Where did the wild Architecture go? Follow the money

This building is taller then your mom.

Kelvin Browne wrote in the National Post that wild architecture is waning and more vanilla style is to come. I think that really only holds true in North America and particularly here, in Toronto, the world champion of bland squares. So,  if you're looking for outrageous designs all you have to do is follow the money and you'll find buildings that look like they've just snorted an 8ball of coke.

North America, gave birth to the skyscraper more then half a century ago, but gave up the title years ago to Asia with the building of the Petronas towers in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia. This signalled to the world that the Asian tigers have arived. Soon, Taipei 101, China world trade centre and other structures came online. But still, nothing wild has shown up.








I can already hear the screams of architectural undergrads everywhere who are quick to defend their trade. I feel your pain guys. I was once one of you. So I am aware that Gehry, Koolhaus and Liebeskind were all creating deconstructive edifices before the ROM Crystal and The Disney Concert hall. These are some architects that continue to push the envelope and create many of the more recent eclectic structures on our continent. But the true home of wild belongs to two places far from here and it's not hard to realize why. Beijing and Dubai.


In 2008 we saw some of the coolest looking buildings at the Bejing Olympics. The Birds Nest, where the mind blowing opening ceremonies took place, was the centre piece among the Aquatic centre and of course the CCTV China tower. Those additions plus Beijing's existing buildings create a sky line that makes New York's look like a picket fence farted in the wind. You want wild, google earth them apples.

Click here to watch the opening night fireworks show

On the other hand Dubai and Abu Dhabi build on such a massive scale that it dwarfs anything going on over here or anywhere for that matter. Most projects come with a very high or an unlimited budget. If you can think of it, they can fund it. Yeah, a $1.30 a litre gets you that power. So when wild means scale take a look at the Palm Islands, The Burj Khalifa, an indoor skiing hill, the biggest mall in the world and a 7 star hotel. See The Palm Island Atlantis Opening night fire work show, think of this every time you fill up your Prius.

As for Toronto, I'll take my hat off to some of the more riskier projects, the ROM crystal and the OCAD Sharpe Centre for design (The table top) for really pushing the envelope in this city of boxes. As for Trump tower, Diamond Schmidt's glass boxes and all the Condos along the Lake...ya...

2012? The end of days? Armaggedon? Apocalypse?

Go ahead! buy that Kia with your credit card,  put a 9V battery on your tongue, and stop brushing your teeth cause after December 21st 2012 the lights go out for good. The world is going to end...Uh?

I consider myself to be an intelligent person (shhh!) who believes in reasonable interpretations, which should comfort you when it comes to touchy subjects like the pending apocalypse. Take a look at our track record for this. Out of the entire history of 'End of the world predictions' we are 0 - 100. That's right, not a single prediction has come true. We are batting .000 percent, so chances are you'll still have to make lease payments for your Benz. But predictions are one thing, the Mayan calendar is another.

the world is going 

to end because you 

touch yourself at night. 

The Mayan prediction isn't a prediction at all. They calculated the end of their calendar to land specifically on a date that coincides with a galactic alignment. Then it all starts over again, it's what calendars do. You don't win a prize if you get all green lights on the way to work? So why would the world be pulled apart by super volcanoes, polar shifts or a rapture? You with me on that.

The Maya and Inca were incredible astronomers and have followed the solar calendar to mark the solstices for agricultural purposes. Not to figure out when the sun would explode. You have to think about things in their time and why it would be so important to monitor the stars. Would you plant a crop three weeks before a flood? No.

The fact is Dec 21 2012, the winter solstice, the darkest day of the year does mark the end of the Maya Long count calendar. It's really just the beginning of the year 0002. So relax buy champagne not survival gear. The world isn't going to end because their calendar does. It's as relevant as saying the world is going to end because you touch yourself at night.

Columbian Oil The next Saudi Arabia 3 of 3

Ok, so we know the world's thirst for hydrocarbons is still growing and that new oil fields in Columbia present themselves as viable sources that are close to home. So what is next? The spin off from this, I'm hoping, will give all of us an optimistic look at the future. I'm talking about the Green tech revolution. But, don't think this revolution is going to start in North America. Green technology is going to come out of Asia because, in my opinion, and game theorists would probably agree, it's their best move.

You'll see Chinese companies making 

bids for Canadian and Russian oil 

companies out of necessity,  Husky 

has already been predicted to go.

North America is dealing with an infrastructure that has never evolved past petroleum.  This will make it incredibly difficult to change the moneymakers and policy shakers  minds about alternative fuels regardless of the fact that we have viable technologies to start a transition away from internal combustion. The infrastructure is just too well rooted into our economy that we can't just stop using oil. It has to be phased out very slowly and could take another century. Our dependance on black tea as I have anticipated in the past is going to cause two things to happen.

The first is, everyone is going to continue to scour the world for more oil. You'll see Chinese and Indian companies making bids for Canadian and Russian oil companies out of necessity,  Husky has already been predicted to go Panda on us. It's just another chess piece moved across the board, exactly how I mentioned in my last blog about the application of game theory. Look at what China has and look at what they will need. Then do the same for India, The US, Europe and you'll quickly see where all the pieces are going before they get there.

The second event that will happen is already starting to occur. China, for the 4th year in a row has contributed more GW(Gigawatts) of clean energy then anyone else in the world creating 18Gigawatts compared to Europe's silver medal performance of 10GW. Believe it or not, the green energy sector is growing and fast -just not in our backyard. The UK Telegraph also reported that China is investing
$1.7 Trillion dollars into green energy and renewables in the next five years. So what does all this mean?

China knows that if they go down a path of petroleum as their primary energy source it will eventually lead to conflict and are planning to avoid it. However, it takes current technology to build new technology so in the mean time China is going to need oil, but not to just for fuel and they most certainly won't need it for more then a century like Uncle Sam did to get to the next evolution in energy. They need it to create the future.

Americas grip on oil will last well beyond 2050 as North America slowly accepts the transition from internal combustion to an alternative fuel source. What will really slow the transition here is the emergence of green tech in Asia. As They develop better green technologies they will require less oil. America can then scoop it up for cheap as demand will go down. But ironically, continuing with a petroleum based energy source over a green one isn't America's best play. The US has to do both because if they are dependant on cheap gas they'll be so far behind in the future. If they focus on green tech now their economy won't be able to handle the change. So yes the future is very bright, just not over our skies.

Columbian Oil the next Saudi Arabia... 2 of 3

Ever play Starcraft? Me neither, but it seems pretty simple. You make tanks, train troops, build an airforce and create other bases. But, before you can do any of that there's a critical step thats as real as hemorhoids before a bike trip. If you want to create a strong army and be successful you need to secure the resources needed to build it before your opponent does -then protect them at all costs.

That's probably the easiest way to describe this debate and why I think that South America, particularly Columbia, is going to play a critical role in shaping the foreign policies to come (Green tech will too, just not as dramatically as you think or hope.) We need the energy for two main reasons; one, North America is addicted to it like a fat kid is to cake. And two, because we don't want anyone else to have it. If we have it, even though we don't need all of it, we can still control who gets it. Take a look at the Keystone pipeline that Obama has recently shut down and the backlash it's going to create.

The US president, probably pandering to popular opinion (it's an election year) and less on facts, decided not to approve the remaining pipeline extensions that cut through the Mid Western US. Stephen Harper, The Canadian Prime Minister, simply took a sharpie and drew a line across Canada and said "Fine, someone call China, tell them to bring cash."

Game theory allows you to 

apply info and play out the game 

based on what each "player" 

needs and has.

China will soon be as oil hungry as the US and at current production levels there isn't enough to go around. Everyone needs energy to keep the economy going, if your economy fails, like really fails, it could lead to something catastrophic. So to prevent that you keep the economic engine going at all costs. In the Starcraft game, you need to secure the resources to fight the good fight. Similarly, the US needs to do the same and secure all the crude it can. Basically, they want to have control of all the resources before the game starts. It'll make it almost impossible for another player to win and make it futile to even fight. That's what we want, we want other countries to believe that it's a losing battle.

Columbian petroleum is just another pawn in the resource game and a logical play for North America. It can easily be extracted and shipped to the US with minimal effort when compared to the painstaking journey an oil tanker has to take to get here from the Middle East. Which is primarily why it is so enticing to the US, it's close and can be defended from the water.

Now, if you're wondering why I keep resorting back to a war like state of affairs it's only because I have crudely adapted and followed others who have used game theory to play out the scenario. Unsurprisingly, there is a high likelihood it will lead to conflict. But there's a kicker.

No one wants to fight. Yes, there are wars, and they are horrible, but they're no where near the levels of atrocity that the world is actually capable of doing. It's this deterrent that keeps us constantly fighting "invisible wars"or wars of attrition. Game theory allows you to apply info and play out the game based on what each "player" needs and has. Right now, everyone needs energy, without it there is literally nothing. We can take all the assets a country or "player" has and determine what their next move is based on their needs.

As of today, the moves don't add up to conflict, but when you play out the moves down the road there is a strong possibility that it could go bad, IF, we don't secure energy resources and more importantly, protect them.

Part 3 of 3 of Columbian oil will conclude this blog

Columbian Oil The next Saudi Arabia? 1 of 3

Last year I started investing in non-Middle East oil. My instincts were similar to others who predicted that the Arab spring would extend beyond Tunisia creating a very volitile area and thus, higher prices for added risk.  Egypt's reform would make the Suez a 50/50 route leaving the Strait of Hormuz as the next water way to be on the radar. I figured, it's not going to take much for that shipping lane to get F'd up which leaves most foreign oil in a tight spot. So I thought to myself where would oil hungry North America and China get their crude from?

My first thought was Canada, the US and China could get their fix from the Canucks rich oil sands but they only produce roughly 115000 bpd. It wouldn't be enough to satisfy the 18 000 000 bpd and the 9 000 000bpd that the US and China consume daily. Even if the rate triples, which they are poised to do, we're still going to need at least two other sources. So where else is oil in abundance? The Arctic -no way, not in an upcoming election year.  The answer is no further than your local jail or your neighbourhood coke dealer. Yes their is black gold where you get white gold.

Columbia has been known for it's oil and gas deposits for most of the century but hasn't been able to invest enough to make any real dents in the world market. However, in the early 2000s the government lifted its restriction on foreign investments and opened the doors to investors from abroad. One of those companies called Alange Energy (now known as Petromagdalena PMD:TSX) is one that I had my eye on for most of 2011.

The Market reacts to news 

like a 12 yr old girl reacts 

to her twitter account... 

The way I looked at it was two things had to come into play to get my wallet lubed up for Columbian oil.  One of them was increased destabilization of the Middle East governments, which happened. And news coverage that was emotional and sensationalized enough to prompt investor panic.  I know, journalists never sensationalize stories especially ones from the Middle East. So, in 2011, while democracy was spreading like crabs in 10th grade, I bought my first 8-ball of Columbian oil.

It's not my fault the market is almost entirely emotional these days. I quickly learned that the more people invest on their own the more hypersensitive the market is to news stories. It acts more like a 12 year old girl with a twitter account then it does a sophisticated economic system. What most direct investors don't realize is that once it hits the newsstands it's already too late. Yet, sure enough people panic at the tiniest piece of news on CNN or Yahoo, both positive and negative.

Nonetheless, this phenomenon has put Columbian oil into play in my portfolio and if you look at the patterns of Columbian oil companies you'll see that there has been a rather nice upswing. PMD:TSX, the company I invested in has jumped 80%  Since Oct 2011. Pacific Rubiales, the big dog in the region, is up more than 50% since Dec 2011. Will the trend continue? I believe so and all you have to do is understand American foreign policy, military strategy, game theory and consumer trends. Put all those together and it can be quite predictable what is going to happen next.

Tune into for part 2 of this blog, the how and why behind the jump.
I'll inform and entertain you about it. If any of my figures are off, please let me know.

The first rule of the zombie apocalypse

I am not a big fan of zombies. Ok, maybe I am. The possibility of the dead reanimating into a primitive form with only the primal instinct to feed just seems a bit far fetched. You don't see zombies looking for water, even though dehydration sets in far sooner than starvation. But hey that's me.




However, if the dead are able to rise someday, then I believe the first rule about surviving the zombie apocalypse should be that you don't kill the living. [Spoiler alert if you watch The Walking Dead] In the latest episode the survivors are left with another dilemma where Shane wants to kill another human to keep the group alive. Rick, the unofficial leader of their group, isn't sure what he wants to do. Which is the first reason why I belive the living should always be left to live.

A zombie is looking for food, it will kill you to sustain it's own life and for no other reason then that. If we start killing other living humans out of fear that they'll take our resources then we're really no different from the zombies. We would by pass our two large, nicely evolved frontal lobes and be using the same part of the brain the zombie's are using -The survival instinct. Hence making us life sustaining primitive instruments of death. The only difference is we remember and a zombie doesn't.

A zombie will kill you to sustain 

it's own life and you'll kill another 

human to sustain yours, then 

what's the difference?

This dichotomy is seldom seen in zombie stories, if it is please leave a comment of where I can read more about this. At what point do you lose your humanity? Is it when you get bit and become a zombie and will stop at nothing to stay alive? Or is it when (as a human) you are so fearful that you would stop at nothing, even kill other survivors, just to stay alive?

What are your thoughts?