Boosted — which is a California-based company that makes electric skateboards — has just released a new smaller and more affordable version called the Mini S.
Casey Neistat — who helped popularize the original models through his wildly successful YouTube channel — recently vlogged about it and it ended up crashing their website. That’s how things work these days.
Now, this new version is still USD 750 (so CAD 1,000), but it is significantly less than their other, bigger, models.
The Mini S goes up to 18 mph and lasts for about 7 miles (optional extended range battery available). So it’s perfect for short jaunts around the city and as a solution to that pesky last mile problem.
I am seriously considering getting one for my short commute to the office. That way I’m not breaking a sweat in my suit. But $1,000 remains an awful lot for a skateboard.
Boosted — which is a California-based company that makes electric skateboards — has just released a new smaller and more affordable version called the Mini S.
Casey Neistat — who helped popularize the original models through his wildly successful YouTube channel — recently vlogged about it and it ended up crashing their website. That’s how things work these days.
Now, this new version is still USD 750 (so CAD 1,000), but it is significantly less than their other, bigger, models.
The Mini S goes up to 18 mph and lasts for about 7 miles (optional extended range battery available). So it’s perfect for short jaunts around the city and as a solution to that pesky last mile problem.
I am seriously considering getting one for my short commute to the office. That way I’m not breaking a sweat in my suit. But $1,000 remains an awful lot for a skateboard.
Today’s post is going to be a short add-on to yesterday’s post about the sinking Millennium Tower in San Francisco. Today, the New York Times published the below map showing the areas of the city likely to “liquefy in an earthquake.” It goes on to note that “at least 100 buildings taller than 240 feet were built in areas that have a “very high” chance of liquefaction.”
Today’s post is going to be a short add-on to yesterday’s post about the sinking Millennium Tower in San Francisco. Today, the New York Times published the below map showing the areas of the city likely to “liquefy in an earthquake.” It goes on to note that “at least 100 buildings taller than 240 feet were built in areas that have a “very high” chance of liquefaction.”
The article might leave you with the feeling that current building codes are inadequate for the pending “Big One” in San Francisco. So I thought I would reblog this post from last fall which talks, in more detail, about how one of the best structural engineering firms in the world designed the tallest building in San Francisco.
and how it may be creating a disincentive for longtime homeowners to move. They’re enjoying below market property taxes, and so they stay put, even if they may have too much house.
But this concept of “overhousing” isn’t unique to California. The Globe and Mail just ran a piece talking about how Toronto’s designated “Neighborhoods” are losing people as the nests empty out, seniors remain put, and the broader city booms.
The rate of depopulation that created the spare bedrooms in Toronto’s low-rise neighbourhoods is stark: “Since 2001, about 52 per cent of the land mass of Toronto has reduced in density of population by about 201,000 people,” Mr. Smetanin says. “Other parts of Toronto have grown by 492,000.”
The irony of this phenomenon is that the city’s Official Plan considers these Neighborhoods to be “physically stable”, as well as “one of the keys to Toronto’s success.” However, things are clearly changing behind that physical stability.
The article might leave you with the feeling that current building codes are inadequate for the pending “Big One” in San Francisco. So I thought I would reblog this post from last fall which talks, in more detail, about how one of the best structural engineering firms in the world designed the tallest building in San Francisco.
and how it may be creating a disincentive for longtime homeowners to move. They’re enjoying below market property taxes, and so they stay put, even if they may have too much house.
But this concept of “overhousing” isn’t unique to California. The Globe and Mail just ran a piece talking about how Toronto’s designated “Neighborhoods” are losing people as the nests empty out, seniors remain put, and the broader city booms.
The rate of depopulation that created the spare bedrooms in Toronto’s low-rise neighbourhoods is stark: “Since 2001, about 52 per cent of the land mass of Toronto has reduced in density of population by about 201,000 people,” Mr. Smetanin says. “Other parts of Toronto have grown by 492,000.”
The irony of this phenomenon is that the city’s Official Plan considers these Neighborhoods to be “physically stable”, as well as “one of the keys to Toronto’s success.” However, things are clearly changing behind that physical stability.
