman, regional planner and forester Benton Mackay, and the housing expert Katherine Bauer. In his 1925 essay, The Fourth Migration, Lewis Mumford described America's growth in four stages. The first migration, symbolized by the covered wagon, was the clearing of the continent, a history of restless men who burned forests, the forests of the Mohawk Valley in order to plant farms. The second migration was from the countryside and foreign countries into the factory town, a migration symbolized by the iron horse, the railroad, industrial expansion, and steam power. The third migration, meanwhile, concentrated the riches of America into its largest cities, its financial centers, and drained goods, people, and resources from the industrial towns and villages of earlier migrations. What then is the basis of the fourth migration? Mumford asked. For Mumford, the fourth migration would be fueled by the technological revolution then underway, the advent of the motorway, the telegraph, the radio, and electrical transition, dimming the metropolitan impulse that had characterized the third migration by making rural and small town life more palatable. As shown in this series of images from the 1926 New York State Commission on Housing and Regional Planning, a never-adopted manifesto of sorts for the RPAA, a backflow would take place for the metropolis to small towns and cities that had been depopulated and denuded by previous migrations. In a period of flow, Mumford said, men have the opportunity to remold themselves and their institutions according to new wants and necessities, new ideals of life. In contrast to the metropolitan regional plan then being drawn up at the behest of big business interests, at least in Mumford's eyes, the fourth migration would use technology to redistribute wealth back to the small towns and industrial villages that had been depopulated by earlier migrations. He and his collaborator Benton Mackay, the father of the Appalachian Trail, imagined a realignment of economic and cultural resources around a valley-based civilization that would support progress without despoiling natural resources. During the new deal, these ideas were enthusiastically adopted as part of a series of reform-minded agencies including the Resettlement Administration under Rexford Tugwell, the National Planning Board later renamed the National Resources Committee among myriad of other titles, and the newly formed Tennessee Valley Authority, the first of what the regionalists had hoped would emerge as a nascent regional administration based on shared economic interests and cultural values. The TVA, while it only partially fulfilled its promise to integrate new towns and settlements as part of a mission of delivering electricity and technology to rural Appalachia, was a unique interstate development project at the regional level, a precursor to the Interstate Highway Act and a national program committed to achieving regional equity and distribution. While the TVA rumblings in place to this day, other programs included the Greenbelt New Town Program in the Resettlement Administration, very far less well. These experiments were pilloried as excessive, even socialist in character. An overstepping of federal intervention into the matters of state and local jurisdictions and only a handful of towns were ever built before the program was canceled. While the promise of the RPA and the New Deal dimmed with the advent of World War II and the prosperity that followed, its underlying message that planning needed to achieve a national and a regional scale to relate the countryside to the city remained a critical theme of planning through the 1950s. General Motors' 1939 Futurama exhibition, though perhaps best known for its magic motorways, also extolled the virtues of hydroelectric power, new farming practices and technology, and a newfound neotechnic way of living shared by both country and city. As we now know, Mumper's fourth migration came to pass, but not as he had hoped. In the 1950s, a backflow did occur from congested dinosaur cities, yet Mumper's restless men did not return to the rural villages and old town centers he and his collaborators at the Regional Planning Association of America had admired. They moved to the suburbs, the sprawling road towns, and the farmland wastes at the rural urban fringe. This backflow only reinforced the magnetism of great cities at the expense of the countryside. It was a migration facilitated by federally guaranteed mortgages, accelerated by white flight, and subsidized by federal highway infrastructure, a far cry from the idealized de-concentration that Mumford had dreamed of. The economic balance sought between rural areas and metropolitan areas never came to fruition. As in Mumford's era, society is once again in a period of flow. Mobile technology, on-demand mobility, global access to information and data, the rise of social media, together present us with an opportunity to reconsider our basic institutions, the underlying fabric of our cities, regions, and communications networks to dwell on new ideals of life and new experiments of living. Yet our visions are too small. They exist at the scale of intersections and corridors, recasting the fixes of past eras at the local scale rather than using technology as a tool to rethink the regional or even the national balance of the built environment. Migrations, as Mumford called them, are the product of a constant ebb and flow of ideals, a striving for balance and equilibrium between capital, technology, and growth. Each migration is a reaction to, and in some ways even a negation of, the last movement's triumph. Deconcentration, the dream of one era became the nightmare of a new generation of urban planners. Likewise, the rebirth of cities, the aim of the fifth migration created a new crisis of housing and poverty, and world-class cities like San Francisco and New York have become case studies in excessive development and inequality. In today's lecture, I want to explore whether we are on the cusp of a sixth migration and if so, what the spatial implications of that migration might be for cities and regions. With that in mind, I want to suggest a new framework that considers those spatial implications and how cities and regions might adapt in the face of changing technologies. I call this mobility-oriented development. Mobility-oriented development, in contrast to development-oriented transit which characterizes the third migration, and auto-oriented development which characterizes the fourth migration, and transit-oriented development which characterizes the fifth migration is neither anti-city nor anti-suburb. It's dynamic, adaptable, and flexible. It's a product of the age of the Internet of Things. It responds not only to our desire to get from point A to point B but to our unconscious and simultaneous drive to be close yet far, connected yet anonymous, rural yet urban. In contrast to TOD, mobility-oriented development adopts and embraces mobility as a service to increase overall accessibility in our transportation systems. Accessibility is a transportation metric that's based on the integration of land use and mobility. It takes into account not only factors such as walkability, transit access, and travel time, but also the number of jobs and destinations accessible within a specific distance. Whereas other transportation metrics, especially those used to assess automobile travel, focus on travel time, speed, and delay, accessibility provides a complete picture of the multifaceted ways in which multiple transportation agents, systems, and origins, origins and destinations interact. As a metric accessibility analysis is tailor-made for the era of mobility as a service. Mobility as a service can be defined in a few different ways. At its core, it recognizes the potential for alignment between vehicle manufacturers, tech companies, transit agents, and transit agencies to become mobility service providers. Every transit agency in the country should begin thinking of itself as a mobility service provider from here on out, consolidating transit bus and taxi services into a single platform and working with third-party applications to develop routing and payment services. The key technology here, of course, is automation, which, if and when, it does become a reality, would decisively shift the nature of ownership from personal vehicles and transit passes to subscription-based services in the process creating customized platforms for multiple options with less focus on traditional car companies or transit authorities. Mobility, in turn, could eventually become something more like a utility, a core responsibility of a land over, akin to parking today, and facilitated by a third party to operate across a region rather than being an indirect subsidy provided for a solo by the municipality. At a metropolitan level, mobility as a service could have profound implications for how we think about traditional transportation and land use planning. While at a fundamental level, emerging mobility services like bike share and scooters increase our overall catchment area for transit, there's still vast swaths of many regions that lack sufficient access. Traditionally, the recipe for this problem has been to construct a new BRT, or light rail line, to serve that area, a solution that remains viable but often relies on parking rides in low-density areas. The decentralization of land uses in American cities tends to make TOD a rough proposition and one that fixes itself more often than not on the traditional radial concentric city rather than the scattered settlement patterns that characterize development in the U.S. With the rise of four higher vehicles and a newfound interest in microtransit and bus network redesign, many planners have been thinking about this model in a different way and instead contemplating the development or reinforcement of complex and variable feeder systems that can connect scattered land uses in a flexible way while accommodating nonlinear travel patterns and behaviors made possible by automobile travel today. Over time, these feeder systems and ride-hailing services could become more formal networks of integrated multimodal mobility hubs that allow for transit-like services capable of flexibly adjusting to new regional and local travel paradigms. So what would this look like and how could it work? First of all, transit agencies need to shift from running and operating services to managing mobility, contracting directly with third-party operators, apps, and services to run their services. To mitigate the risk of leaving customers open to the excesses of private companies like Uber, agencies need to flexibly develop demanding performance standards for their operators, just as cities have done with bike-share systems. What if third-party bus or micro-transit operators were required to not only meet on-time performance targets, but also decrease dwell time, increase service distribution, serving transit deserts, and decrease empty seats? Traditional transit agencies aren't held to those kinds of challenging performance standards, but performance-based contracts and agreements can and should enable operators to innovate, behaving more like startups than traditional public-benefit corporations can, and they behave more like bureaucracies. Implementing a kind of performance-based mobility as a service system doesn't mean throwing out our entire existing system of public transportation, but it does mean overlaying new processes, applications, and technologies onto our existing systems. Many of these, the MBTA in Boston, Dart in Dallas, and Washington, D.C.'s, WMATA have already begun to implement these kinds of systems, using partnerships with VIA, Uber, and Lyft to complement their existing transit service offerings. Perhaps the greatest challenge for the new startup economy, though, especially in mobility, is that shareholder profits and public benefits may simply not align. If the performance metrics developed by cities break the market rather than shaping it, then it's difficult to imagine how we can successfully leverage technology to improve service. Yet it's unreasonable to think that the current applications in systems being developed by companies like Uber and Lyft are the only means of managing and developing our transportation systems. If MTA in the city were to introduce a payment application that combined metro card services with taxis, buses, and private operators, it's not unimaginable that they could build a formidable competitor to today's ride-sharing companies in New York City, a one-stop shop for all transit and ride-share needs. By consolidating their services and embracing mobility as a service, transit agencies could become competitors in the four-hire vehicle space, which will grow weaker and weaker and more expensive for venture capital subsidies and shareholder profits become the priority. Yet this kind of system is troubled by a kind of simple problem. In any region with low densities, destinations tend to be concentrated, tend to be de-concentrated, and segregated by land-use patterns that require driving. The term performance is frequently used in planning and design today. Yet what does that mean and how is it tied to mobility? Like accessibility, performance zoning is an approach to land-use regulation that issues conventional rigid classifications and formal constraints in favor of goal-based metrics and mechanisms. Today, land-use and transportation policymakers are tethered to a land-use policy playbook that was developed in the era of new urbanism, or even earlier, framed around fixed transit assets and largely ignorant of or even in denial of the reality of technology that technology and mobility are changing in profound ways that might alter the underlying assumptions of our built environment. One of the primary challenges to our current land-use system is that it is essentially a form of end-state planning. In other words, a rezoning or a land-use action proposes the highest and best use for a particular tract of land at a particular point in time and subsequently that land fulfills that ideal or is changed later through a discretionary review process. The problem with this formula is twofold. First, it tends to ignore the potential for land-use codes to adapt over time based on changing environmental, social, and infrastructural conditions, such as surrounding density, new infrastructure, school capacity, or even environmental issues. Second, it foregrounds formal hierarchies over performance or design flexibility. In other words, its conception of land-use is essentially static rather than dynamic. Performance zoning has the potential to be adaptable and inherently flexible, permitting both creativity and design and in-site planning. The history of performance zoning isn't a long one. The idea was first introduced in the United States by a man named Dennis O'Hara to govern industrial emission standards in the city of Chicago. It later became a central tenet of Ian McCard, a pioneering landscape architect and theorist, Ian McCard's land suitability analysis process, which related land and soil conditions to direct and drive growth in particular areas. McCard used performance metrics and performance analysis in the development of an early performance-based zoning code for Medford Township, Pennsylvania, and influenced the performance codes in Staten Island's Special Natural Areas District. In his plan for the woodlands outside of Houston, Texas, McCard used a performance-based system to shift from traditional stormwater drainage to on-site retention. This work was highly influential in popularizing performance processes, including that of Lane Kendig, the person most closely associated with performance zoning, who developed a model code for Bucks County, Pennsylvania in the early 1980s, leading to a short-lived series of experiments in performance zoning. Interestingly, one of the earliest, yet least known performance-based zoning systems was actually instituted right here in New York City in 1975, called Zoning for Housing Quality and the precursor to today's Quality Housing Regulations. The code used a performance-based criteria to enable developers to build higher-quality housing through a special permit. The system had four key criteria, neighborhood impact, recreation space, security and safety, and building interior, within which a developer could attain a certain number of points in order to qualify for FAR, height and setback exemptions. While the goal of this zoning code was to encourage better housing and site design, the complex special permit procedure that was instituted, combined with the administrative complexity of the system itself, led city planning to shift to an as-of-right zoning system for quality housing in the early 1980s. Similarly, complex regulations, like Midtown Zoning's Daylight Evaluation Chart, have challenged architects and administrators who, despite its shortcomings, have gravitated towards far more fundamental mathematical formulas, like the one used to determine floor area ratio for height factor buildings, based on a complex ratio of floor area to open space as a proxy for light and air. Yet newer technologies, including parametric coding scripts and daylight analysis software, enables architects, cities and administrators to analyze the outcomes of developments large and small across a range of metrics. So how might these two ideas actually mesh in practice? As we know, many cities, including New York, in many cities, including New York, fixed transit only covers a portion of the land area in a city. Oftentimes, these subways or elevated lines were themselves built to spur development, with an intrinsic relationship between the construction of new rail and trolley lines and new neighborhoods, a condition most clearly embodied in places like LA or Boston. Traditional TOD planning tends to think of each transit stop as an opportunity for densification, because transit stops have historically been correlated with mixed land uses and thereby with higher levels of overall accessibility, regardless of whether or not a person actually uses transit. Today, new mobility options, such as microtransit, ferry and bike share, have created new opportunities beyond the traditional half-mile circle. A range of options from scooters to ferries, bike share and ride sharing have created potential connections for fixed transit and around it. Collectively, these new mobility options have the potential to increase the overall accessibility of an area and if well-administered, rebalanced and regulated. Nonetheless, changes in transportation remain out of step with fundamental shifts in land use policy. In New York and other cities, land use is traditionally defined by a Euclidean system that segregates areas into commercial manufacturing and residential uses. These uses have an assigned density or floor area ratio, which typically corresponds to the overall infrastructure capacity of an area, or its historical patterns of use, as in the case of a historic port or manufacturing zone. As uses and demands have changed, planners have sought to increase density around transit since that infrastructure already exists and those areas have high accessibility as is. What if, however, instead of density being based on fixed rates the system operated according to measures of performance? In such a system, a developer could, in theory, condition their proposed density based on their own ability to create and monitor additional accessibility. In lieu of traditional parking minimums, maximums or transit bonuses, a developer's FAR would be determined on a sliding scale based on a series of accessibility performance metrics. In turn, areas with low accessibility would be permitted to propose a new mix of uses that could actually increase overall access. New infrastructure services and amenities could contribute to the overall points a developer could obtain. Typical form-based regulatory systems could also be rethought. Today, many cities use a system of FAR, lot coverage setback, and height restrictions to control the shape of their developments. Under a performance-based system, different areas could have different overall targets to generate flexibility, incentivize public benefits. Areas with affordable housing shortages or a lack of supermarkets could also have variable FARs to incentivize that particular use. Likewise, places in flood zones could be incentivized to retain more water on site, provide additional tree coverage, akin to how the City of Seattle's green factor ratio system works today. Whereas conventional regulatory systems tend to prescribe form and density, a performance-based regulatory scheme would adjust density based on the satisfaction of key indicators, including accessibility, amenities, building quality, and sustainability. This system could be flexibly adopted to achieve a variety of goals over time, including affordable housing, access to open space, and even a wide range of options. Access to open space, and even accessibility to transit. But how would this actually work in practice? Today's land use designations are largely the pure view of local governments. Nonetheless, state and national governments actually do play an important role in funding, both in funding and in setting the parameters for future land use decision-making at the local level. At the national level, the federal government could create or sponsor the creation of a goals-based performance overlay. This overlay could be multifaceted, adapting multiple goals across different regions to establish a common language between traditional zoning codes. The federal government's model overlay would then be adapted by each state. States would be responsible for developing a dynamic parametric modeling platform to monitor compliance, ease the administration of the code, and test how individual developments perform on impacts. At the local level, each jurisdiction would adapt the overlay to their key goals in keeping with federal and state standards, and then provide the overlay as a conditional option to developers. Because the overlay would be based on a commonly adopted technological platform and begin as an option, at least at start, the process of development might not change that much at first. Over time, however, developers would be empowered to unlock development potential by meeting key performance indicators, such as increased accessibility, affordable housing production, and environmental targets. The conventional review process would require developers to submit a three-dimensional standardized model to a jurisdiction for compliance. An algorithm-based assessment and store card would be generated to provide an initial FAR score, and then offer an additional feedback mechanism to developers to increase or optimize their development potentials based on a variety of inputs. Monitoring and compliance would be built into the code to ensure that an owner reports performance data over time. As a result, whereas previous developments might have produced duplexes in a sea of parking, developers would now be given the option of additional density if they abide by specific performance parameters, including meeting key thresholds of accessibility, impervious surface area, conservation area, affordable housing, and access to light and air. Every five years, performance criteria and scales would be recalibrated, adjusting the incentives based on new data and information. In other words, if an area's accessibility were to rise over time, its sliding FAR scale could be increased, similar to the way that height factor zoning works in New York City today. Likewise, if sea level rise or environmental concerns in a given area became acute, additional on-site retention requirements could be revised upwards. Areas beyond the traditional transit shed, moreover, could take on new potentials and possibilities at the interface between land use and mobility, creating accessible and mobility-rich development in areas well beyond the fixed transit shed, based on a combination of smart land use planning and decision making, emerging technologies, and local zoning. Ultimately, cities could leverage technology to create a better quality of life, more accessible cities, and a more robust set of environmental protections. To fulfill these goals, planners need to be thinking bigger than ever today. For the first time in generations, arguably since the early 1960s, major questions about how we live, work, ride, and play are the public conscience. The future has become an active question of public debate rather than a 1960s fantasy. People debate the merits and limitations of automation, celebrate the formalization of freelance culture, and the departure from arbitrary restrictions around taxis, food carts, pop-ups, and pilots. This willingness to break the standard, to experiment with new codes and consider new ways of living and working is a byproduct of startup civilization, the good and the bad, a period of risk and experimentation, that is, in some ways, coming to an end. The spatial dimensions of the sixth migration remain uncertain and unpredictable, as our relationship with technology continues to evolve. As planners today, we have an opening to question the underlying form and fabric of our cities and our regions. To do so, however, we must depart from our fixes, discovering the interface between our competing visions of the future, while also striving to complete the unfinished visions of the past. Thank you. Do you foresee a possibility of, say, developers gaining assistance in essay history the cheapest way to reach a higher score? Like, for example, if they find a cheaper way to mass-produce some solar group of green room, then they would snap over of the ability or other aspects of it? So, like, how do you balance between the technical goal? The second question is is it potentially going to blame the victim? So, for example, if there's a labor for them, it has a big market that's getting no more scores because it's a kind of data it's not, you know, it's not booming with opportunities. But in that case, because it has no performance score, that's it has no more developmental capacity and then, like, therefore, mass-attractive to developers, whereas in a market, say, that's booming with opportunities already getting affordability requirements already behind and now they're even given they have a higher performance score now they're even more developing again. Yeah, and so I'll tackle the first question first, and it's something that if you're familiar with land use law, it's kind of the foundation of a very important case called Golden D. Ramapo, New York essentially about jurisdictions, it concerned a jurisdictions ability to stem or manage growth temporarily while it had time to sort of upgrade its infrastructure. The opposite case, which would be essentially an area that has low accessibility, low amenities, and therefore scores quite poorly I think would be an opportunity to create a customized sort of goal-based value system for that particular type of area. One of the examples that I like to use is fresh, so New York City has this program which is intended to essentially incentivize the creation of supermarkets and food deserts. The problem with the program is that when it was developed it sort of created it was developed in a way that created sort of static boundaries around neighborhoods that were food deserts and when the actual initial zoning was passed not taking account of the fact that over time certain neighborhoods might gentrify certain supermarkets might arrive in places that didn't have them and that fresh might be needed in different places around the city. So that would be a perfect example of the kind of code where a land use agency, or in the case of New York City planning would be able to customize series of targets to a particular neighborhood in order to kind of get the right type of development. I think a performance-based system would not be something that could be maintained as static so the goals that you established would have to be consistently revisited and recalibrated in the same way that building codes at a national level are updated on a rolling basis and even street design manuals are updated on a rolling basis by independent non-profit associations that are kind of led by both municipal officials and private practitioners. The barrier historically to performance zoning has not been that people don't believe it works in principle. Its function in principle is fairly being questioned. The barrier has been technological so if you remember this kind of view here essentially the daylight evaluation chart was instituted in midtown zoning with the option to essentially use a more conventional simple sort of simplistic form-based option and so oftentimes what happened with these types of codes is that developers sort of decided that the complexity of actually using either a special permit or the option for a daylight evaluation score was kind of beyond the initial input and investment that they wanted to take to create that proposal. There are exceptions to that rule a really good one is Seattle's green factor ratio that essentially is meant to encourage sustainability in Seattle's developments through building a points-based system for bioswales, previous surfaces and a variety of other amenities geared towards sustainability. I think that that's a great question not only for sort of a theoretical system like this one but also for places like California they're going through that right now we're essentially proposing a kind of statewide land use override is bringing a lot of people that aren't typically engaged in the kind of community design and land use regulation process into the fold and so certainly instituting a system like this would have significant ramifications I will say though one of the benefits of a performance-based system and it's similar in some ways to the way that the New York City originally adopted a points-based system is that it could be introduced in a phased way as a kind of translator between different codes so essentially using quantifiable metrics to create a common language between different jurisdictions initially as an overlay that could be have required adoption for sort of state funding and then later potentially kind of supplanting existing zoning regulations there are going to be places including New York where the zoning is so specific that New York has a kind of as a bright zoning system that is actually not that similar to other places that overlay may always end up being an option rather than a requirement but there are many other places that essentially have zoning that looks exactly the same that just has sort of slightly different language and sort of different requirements across different districts and there are sort of two main differences that I would see in terms of how a performance-based overlay system would work in contrast to sort of traditional density one is in the realm of design flexibility so shifting away from kind of over-reliance on traditional formal mechanisms height, setback, base height in particular areas not including historic districts the other would be that zoning would be based on targets or goals and so for instance New York City's resiliency code which has been in the process of sort of updating and developing in a more robust form since Hurricane Sandy is largely kind of oriented around essentially lifting properties and then making the additional FAR that results from that increase or the additional impacts whether they be street wall or even kind of lot coverage essentially creating a mechanism to resolve that a performance-based system in that particular area might have more outcome-based targets that it's trying to achieve so onsite flood water retention something akin to green factor ratio that would either require, incentivize a certain amount of pervious surface in an area even potentially thinking about goal-based mobility metrics so rather than sort of removing parking minimums entirely actually using a system to create additional incentives for developers to provide certain kinds of mobility so whether that be onsite electric vehicle charging which is already in certain codes car share shuttle services some at more of a kind of district-wide fund level and then others at a sort of location-specific level so it's super interesting your proposal where it's better than the videos scattered on reality talks but on the hardware part it's not like they're not in street infrastructure we still have this competition for the limited curbs curbs space and onsite works and all this limited ammunition or various spaces where you have the delivery of the dockless or docked I share but for the IoT to work you need to have all this wireless you still have to have all this infrastructure installed so I feel like although right now it looks you know more flexible than the fixed model but eventually there's only limited amount of technology that can install all these things so yeah I mean I don't want to suggest that in shifting to kind of mobility as a service or mobility-oriented development system that you could necessarily dispense with the idea of consolidation all together right I mean an efficient system works by providing a series of feeder routes that then consolidate people that have common trips so what I'm suggesting is that development can play a more active role in actually shaping the transportation network and can potentially bring areas that are outside the traditional transit shed into the service area of a traditional sort of transit agency in a more flexible way the other piece in terms of road design I think NACTO's blueprint for autonomous urbanism which sort of starts to think about roadway design in the era of new mobility that I think is not necessarily something that would be in the purview of development except at the sort of more suburban or subdivision scale and certainly one of the big unknowns right now but also one of the opportunities would be for development to actually incorporate some kind of mobility as a service system into the actual kind of development requirements that they would have and so along with that there's certainly new infrastructure requirements roadway widths more multimodal pathways would be kind of part of that shift changes in materiality some of these concepts are kind of being explored in various smart city test kitchens around the country but in terms of the way that development and transportation interact that kind of requirement or that kind of goal is more unprecedented especially about sort of monitoring and sort of being socially performance based code then there's sort of the legal justification for your F.A.R. is would be a continuation of these sort of amenities that you provided to be able to place so having sort of thought through how this would work beyond the sort of approval stage but maybe 20 years and what that would look like theoretically and whether there's maybe technological sort of solutions for that as well but monitoring and this is an area that's sort of already begun to be explored in typically energy environmental performance of buildings but the thinking would be whether or not this is something that existing administrations and existing bureaucracies are sort of set up to handle as an open question as you know is that basically you would require a kind of submission of a certain level of performance data on a given term on a rolling basis in order to get a realistic picture of how zoning is actually working and so Joe, former colleague of mine from New York City Planning, one of the great deficiencies of kind of conventional zoning in New York City and elsewhere is that at a moment in time someone decides to create a particular kind of district at this particular moment in time it could be an innovation district and then 20 years later the assumptions of that district have just fundamentally changed making that zoning either out of date ill-equipped to handle the kind of pressures that it is trying to confront in that era or something that's actively working against your current goals which is the case of height factors on the right and so not only would there need to be a kind of state mandated process to revisit targets and goals underlying performance centers every five arguably 10 but probably five years you would need to have use the robust technology at our disposal to be monitoring and keeping an up-to-date database of how that zoning is performing one of the things that I always found kind of mind-boggling working at the city is there wasn't a 3D model that we had access to of the entire city and so our ability to actually even assess impact ourselves was sometimes constrained to understand the impact of a new building in terms of shadows, how many properties that was affecting there are softwares out there that can do all of this for you and yet our zoning codes are still interpreting things in a very rigid and arguably kind of arcane way like earlier in the talk you were mentioning how one of us concentrated back in the way he envisioned it to be and right now this revolution is saying it's not also because we're expecting the knowledge to fill in a gap to go to the desert to be more evenly distributed what happens for these things is that it's overlapping already there's high demand like the bike share is already at mostly in Manhattan where there better infrastructure or the bike technology is not going to the other side of the digital divide higher amount of services so we're do you think we need a stronger hand like how do you force the new technology to actually go and to think that it's your first time yeah and I think that's a great question and it's a loaded question in part we're not approaching an era where we don't want strong regulation and activist government it's kind of the opposite in a way we want to empower regulators and bureaucracies to be able to more flexibly respond to the pressures that are confronting them or the developers that are trying to gain a system in some way or other and even to private companies that may claim to have public benefits in mind but don't actually and so if you look at New York City's kind of most recent approach to for hire vehicles it's very much along those lines kind of trying to create performance standards that they have to adhere to around dwell time the amount of time that a vehicle can remain without a passenger bike share systems work in a very similar way performance based measures problem with for hire vehicles in particular is that at a certain point in time somebody set a number that was a cap rather than trying to think about either a formula or a process to manage that number and so at it's simplest a performance based zoning system would be a system that's based on managing a process in this case the development of land and the negotiation between communities, developers and city rather than instituting you know kind of somewhat reasonable yet often arbitrary metrics that then soon become out of date if you look at New York City zoning even for towers from like the 1980s what the intentions are it's about trying to kind of recreate an art deco skyscraper envelope and so when you read these regulations they're dated already and in a sense you know it's both a designer and a planner you end up kind of restricted in what you can do and not necessarily being able to meet the spirit of the code due to sort of these extremely rigid regulations not all regulations are bad I think it's without question and in every performance system there are regulations that would be considered more formal that would be designed to create predictability in terms of whether that be you know making sure you don't have a skyscraper in the neighborhood of single family homes and so as Winfrey mentioned there are elements of a conventional land use process that would be reiterated but the overarching system could be managed as more of a process based system and an outcome based system rather than a kind of form of hierarchical system thank you


CBS nursing a black eye after suffering its first loss against Sherry Redstone. A court rejecting the network's bid to dissolve Redstone's control over the company, CBS trying to stop Redstone's plan to reunite, reunite that is via common CBS stock falling after the close. We'll be watching it closely today. Viacom shares also ended lower. CBS also canceled its annual shareholders meeting scheduled for today, giving executives more time to figure out what the heck to do next. A great deal. Is it stay here for both sides? Let's bring in Melissa Armo of the Stock Swoosh. Melissa, great to have you here. Always a pleasure. Good morning. Let's start with Moonves here. Here is a guy who is challenging essentially the owner of his company. He's been pretty clear. He doesn't like a lot of the brands that Viacom has, MTV, Paramount. There's a lots of luster there. I think you've got to say, does Moonves have nothing to lose here? Well, I've got to be honest with you, he's done a great job running CBS. He's been there forever. He's done a great job. And really, this is not, I don't think this is necessarily in CBS' interest to hook up with Viacom. Viacom, in the last few years, a lot of their channels have not been doing so great. MTV has gone downhill, VH1 has gone downhill, Nickelodeon is probably one of the most valuable things, and really the Paramount Studios for Viacom, but the stock itself has reflected the lack of interest really in those channels, whereas CBS has tons and tons of hits. I mean, look at Survivor. Everybody knows Survivor. The Big Bang theory is CBS. So I think, you know, it's very, very interesting. This is not over yet. It's not over by a long shot. CBS stock looks a lot better also than Viacom. It's sitting up trend. Viacom's at a downtrend. I think this is going to be a big battle. I think it's going to cost, I think it's going to cost a lot of money going through all the legal battles. Should we just note here that Moonves has like a $200 million gold parachute. So if it doesn't work out and he's got to leave, you know, it's not so bad, is it? Well, I mean, that's not necessarily great though for CBS. For CBS Sherrild. No, not at all. I mean, he's done a great job with the company. That's what I'm saying. It's a good point. It's a contract stack until 2021. And I don't know anything about the golden parachute you're talking about, but obviously there's something else going on there, but I'm saying he's done a good job.  Yeah, and I think the stock reflects that, right? The stock's been on fire. It's done well while others in the category are have not. Exactly. But I think the big question here is, can Moonves actually stop Sherry? I mean, it's really come down to two folks here. Really, they're fighting each other. Can CBS stop her from forcing them to combine with Viacom? They're going to try. And this is what I'm saying. This is not over by a long shot and this could get ugly, like really ugly. It's already ugly, my friend. So let's talk more broadly about the media landscape because there's so many deals going on right now. Disney and a deal to buy parts of 21st Century Fox, the parent of this network, AT&T and Time Warner in front of a judge right now with the deal, lots going on. And will we see major changes in the media landscape? What might happen next? Yeah, there are changes. There are a lot of changes. The Fox-Disney merger, that's very positive. That's positive for Disney, their stock price, it has rallied since then. Fox is in an uptrend. That's very positive. That's expected to go through in the summer of 2019. I think that's pretty much a done deal. The Justice Department, however, is involved with the AT&T merger. There's antitrust issues there because they're thinking that's going to be bad for consumers to have someone that owns a TV distribution company and also who's creating and selling the content. So that's the problem with that. I don't think the judge is supposed to come out with a ruling on that until June. But the TV landscape is changing mainly because people are not watching as much programming on TV. They're watching things on the Internet. Melissa, don't tell people that. Do you want them to watch this network? Well, hopefully they are. Melissa, thanks for coming on. Great to see you. Great information. Appreciate it. A good point that you just made about the entire industry just in a huge shake-up right now. Yeah, anything could happen. There are companies, lots of companies, Disney, Viacom, all the big players. It's in flux. Yeah, that was a great interview. Okay, so we're still talking about this. The big question. Is it Laurel? Is it Yanny? Yanny. Yanny, Yanny. I give up. See? I haven't even straightened up. America's latest Internet debate is now hitting the White House. And it's not just Laurel and Yanny, the Philadelphia Eagles are headed to the White House. Jared Max has got that sports story and some other highlights coming up. We are taking a look at your futures right now after we look at Time Warner and AT&T. We were talking about it, but anyway, there you go. There's the Dell Futures. We're out at 62 in the pre-market. Yeah. Five and a quarter on the S&P, 19 and a quarter on the NASDAQ. We'll be right back.


I was suffering a lot with both my knees, one by one or sometimes both the knees. I could not even walk and I was always limping and tilting and my children used to say, why are you walking like this mom? You used to walk gracefully, what happened to you? But I used to tell them I am feeling so much pain. It got aggravated since last four or five years and actually a point came when we had gone outside. She actually collapsed and we had to kind of lift her up and we had to do something about it. A bit nervous because of her age and those things. After meeting Dr. Hemant Kalyan we were very assured and finalized on a date of the operation. Soon after seeing him, his smiling face and his kind words, I got confidence and I feel very happy about that. My mom was in Manipal Hospital for about ten days. The first day after the operation she didn't feel much of pain possibly because of the medicines and those things. From the next day only the physiotherapy has been started there. Subsequently she started developing some kind of pain and all. Of course she was put on pain killer and all. But the good thing was immediately her exercises started by the physiotherapy department. After the operation I feel so happy, I feel very comfortable now. I am also climbing up and down the stairs. After coming home we had twice a day visit by the physiotherapist. They interact well with the patient and they could monitor our progress. I have taken a very great decision of getting total knee replacement surgery. The kind of dedication they have, the professionalism they have. I think that is one of the big success factor in a quick recovery. I wish to convey my heartfelt thanks and I will be always grateful to Manipal Hospital staff, Dr. Hemant Kalyan and his team.


Hi there. I'm Sandy. Welcome to my YouTube channel. And before I get started coloring today, I want to share a little excitement over on Ellen Hudson's YouTube and blog. I'm part of the Meet the Maker series that has just begun. And you'll get to know a little bit about me over there and how I work my thought processes and stuff on the video. I'll talk to you a little bit about what you do when you don't have any mojo left, because I've got some suggestions on that. There's also a sale going on just for two days on Colorado Craft Company stamps at Ellen's site. And I've got a coupon code for classes. So if you want to get a class and you want a discount, then go over there, because that's the only place where the coupon code exists. And it's all just for a few days. So if you're not here during these days, then you've missed out on the opportunity. Sorry about that. But there is still coloring to be had. And I also wanted to talk a little bit about how do you get started when you create? What do you do? And for me, sometimes I come to whatever the project is that I'm going to be working on with a specific idea in mind. I look at my calendar, because a lot of times I have things that have to be done for a particular day. And I try to rotate my mediums. So there's sometimes when I know that that day is going to be a Copic day, or that day is going to be a watercolor day, just because of the rotation. Other times, though, I don't really know what day it's going to post. I just know I want to use a particular stamp set, or I want to do a particular technique, or sometimes I don't want to use a stamp set at all. And I just want to get out a blank piece of paper. I just go with whatever the gut says to do. Because if I don't have Mojo for the medium, I'm in trouble. And if I'm on one of those days when I have to use this stamp set, and I have to use Copics, and I don't feel in a Copic mood, I put that off. And that really helps when I work as far ahead as I do, because it's yeah, sometimes I just have to wait a couple of days for the Mojo to come back. And once I get going on that, and I stamp the image off center in some way, usually, because if I try to put it right in the middle, it blocks whatever scene is coming out. If I leave space around it, and leave some room either at the top so that there's a tall scene coming, or there's something off camera so that the figure is not right dead set in the middle, then usually that starts the ideas going for telling myself a story about what the stamp is doing, what else is happening so I can create a scene for it. So that's a little bit about how I get started. And with that, let's get started on today's project. I was flipping through this sketchbook recently, and I saw this scene, and I had done it on YouTube previously, and thought I wanted to use it with this stamp set. It's a Valentine stamp set by Colorado Craft, but you can use it for other things, because it's just bunnies in love. It can be in love anytime. And you could stamp it without the background, the ground that's underneath of it by simply wiping off the stamp while it's got the wet ink on it, and then just stamp it without them. But here I'm using the version that had it with the flowers. Just to show you, you can do that. Just put lots of other plants and greens and grasses and stuff. Even if you're doing a fall scene, there's going to be some remnants of things left over, little twigs and that sort of stuff. I'm using different colors than I used in the tutorial, because guess what? You can use different colors. You don't have to use the same colors. And if you get any color from the cotton ball work onto the bellies of the rabbits, it's real easy to get rid of with a Tombow eraser. And this is my bigger one, but there's also a teeny tiny one and a flat one that Tombow makes. So I will link all three of those in the doobly-do in case you need an eraser like that, a stick eraser. It's just a really good thing to have when you're working with color pencil, because you can get into a really controlled area quite nicely. So now I'm going to do a Christmas version or a winter version of this particular scene. So I'm flipping it left to right, so I put the bunnies on the left, and the tree will be on the right. But I'm going to use some soft colors for the background. There's two different very, very, very, very, very light blues in the Prismacolor collection. The ones that are in the Polychromos are just not this light. And I love the fact that there are two of them, because one is desaturated, which is the one I'm using now. There's also a saturated. And desaturated just means it's a gray or blue. So I'm going to have a different kind of blue in the very distant background than I do in the foreground, which is going to help to pull different parts to the front of the scene, and then push other parts to the back of the scene. So this is the second color. And you can see a little bit of that color difference here. It'll appear much more when you start seeing the Gamsol with it, but you could leave it just with this color itself and not go crazy with the Gamsol, because that does make it quite bright. But I'm adding some shadows in another blue. I just had picked out a couple of blues that I thought would work together just to see how they go. I test things out all the time. I never know whether something's going to really work until I try it. So if you're ever wondering, you know, Sandy's put out something and she didn't have a color listed for such and such, just try something that's easy enough to do. I'm using my Gamsol, which is in a little container so that I can touch a cotton ball to a cotton ball and then control how much liquid I pull out of it. And the top part, the background part, I use the cotton ball, but I did not use it with Gamsol, just so you know. But I can rub on top of this pencil that's been drawn on with the pencil itself. It doesn't have to be done with the tea strainer, which is how I did the background. You could just do it by going over pencil itself. And then I added some detail to it. I wanted it to look like these two bunnies came running from different places and met in the forest. So I'm making footprints in the snow that you can see. They get bigger as they get closer and further apart as they get closer. So the ones in the distance under their feet are going to be a little bit tighter and closer together and smaller. And they'll be more of the size of their paws. And then I wanted to make a couple little hillsides off in the distance. So I've darkened the base of it and I'll put some darker color for little branches sticking out. And you can use several blues for this, make it look more interesting, that kind of thing. I'm putting the background in first because I am going to add that big tree in. But I wanted the background part to be there first so that the tree can be dropped on top of it. If you're going to do like a white birch tree, then you'll want to color around it so you can have that white birch base. But I started off with a brown color. This is the color that I'll be using for the rabbits. And I also used a blue with it. So I'm going to add blue both on top of the brown. So it starts to brown that out. And some of the branches will be in blue. Some of the branches will be in the brown. And that just gives us a little more interest. And then a few random leaves that are just left still hanging onto the tree because they have not escaped to the ground quite yet. And it's a matter of the rabbits finishing those guys up. And I'm going to use the same colors for both of them. I'm just going to put more of the darker color on one rabbit than the other so that they don't look like they're identical rabbits.  I don't know. I don't know enough about them. But I wanted them to look a little different so that they could be in love and not be accidental brother and sister. So I'm using a lighter kind of color in order to create a secondary hue of bunny on the left. And I'm using a little bit of that lighter color on the bunny on the right so that they both share colors just in different amounts. So maybe that keeps them as the same breed. And yet they're different enough that you can tell the difference between them. They don't look all the same. I overthink things. I know, I told you, I tell myself stories about the stamps and I just got into a weird place with this one. So there you go. Using my Uniball Signo pen for the snow. And it doesn't show up much on that really soft background, but it does show up on the darker snow in the foreground. So another plug for putting enough contrast in your snow that you can actually have the falling snow show up on it. You could use these same colors to create the tutorial that I did over on Ellen Hudson's channel with Copic markers, but you could use these colors to create it in pencil if you would like. And you can also go pick up on her website the coupon code to use for a Colorado Craft Company sale for just today and tomorrow. And a sale on my classes all week long. So all of that's on Ellen's blog. I will see you guys later. Take care. Have a wonderful and most awesome day. Yeah, I'll see you again next week with some more creativity. Bye guys.


I'm going outside of Africa. Current commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions put the planet on track for an average 2.7 degrees Celsius temperature rise this century. A United Nations report said on Tuesday, this is not a stark warning ahead of crunch climate talks. Government will be in the spotlight at the COP26 conference next week to meet a deadline of this year to commit to more ambitious cut pledges. That could be the last chance to put the world on track to limit in mourning to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and ideally to 1.5 degrees Celsius. As extreme weather events from wildfires to floods have hit countries around the world, a UN report in August warned that global warming could bridge 1.5 degrees Celsius in the next two decades. We are still on track for climate catastrophe, even with the last announcements that were made. The 2021 emissions gap report shows that with the present nationally determined contributions and other firm commitments of countries around the world, we are indeed on track for a catastrophic global temperature rise of around 2.7 degrees Celsius. As the report demonstrates, the world would need seven times more ambition to keep us on the 1.5 degree track. And this is a yawning gap that we must close in eight years. Eight years in which we must increase ambition, make new plans, put in place new policies, implement them and ultimately deliver the cuts. We can still get the job done, but only if we get moving now and only if we take advantage of every opportunity. Hello, hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.


Welcome back. So far we have discussed probability spaces. So, we said the sample space is the set of all possible outcomes of a random experiment. We said that, so we then created a sigma algebra of events on the sample space and we then we define probability measures on a measurable space. So, it turned out that omega is countable assigning probability measures is possible to assign probability measures to all subsets of omega. Whereas, when omega is uncountable such as 0 1 interval or infinite coin toss model. In those cases, it was an uncountable sample space. In that case, we had to settle for a smaller sigma algebra and assign probabilities. So far we have completed that one section that just talks about what probability spaces are and how this probability measures are assigned to a measurable space. Now, we begin a new section called. So, this is on conditional probability. So, I will start with definition. So, we have a probability space omega f p. So, everything, so now that we know probability spaces, everything we do will start with an omega f p. We have sample space a sigma algebra on the sample space and some probability measure p on omega f. So, this is a probability space. Let b be an event such that p b is greater than 0. In definition, the conditional probability of a given b is defined as. So, what you are fixing a particular event b that is. So, what do I mean by b is an event? I mean that b is an element of f, the sigma algebra f. I am given this probability space. So, I consider some b belonging to f such that the probability of b is strictly positive. So, it is a set whose probability measure is not 0. So, and we then we say. So, and a is another f measurable set, a is another event. We say the conditional probability of a given b. This is what we are trying to define. This is the first time we are seeing this. So, this is the definition. So, we define the conditional probability of a given b denoted like this. So, a vertical line b that is defined as probability of a intersection b divided by probability of b. This is by definition. There is no y. Definitions are definitions. That is it. They will just be taken. So, intuitively of course, you will see that we are simply scaling the. So, you are fixing an event b and you are looking at the probability that a and b happen and scaling it by probability of b. That is what is intuitively happening. So, you see why this condition is important. If not the denominator will be 0. So, you have to condition on events of non-zero probability. First of all you have to condition only on f measurable sets, not on arbitrary subsets of omega. You also have to condition only on events which have strictly positive probability. So, caution. So, we cannot condition on 0 probability events. So, what I am saying is the event to the right of this vertical line must be non-zero probability. See this a can be anything. A can be any f measurable set. But, what is on the right side of this vertical line must be a non-zero probability event. So, this is a fact that is when it is very easy to see why you need it. Otherwise, this is meaningless. The denominator being 0 is meaningless, but very often sometimes you can get into trouble with this. Sometimes you miss out on this.  You cannot for example, condition on say rationals right. Why? Because rationals have 0 probability measure under that uniform Lebesgue measure. So, you cannot ask a question like what is the probability that my number is between 0 and half given that it is a rational right. Understand what I am saying. So, if I am talking about A as the event that the number is between 0 and half and B is the event that the number is rational and I am talking about just the Lebesgue measure. So, that question is meaningless. You should never ask such a question and there is no answer to that question ok. You can only condition on you cannot condition on Cantor set for example, because you will you if you have not already shown it. You will show in your homework that Cantor set has 0 measure right. You should not say what is the probability that my number is between 0 and half given that it is a Cantor number no right. There is no such question is meaningless you cannot answer it. Actually, there is actually a paradox which I think is called Borrell's paradox or Borrell Kolmogorov paradox or something. So, which takes a sphere and asks about the conditional distribution of the angle the polar angle or whatever given that you are on one of the diameters with uniform measure on the sphere right. And you get multiple answers just like we saw an earlier paradox Bertrand's paradox right. So, this is another paradox which gives you multiple answers and why is that because you are conditioning on a 0 measure set right. So, you can look that up if you want. So, you can get into all sorts of inconsistent and paradoxical situations. You should know if you are not careful about this theorem let B in F then P of dot given B. So, this P of dot given B which is a mapping from F to 0 1 is a probability measure on omega. So, what are we saying this theorem says if you fix some event with positive probability then you take. So, you take you fix this B and you look at probability of dot given B by me by dot I mean you will take arguments from F right. And you and this is the definition right what you can show is that this guy is a valid probability measure on omega F. So, you have to prove this right this is a theorem. So, you have to prove this right how do you prove it you have to prove how many things two things three things actually right for a probability measure. So, you have to prove that if you input if you input empty set here you should get 0 if you input sample space here you should get 1. And finally, countable additivity of disjoint events right. So, the first two are trivial right if you are a were to be null null intersection B will be null right 0 by something which is positive is 0. Similarly, if a is the whole sample space then omega intersection B will be B. So, you will get 1 right finally, to verify countable additivity. So, if you want. So, the first two are easy right 1 and 2 properties are easy right to show countable additivity consider a I belongs to F I equal to 1 comma 2 comma dot dot dot which are disjoint right I have to consider a countable collection of disjoint events and show that this set function has countable additivity property right. So, you have to. So, you have something like that right this I have to show is equal sum over I equal to 1 to infinity p of a given b right that is what I have to show. So, this is equal to by definition. So, I invoke this is equal to p of b and here I have p of union I equals 1 through infinity a I intersected with b right. Now, there is an identity as a theoretic identity right. So, if you have something like a union b intersection c right it is a intersection c union b intersection c. So, by except this is a countable infinite union. So, you can use that set theoretic identity to get probability of. So, this is this union intersection b. So, now I will have union of a I intersection b. Now, a I is a disjoint therefore, a intersection b let us if you want to call this c I those c I will also be disjoint. So, my p is a probability measure on my original space right. So, p satisfies countable additivity correct. So, then so by countable additivity of p you have this is equal to sum over I equals 1 through infinity probability of a I intersection b divided by a I intersection b divided by probability of b and that is exactly what you want right. This is equal to sum over I equals 1 through infinity probability of a I given b fine anyone ok. Any questions very elementary proof I just did it. So, that I just took a minute so I did it right. Yes.  So, the I am taking a intersection b as getting a heads. Well, you have to see all of this happens see you cannot you are not operating in two different probability spaces right. There is only one probability space omega f p right. So, you are not talking about one experiment involving tossing of a coin another involving throwing of a die right. So, that is not the scenario you want to consideration yeah you are talking about a given experiment given. So, you have seen a random experiment with sample space the sigma algebra the probability measure everything is fixed. Now, you are conditioning on a particular event b with positive probability and I am saying that whatever I define here is a valid probability measure for any b with positive probability that is all I have said. So, if you want to consider for example the throw of a die f you can take it as omega is 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 f is 2 power omega because with a discrete sample space p is let us say the uniform 1 by 6 on each of them. You can take as an example you can take b to be the event that an even number shows up. So, you can look for the probability that given that it is an even number what is the probability that it is 4 something like that right you can calculate it right. So, I think we will go and do some properties of conditional probability. So, we did proper properties of probability measure I probably listed some 7 or 8 properties right. So, see this is a valid probability measure on omega f right. So, any property satisfied by probability measures is satisfied by this guy also probability of a dot given b satisfies all those properties because it is a valid probability measure right. So, we will put down a few which are more specific I have 3 actually 1 let b i let us say i equals 1 2 dot dot dot b a partition of omega. So, what does that mean? So, it just means that. So, i e it just means union b i equal to omega and b i intersection b j equal to null for i is not equal to j right and let a be some event. So, these are also f measureable. Suppose p of b i is greater than 0 for all i then probability of a is equal to sum over i equals 1 through infinity probability of a given b i times probability of b i. So, this is the law. So, this law has a name you know what name it is total probability the law of total probability right. So, we are looking at a partition of the sample space by f measureable sets. So, b i is a f measureable and they have a form of partition of omega and a is any f measureable set. Then you can write the probability of a as the probability of a condition on b times probability of b sum over all these partitions. So, in particular there is a very particular version of this which is quite useful. So, if b is any event with positive probability b and b complement always partition the sample space right very trivial to show. So, therefore, you can write. So, if in particular if b is in f such that probability of b is greater than 0, but less than 1. So, I am saying 0 less than p b less than 1 then probability of a is of course, your any f measureable set can be written as probability of a given b times probability of b plus probability of b plus a given b complement times probability of b complement. This is a corollary of this total probability law, because b and b complement partition the sample space and I have. So, I can condition on this, because b has positive probability and I can condition on b complement also, because b does not have probability equal to 1 it has strictly less than 1. So, probability of b complement is strictly positive. So, here I need both. So, how do you prove the law of total probability this is. So, this is equal to probability of a intersection b i right. So, the RHS. So, if you want to prove this here the RHS proof see if you consider this probability expression this probability of a given b i is probability of a intersection b i over probability of b i. So, it will cancel this out. So, you will have RHS is equal to sum over i equals 1 through infinity probability a i sorry a intersection b i. Now, b i's are disjoint right. So, a intersection b i's are also disjoint. So, by countable additivity of p I have this I can write as probability of union a i sorry a intersection b i agreed. Now, again I use this rule right this is a theoretic identity which says this will be equal to probability of a intersection union b i, but union b i is equal to well. So, this is equal to this is omega correct this guy is omega. So, I have a intersection omega which is a that is all sorry probability of this is a intersection omega this is probability of a correct which is what I want any questions. So, this has. So, typical example of the law of total probability is when you have this balls and urns experiments right.  So, you pick an urn at random and then you pick a ball at random with let us say uniform probability then you can talk about. So, you know that the probability of choosing the ith urn is whatever 1 over n in that case and probability that you choose a red ball given that you chose a particular urn i is n i over n i plus m i. So, you can look you can calculate the unconditional probability of picking a red ball right. So, that is the kind of law this is saying right. So, you first condition on what urn you are picking and then you look at the probability of picking a red ball then you can compute the total probability of picking a red ball in this experiment. So, that is where this is useful and it does not have to be it can be a countable it does not even have to be a finite set of urns it can have a countable in finite set of urns right. Is this property any question property number 2 a belong to f with probability of a greater than 0 and b i i equals 1 2 dot dot dot b as in 1. So, by b i as in 1 I mean that b i is a partition of the sample space with each having positive probability then probability of b i given a is equal to probability of a given b i times probability of b i divided by sum over j probability of a given b j times probability of b j. So, notice that now I am computing I am not computing probability of. So, I am not starting with probability of a given b i am computing b i given a right. So, on the right side of a vertical line I have a now. So, I should ensure that a has positive probability, but all over here I have the b i the b j are on the right of the vertical line. So, they should all have positive probability. So, then I have this relationship this is a property what is this called Bayes rule. So, it is a very trivial actually it is a very trivial identity if you this what is in the denominator is p of a right by the total probability. So, you bring this here it becomes what it will become probability of b i intersection a and this is also probability of b i intersection a. So, you are just writing p of a intersection b in two different ways right. So, there is a really very little to Bayes rule it is not some very straightforward application of the definition of this conditional probability. It looks big because you are applying total probability in the denominator. So, you bring this here it will become probability of b i intersection a which is also the numerator right. So, in the earn and ball example. So, you are looking at the probability of. So, given that you got a red ball what is the probability it came from earn number i right. So, given you are picking from earn number i you know the probability of a red ball, but. So, post factor you are telling oh I got a red ball meaning a is the even that I got a red ball oh I got a red ball, but what is the probability that I got it from earn number 27 right. So, it this is called because you are asking this post factor question this is called a a posteriori probability a posteriori just means that after the fact as a posteriori which is means prior right. So, this you can compute lots of examples you can compute this for. So, but mathematically it is a very simple application of conditional probability definition and finally, I will put down one property property number three let a i in f i equals 1 2 dot or dot then probability of intersection i equals 1 through infinity a i is equal to probability of a 1 product a. So, intersection j equals 1 through i minus 1 intersection blah blah blah j as long as conditional probabilities defined. So, I am considering the probability of a countable intersection now. So, this is the probability of the countable intersection of a bunch of events I am writing it in terms of a conditional probability product of a bunch of conditional probabilities. So, why have I said as long as the conditional probabilities are defined I have to have see each thing that I am conditioning on here must have positive probability right. So, this is the probability of the countable intersection of a bunch of events I am writing it in terms of a conditional probability product of a bunch of conditional probabilities. So, why have I said as long as the conditional probabilities are defined I have to have see each thing that I am conditioning on here must have positive probability right. How do you prove this induction? So, when can you use induction when you are proving a statement about the natural numbers right induction is always used to prove a statement p n about natural numbers right. Is this a statement about natural numbers no. So, you cannot use induction. So, you have to use continuity of probabilities. So, what you can do is LHS if LHS is equal to by continuity of probability I can write this as limit n tending to infinity probability intersection i equals 1 through n a i correct continuity of probabilities. Yes and now I can use. So, now this is a finite intersection right. So, I can write this as I can keep the limit and write this as probability of a 1 times product i equals 2 to n all that right. And then if you and then you are sending n to infinity in the product right. So, that will become this you will get. So, you are just taking p i p. So, for n equal to 2 you will have probability of a 1 times probability of a 2 given a 1. So, if you had 3 for example, it will have a 2 given a 1 probability of a 3 given a 1 intersection a 2 right. That is by just by definition right. So, you just figure this out. But the key step I want to emphasize is the continuity of probabilities that is the key step right. Everything else is just definition of conditional probability. So, this just says that if you know a bunch of finite conditional probabilities. So, this is all a given a finite intersection right. Then you can compute the probability of this countably infinite intersection ok. Any questions? If there are no more questions on conditioning I will go to the next topic ok. It is a very short topic this conditioning. The next topic is a very important topic independence. So, we are talking about independence of events. So, as usual you have given a probability space ok. So, this independence of events is defined as follows ok. First we will define independence of two events. And then we will go on to define independence of arbitrary collection of events ok. Events a and b are said to be independent under p or simply independent when the measure p is unambiguous. Measure p is if probability of a intersection b is equal to probability of a times probability of p.  You say that a and b are independent under measure p under the probability measure p if probability of a intersection b is equal to probability of a times probability of b ok. So, the reason I have said independent under p is because if you have some other measure on it some p prime is another measure on omega f the same events a and b may not be independent right. So, two events a and b may be independent under some measure p on this probability space. If you put some other measure on it they may not be independent depending on what that measure is right. So, strictly speaking you should say a and b are independent under that particular probability measure right. So, what I am saying is whether or not two events are independent depends on the probability measure. But what so here I am clarifying that we will only say they are independent as long as it is very clear what probability measure we are talking about. So, every time I will not be saying oh it is the independent under p right. So, if it is very clear what probability measure I am talking about if there is only one measure or it is completely clear then I will not keep saying under this particular measure I will just say independent that is it a and b are independent. So, it is actually a very simple definition if the probability of the intersection of two events products out into the probability of a times probability of b then a and b are said to be independent events. Now, this is the definition and this is the only definition. So, do not take any other notion you may have of independence from now on. So, you may have some intuitive meta understanding of independence of events right. You may say oh if the probable occurrence of a has nothing to do with the probable occurrence of b or something like that right all that is misleading do not take any of that. So, you should always say. So, you should always just keep this definition probability of a intersection b is equal to probability of a and probability of b then a and b are independent. So, this is the definition. So, if probability of b is greater than 0 note that if a and b are independent then probability of a given b is equal to simply probability of a if probability of b is bigger than 0 then probability of a given b is simply equal to probability of a if a and b are independent. So, why cannot we take this is the definition of independence because this is not even defined if probability of b is 0 right. So, this is the thing to take right and if probability of b is greater than 0 then this is true, but this is a consequence of the definition this is not the definition ok. So, a definition always as if and only if you can think of it that way. So, definition there is no need to say if and only if only in theorems you say if and only if right to prove two directions. See you do not know what independence means right you have not even heard of it so far let us say I am telling you what it is definition is what something that tells you right you say that two events are independent if the probability of the intersection is equal to the product of the unconditioned probabilities. So, the reason I the reason that I cautioned you about taking this definition and only this definition is because it many students have some intuitive understanding of independence which can sometimes put get you into trouble right. So, you can say over the occurrence of let us say a and b are independence if people often say if the occurrence of a does not reveal anything about the occurrence of b right things like that it is not true all that is not correct I want to make that perfectly clear all those same kind of intuitions hold if only both events have positive probability that that intuition that occurrence of a says nothing about the occurrence of b whatever that means that intuition is that is actually a wrong statement because for example let me give you an example let us say that you are working with 0 1 Borel and Lebesgue our favorite measure right 0 1 Borel Lebesgue let me say a is the event of a rational let me say b is the event of a irrational are they independent a is the event that it is rational b is the event that it is irrational. So, probably of a intersection b is a intersection b is null right there is no number which is both rational and irrational. So, this will be 0 and what about this will also be 0 because probability of rational is 0 right. So, if I ask you oh the I throw a dark on the 0 1 interval under the uniform Lebesgue measure with the under the Lebesgue measure is the event that it is a rational independent of the event that it is an irrational the answer should be answer should be what is are the two events independent yes right because that is what the definition says, but if you go by oh, but if I know that if I know that the dark lands on a rational number I know that it is not an irrational number right. So, the occurrence of a straight away rules out the occurrence of b. So, it says everything about b right once a is known b is known completely right, but still they are independent right which is why I am saying that you should not confuse these notions of occurrence of a it says nothing about occurrence of b all that is misleading it can get you into trouble. This is a serious matter right people give these kind of meta definitions very often right I want to urge you not to do that anymore this is the definition. So, no so that intuition is by and large if both events have positive probability. So, let me ask you a question can an event a b independent of itself I am taking this argument to an extreme right. So, occurrence of a says everything about the occurrence of a right can an event a b independent of itself. If it is if it only with concept sample space see you are not applying the definition simply apply the definition right. So, I am saying that a is independent of a then I have to say probability of a intersection a equal to probability of a times probability of a which means p of a is equal to p of a squared which means p of a should be 0 or p of a should be 1 right. Can you say anything more you cannot say that a should be null or a should be sample space not true not true because a can be canter set of something under the Lebesgue measure right or a can be irrational probability 1 right. So, the even under the Lebesgue measure the probability of getting an irrational is independent of itself right is true there is nothing fishy going on it is actually true right. So, that is I want to caution you against these kind of fork definitions they are not correct this is the correct definition.