Stephen Rees's blog

SFU City Program

Tom Campanella – Amacon Beasley Resident at UBC

The Concrete Dragon: China’s Urban Revolution and What it Means for the World (Princeton Architectural Press, 2008)

He started by saying that the “enormity of urban development in China”was to be the subject. Of course he was not using the word in its literal sense (‘monstrous wickedness’ was the most common definition until recently) but in the current usage of “very big indeed”. In fact he used the word in that sense several times in his presentation. He might have done better if he had stuck to the old meaning.

In 1992 “the doors blew open” -  in other words China embarked on a new era of embracing capitalism without democracy. This, he said, was the “great epic of our time: the redevelopment of Chinese cities”.

He was unabashed about taking an American perspective. He has viewed this urban revolution from American standpoint  for last 25 to 30 years. The cycle of creative construction has proceeded at greater speed and a scale well beyond western experience. The Chinese have been building for the record books, and they now have the largest malls, the longest bridges and tunnels, the tallest buildings, the largest airport terminal, as well as the largest gated community. The Chinese construction industry workforce is equal to the population of California. 70bn sq ft of housing was built between 1980-2000 which is equal to half  of  the entire US housing stock. In fourteen years the city of Shanghai added the equivalent of 133 Empire State buildings to their office space.

This of course also meant huge destruction of existing property and displacement of the population as most of the old cities were destroyed in this process. For example nearly all of the old Hu Tongs of  Beijing (traditional courtyard houses) have been demolished.

Unlike  the US, cities and suburbs are growing at the same time: in the US the suburbs grew mostly at the expense of the centres. Chinese suburbs are denser but they still sprawl – indeed it can be seen as explosive sprawl – the Chinese word literally means “make a big pancake” and this has  reduced food supply with significant loss of arable land. An area the size of New England has been lost – loss of “The Good Earth” .

China is becoming a nation of motorists: often the suburbs are car dependent and owning a car is a major status marker. The bicycle is now a stigmatized relic of the past. By 2020 China will have more mileage of Interstate highways than US, from none at all in the 1970s. With this has come the malls,   big box stores and theme parks as well as drive-in fast food places and cinemas.

There has been an enormous demographic revolution: the rural migration to cities is the largest in human history. Due to the current recession, now they are going back but in China in 1 year the move to the cities was of more people than 100 years of US immigration. Even so the population is still only 39% urban which makes it like New England after the civil war: the US now is around 80% urban.

This he says requires recalibrating the critical tool kit used to understand cities. We must be willing to accept that things are very different in China and all is happening at a much larger scale than the US “narrative”.  Herbert Gans wrote about the displacement of people due to urban renewal (The Urban Villagers) but that occurred at a much greater order of magnitude in China. Americans need to learn a certain degree of humility. Americans embraced the vision of limitless growth and once had faith in the city. They developed cities of unprecedented scale while the old world watched in awe.

Nebraska’s Senator Kenneth Wherry, speaking in 1940, uttered this disturbing sentence: “With God’s help, we will lift Shanghai up and up, ever up, until it is just like Kansas City.”

He concluded “We have become the old world” – the process of rapid urbanization that crossed the Atlantic has now crossed the Pacific.

Q & A

1 – If this rate of growth keeps up the climate change impact will be disastrous. How cognisant are the Chinese of the need for sustainability?

Increasingly so: their highway development is highly unsustainable. China realises this, but not too much has happened yet. The current slow down may help: there are some small signs. Most homes have rooftop solar water heaters and these are out front at B&Q (the British equivalent to Home Depot that is very popular in China) where in the US we might put barbecues or riding lawn mowers. However,  every two weeks a new coal fired power plant comes on line. China could put its industrial muscle into things line photovoltaic cells, which would see the same transformation ion costs and availability as we have seen in airconditioners.

2 – Did China spend enough on medical services, education and the environment ?

China has spent on things like parks. They attempt to build projects that get them good “face” with their leaders – motivations are not the same as us. Their  investment in medical services etc has lagged behind infrastructure

3a – What are the big social ideas? (“the software not the hardware”)

The great benefit is that they have lifted out of poverty more people than anywhere else. The quality of life that they have now, they did not have until quite recently. “This is rich terrain for young scholars to mine.” We only have anecdotal evidence from China whereas there are tons of studies of  much smaller US movements

3b – Is consumerism part of that?

“We probably are doomed if China goes the Walmart route.” There is a degree of compensatory consumerism (people knew real shortages) but the pendulum will swing back eventually

4 – Trevor Boddy asked “You now have a chance to think again. These metastases of  cities are defeating your own argument.  Can you now talk about what should be done?”

“I don’t even understand the question. I am  now working on two books:  neither has anything to do with China.”

5 – William  McDonough says that the greenest cities will be in China – what do we have to learn from China about cities about sustainability?

“I am not sure that there are lessons for Canada from China.” They are not really sustainable yet though they may show the right path and anything that happens in China is applied on immense scale.  Canada may be the model of wise urbanism.  The US model was not the right one. Chung Ming Island in Shanghai was put on the back burner. “But we are now in uncharted waters”

6 – What are the values and ideologies apart from consumerism? That is  ideology as related to urban form.

Striving to improve life chances has been an important driver. “China had a long and interesting ride with ideology.”  Currently it is consumerism and wealth creation

—————————————

The evening ended somewhat rapidly. It seemed to me that he ran out of steam and realised that the audience was not at all as impressed with his “gee whiz” presentation as US audiences might have been not so long ago. It is perhaps unfortunate that it takes publishers so long to bring out  works such as this. The world has changed dramatically in the last two years, and growth in China has been as affected by the collapse of the US economy just as the rest of the world has.  Sadly this means that we are now less impressed by their record breaking buildings and more concerned about how the Chinese will now react to changed circumstances, but Mr Camapanella was ill equipped to  do much forecasting.

Vancouver Sun

What Dianne Watts has done is broken ranks. She has declared that Bridgeview and Surrey Central will be areas where major new projects won’t have to pay property taxes for three years. The Sun mostly quotes people who think this is a good idea. Only Derek Corrigan of Burnaby thinks it might not be so smart:

…Surrey might get a temporary advantage, but the move will pit municipalities against one another. He said his city already has some of the lowest development cost charges and has no plans to cut or defer them.

“We’ve been a popular place for development so we’re not in a position where we’re trying to encourage developers in what we see is a race to the bottom. It’s very discouraging,” he said.

Indeed, I could not have put it better myself. I have been in BC since 1994 and one of the first things they told me about when I got here was that municipalities would not try to take an advantage by offering this kind of deal to industry. Industrial development is the only land use that pays more in taxes than it costs in municipal services. Other kinds of development – especially residential – cost more to service than they bring in in new taxes. This kind of “beggar my neighbour” policy has been generally avoided. Because in the long run, no municipality gains from this approach – the developers simply pit the municipalities against each other. Moreover, once this competition starts there is nothing to stop a business packing up and leaving once its tax concessions run out and get them from some other municipality.  And there are plenty of places where that has happened. Mostly to the south of here.

Bridgeview is also the community where houses are being torn down to make way for the South Fraser Perimeter Road. As Bernadette “No Trucking Freeway” Keenan has noticed, this area really does not see any traffic congestion in the afternoon peak – usually the busiest time of day for most roads in the region.

Her comments can be heard at 2 minutes in to this video.

But of course the SFPR is not about traffic – or the needs of the truckers to get to the port – it is about turning residential land into industrial land. Just that zoning change will make money – as it has along the same route through North Delta, where the prize is even bigger since even more money  can be made if the land was formerly protected bog or farmland.

What Mayor Watts is tacitly admitting is that in these tough economic times, even ripping down houses and building a new four lane road is not enough to attract business. The premise of the SFPR is that growth is always good – and that land prices will always rise. But that ceased to be true around the middle of last year in this region – and about 18 months earlier than that in the US. Indeed, it is hard now to find financing for almost any kind of development since the people who used to fund this sort of thing are now bankrupt – or left holding all sorts of unpriceable paper “assets” and are hoping for yet more bailout funds. The first tranche of which has already been squandered by the  bankers on their own bonuses.

For the life of me I cannot understand why the Sun thinks it should be a business booster. There are plenty of people around like Maureen Enser who will do that. Surely the role of a newspaper should be to ask questions and try to look behind the smoke and mirrors? The Sun of course is not really a newspaper at all. You have to look elsewhere for examples of real journalistic standards. This story is, sadly, typical of their uncritical view “what benefits a business must be good for all of us” – which most of us with some experience of the world know is far from true.

“People who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” George Santayana

It is a sad day for Surrey – and the region as a whole – that we all now face yet another first hand learning experience that we could easily have avoided.

I am just one person. I am concerned about global warming and climate change. I am not alone. Many others share this concern. And by turning off your lights on March 28th, 2009 at 8:30pm you can make a difference. Not just in terms of water that does not need to go over the dam. But by showing that you give a damn.

Earth Hour has grown significantly: it was just one city – now it is the whole world.

This of course is all over the media and will be the big story on the evening news. You can get the gory details from the Sun, or the National Post, or the CBC.

My instant reaction is that a lot of this should have been happening anyway. Much of the program ought to have been part of changing our region into one that can cope with a real emergency – climate change – and not just for a two week sports festival. The increase in transit and WCE service is of course welcome – as is the opening of the “Olympic Lanes” to buses. This shows that at least the communications wallahs have twigged how terrible the idea of lanes for the privileged few would have looked.

And of course I like the idea of street closures

What I would hope would happen afterwards is that we would see some of this new found enthusiams for the people moving ability of transit translated into a daily experience for the rest of us. But that, of course, is not going to happen if we make the mistake of re-electing a Liberal government.

This article in Sunday’s Washington Post caught my eye mainly for the attached graphic

Possible High-Speed Rail Routes

Yes you spotted it straight away too – up there in the top right hand corner. But Montreal could get a link to – to Boston, but Toronto (centre of the known universe) has been omitted.  And NYC is notable by its omission too, but that may be because it has “Acela” which is nearest Amtrak gets to High Speed at present.

Of course ours is the exact same route that is still trying to get a second, slow speed, daily passenger train.And equally predictably this is also one of those programs that the Republicans have decided to label “wasteful spending”. Of course shovelling trillions of dollars to banks who then paid it to their executives as bonuses was not “wasteful spending”. Nor were all the boondoggles that private sector contractors ran throughout Bush II’s Iraq adventure. Indeed, in the transportation business, it is common practice to speak about “investment in infrastructure” when talking about roads but “wasteful subsidies” when talking about rail or transit. (Because road spending benefits more corporate clients.)

What would make a lot of sense would be switching money into this program from federal support for air travel. Which is one of the worst culprits in terms of tons of CO2 released per passenger mile, and also one of the hardest to make more fuel efficient or switch to non-fossil fuel sources. For most of the city pairs illustrated here even conventional trains will be quicker and more convenient than dealing with the delays and hassles of overloaded air traffic control and mostly pointless “security” checks.

But one of the biggest issues is finding a way to do all of this while keeping the train operation separate from the existing railway corporations who are adamantly opposed to passenger trains – becuase they make so much more from running freight.

Two articles, found in today’s Alternet, pretty much some up where I am coming from these days, and why I have decided to throw in my lot with the Green Party.

The first likens our behaviour as a species with Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. Yes it is an extanded metaphor, but it fits. We know exactly what “sustainability” means – at least since the Bruntland Commission if not earlier – and we have chosen a different path. We are not creating wealth or well being – we are spending the earth’s resources in an orgy of greed and selfishness. The other species on the planet have been suffering as a result – and now future generations face a very uncertain future indeed. The wealthy of the world want more and the poor are regarded as disposable. If everyone else (besides North Americans) behaved as we do we would need three planets.

The second one – briefer but just as pointed – shows that the financial world and the natural world are in agreement.   “We can’t do this anymore.”

Both of the mainstream political parties in BC and all of the parliamentary parties in Canada are in denial. There is “cognitive dissonance” in their behaviour. They want to pretend that there is some trick that can be pulled that will allow us to continue with our present lifestyle at little or no cost to ourselves let alone the future. All it needs is some magic – print some money here, tweak some technology there and all will be well.

There is an election coming up – and I will be running as the Green Party candidate in Richmond East. Yes, I would like to see the BC Liberals defeated, and I can understand why people think that voting for the NDP may well do that. But the NDP is not nearly different enough in its policy approaches. They do not propose to change the way we do business – and are concerned mostly with short term economic stimuli to get as many people back into jobs as possible. Any jobs – it doesn’t matter to them. And any policy can be supporetd as long as it does not look like a Liberal policy. So the carbon tax must be wrong just because the Liberals introduced it. Even odder, the Gateway program and more specifically the replacement of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening of the freeway are now being supported (though Carol James earlier spoke against both).

There are a whole bunch of issues in BC where there is a clear choice between continuing as we are doing or changing direction towards a more sustainable future. Transportation and land use obviously – but also energy (the future of BC Hydro as well as oil and gas exploitation) salmon, logging, waste management – the list is long and the track record utterly dismal. Yet we are still a relatively uncrowded province with lots of natural resources some of which – like water – are going to be very important indeed in any future we can imagine.

“Present trends” will not continue. We already know that predictions of climate change used for the Kyoto Protocol were far too conservative. The processes we can measure show that things are happening much faster – with more serious consequences occurring sooner. Even if we have got lots of untapped oil and gas we cannot afford to increase carbon emissions – we must be part of the process of reduction. The mitigation measures that the oil and gas industry keep citing such as “carbon capture and sequestration” are unproven and not commercially available.

But all is not doom and gloom. All we have to do is stop doing stupid things – like covering farmland in concrete – and start doing sensible things – like switching to renewable energy and elctricity for transport. And not building any new roads anywhere – but investing in public transit of all kinds. Making our cities places where people want to be. Looking after the most vulnerable members of society should be our first priority – the rich have been pushing them to the back for far too long, and they must be made to stop. We have to use what we have more efficiently and more fairly. Ethics must be brought to bear on businesses who are currently obsessed with profits and shareholders. Corporations behave like psychopaths – and need to be treated in a very similar fashion. They have shown that when allowed to pursue their own interests without effective restraint everyone suffers. Similarly, labour can no longer expect to give those lucky enough to be employed in places that still have collective agreements the whip hand in decision making. The broader public interest is not the same as the interest of those who happen to be lucky enough to get a union card – or those who managed to get elected to office in a large and often unresponsive bureaucracy.

Some people are representing the issues that face us all as a generational issue. I do not see the problems we face in this fashion. I am very concerned about the problems my children and grandchild face. And I notice that most of the people I know who are active in this field are of my generation. There are some young people who have stepped forward – and I do what I can to encourage them. But not nearly enough. And this is not about blame – it is too late for that. It is about what we are going to do about the pickle we are in now and the problems that we can see coming – and are here now. Doing more of the same and expecting a different outcome is simply madness.

A Guest Post from Carmen at Gatewaysucks.org.

The fight against Gateway is far from over…communities are
(finally!) recognizing their common interest in stopping this
project, and are supporting each other. With this and the collapse of funding, it is highly possible that this freeway-building insanity may be stopped.

Brian Lewis really captured it in today’s Province

And here is some video from ShawTV (segment starts 4 minutes in):

Attached is our press release …thank you for following this mportant story as it continues to unfold!

SURREY – On Saturday morning, after a 5 day/24 hour blockade encampment, concerned citizens witnessed the demolition of the last house standing in the way of the proposed South Fraser Freeway in Surrey’s Bridgeview neighbourhood.

This working family neighbourhood is the first targeted by the Gateway, Project, forcing many residents with deep roots in the community to leave. The demolition equipment was escorted through a back entrance to the property under guard of private security hired by the Ministry of Transportation.

“This freeway is threatening to destroy communities all along the river, and outdated freeway projects like this are cooking our planet,” said Tom Jaugelis, a North Surrey resident and spokesperson for the group. “Instead of spending billions on the Gateway project, we should be investing in green jobs like the public transit that Surrey needs right now.” The Livable Region Coalition estimates that the Gateway project would increase carbon emissions from cars and trucks by 30%.

Ministry officials plan to lay pre-load sand throughout the neighbourhood so the boggy area will be suitable for paving in about three years. Although the government has spent about $100 million expropriating properties and dumping sand, the project design has not been finalized and no builder has been selected.

“Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon wants to spend billions putting a useless freeway next to our school that will cut us off from the river, beach, and our fishing dock.” Said Bernadette Keenan, who sits on the Board of the Bridgeview Community Association. “Our community has a different vision for North Surrey. This is going to be a mixed-use waterfront community, not an industrial wasteland beside a freeway. We are continuing to fight for our community.”

Jaugelis added, “We have been getting more and more support from communities all along the proposed freeway route, people from one end to the other have been coming by with encouragement, hot chocolate and snacks.We will be there to support them when Falcon tries to trash their communities. This is just the beginning.”

Guest Post from Karl Perrin, of the  Environmental Commitee of the                  Unitarian Church of Vancouver.

Do I have this right?

1. B.C.’s Minister of Transport does a poll (in good times) to find out what desperate commuters would pay to cross the Fraser: $3 (rounded up).

2. Then he asks “Who can twin the Port Mann, and maintain the existing bridge, for $3 a trip?  As a P3, you borrow the money, but future tolls will cover all your costs and profit.”

3. A consortium wins the bid, but doesn’t want to maintain the existing bridge.  They’d rather build a bigger bridge and tear down the existing bridge, for more profit.  New price: $3.3 billion.

4. But the consortium is broke.  First it gets a partial bail out, then a total bail out from B.C. taxpayers.  And we’re told the builders, with no equity to lose, would never walk away from an unfinished bridge, requiring further payments.  (Meanwhile, B.C.’s credit rating is in jeopardy.)

5. The Minister of Transport says, ‘Don’t worry.  Drivers will pay, not taxpayers.’  And removing the existing Port Mann bridge will force them to pay.  The $3 toll can increase by 2.5% per year.  Let’s see, 2.5% compounded over 40 years is … a lot!  (ignoring the possibility of deflation and lower wages for commuters).

6. So now, in a recession, in the name of jobs, we’re going to build a Cadillac toll bridge, tear down a free bridge, and pay for it with the future wages of well off commuters (again assuming they have jobs, cars, gas, and no alternative).  And if the drivers don’t come, because of all the attractive transit crossing the Fraser, then the taxpayers do pay off the bridge costs.

(I calculate a commuter paying the toll to and from work on two of every three days pays $1,458 in year one, and $3,915 in year forty, with $3 per trip increased by 2.5% per year.)

7. Oh, and by the way, when you trash a bridge, where do you put it?

What’s the global warming footprint of the blow-torches, explosives, and jack hammers?  What’s the salmon footprint?

What’s wrong with this picture?  It’s financially logical, assuming the economy is booming in 2013.  But then, so was the nuclear arms race, the tobacco industry, and the Tar Sands.  And all those industries produced lots of jobs.

Here’s a story about Henry Ford:
Henry Ford went to a junkyard and asked, “What part of my cars does not break down?”  “The steering column.”  Ford went back to his engineers and ordered them to design a crappier steering column.

(This didn’t actually happen, but you get the point: somehow the Ford Co. produced the Edsel and the Pinto.) Thus began planned obsolescence and the end of craftsmanship.  The result?—a toxic industry, dead Detroit, and a rust belt from Gary, Indiana to Buffalo.  How do we treat the mineral wealth, the natural resources of North America?  “Trash it and move on.”  And now we are here, in the valley of the greatest salmon river in the world—and salmon stocks are crashing.  And we’re about to destroy a good bridge.  How green was my valley.

Who asked for Gateway?  Who asked for a truckin’ freeway to take crap from Asia to Walmarts back east, toxic toys for the children of laid off GM workers?  Why trash Burns Bog, and industrialize the Fraser shores?  Are we idiots to trust politicians with our money?

Why would we tear down a perfectly good free bridge?  Clearly, so drivers will pay $3+.  But what if

1. They paid $3 tolls now with time sensitive electronic tolls (i.e. less in non-peak hours)?

2. Queue jumper lanes, like those on the tunnel, allowing buses to access the bridge faster than cars?

3. more and longer Sky-Trains? Another Sky-Train bridge?

4. trucks go free after 8 pm?

Would we need another toll bridge? Why not make the Pattullo replacement bridge bigger?  Why not start over? ($3.3 billion could build a lot of transit!)

And what about Gordon Campbell’s wish to cut B.C.’s greenhouse gases by 33% by 2020 from 2007 levels?  Is he serious?  Producing a tonne of cement creates a tonne of CO2, before you even start moving it.  Imagine the carbon footprint of a ten lane bridge, to say nothing of the rest of Gateway.

Our Unitarian minister a few years ago, Dr. Bill Houff, looked at the destruction of perfectly good houses in his neighbourhood, and called it “vandalism”.  Spending $3,300,000,000. to build one bridge, tear down another, and turn farms into container parking lots, is vandalism on a massive scale.  It’s stealing the future from our children.  It’s all very logical, and totally insane.

Our civilization must change.  “Trash and move on” and the Earth becomes a rust belt.  Stop Gateway!

And then I had a dream.  If the jobs-at-all-costs faction wins, and they build the new Port Mann bridge, why tear down the old one?  Why not use it as a park, with slow, electric buses, cars, and bikes?  Why not build planters down the middle, for community gardens?  Why not give tourists an unobstructed view of Mt.Baker, the Fraser River, and the eagles over the valley?

Why should B.C. tax-payers subsidize cars, trucks, and container traffic from Asia to eastern North America?
Why tear down a perfectly good bridge?

We are not the only place that is going to build a huge new bridge with the promise of LRT capacity for the future, but a lot new freeway capacity much sooner. The same mistake is being advocated by the  Columbia River Crossing Project Sponsors Council for the Washington/Oregon boundary. This this is not the same as the Gateway Council set up (where the proponents were mainly business interests). The Seattle Transit Blog reports that

The Columbia River Crossing Project Sponsors Council is made up of leaders both in Oregon and Washington including leaders of Vancouver, Portland, TriMet (Portland’s transit agency) and Oregon DOT and Washington DOT.

This would be a twelve lane bridge – replacing the existing 6 lane – so the outcome – double the capacity double the traffic – is not in doubt. The discussion is also intersting beneath the story since it would appear that, like the Port Mann, there is actually no defined plan for actually connecting up the proposed bridge to the regional rapid transit system.

Just as with the US federal bailout program, there is still a lot of interest in roads and bridges, and much less availble for railways. Yet another opportunity to change the dorection of North America is going to be lost, it seems. Railways are much more efficient people and freight movers than roads – both in terms of land taken and energy consumed. Global warming and peak oil should have seen everyone start to switch towards renewable sources of energy much sooner and faster than they have – and go for electrification, since electricity does not have to come from fossil fuels. Road vehicles rely almost exclusively on oil – most “alterntative” fuels still being fossil fuel sourced or processesed – and electric cars still being something only distant commercially in sufficient quantities to make any difference.

New York seems to be the exception to this rule. There railways lead much of the development of the state – and not a few are already electrified and carrying large numbers of people as well as freight. The North East of the US bing rather different to most of the rest of the country.

State will invest more than $10 billion over 20 years to improve connections between New York’s biggest cities

This morning at the Albany/Rensselaer train station, New York Governor David Paterson (D) announced a major new effort by his state to invest in its rail system

Most of that investment is designed to upgrade existing corridors to enable better transportation of people and goods. This is not yet electrified high speed rail adopted by most other advanced countries, but is an important step in the right direction.

The contrast with BC is stark. He we sold of BC Rail (a process still mired in controversy) and are currently proposing to spend a lot of money enabling freight railways to continue to disrupt communities. This is because we have a government at present that only cares aboiut business – nothing else matters. We actually had an electric railway to move coal up at Tumbler Ridge but we scrapped that. We could have used the Olympics as a way to get good quality passenegr rail between North Vancouver and Whistler – not hard or expensive to do, and common to most ski resorts in Europe and japan – but the porfit to be made from the sale to CN was a quicker fix. And we only have short lengths of rail rapid transit in the core of the region – and one way, peak only commuter rail for one part of the rest.

Rail for the Valley, streetcars and light rail for region, even a second daily train to Seattle all seem to be terribly difficult to achieve – but all objections to yet more roads and freeways are simply swept away as if they had no validity. We plan by staring at the wake of the ship and ignore the hazards now clearly visible from the bridge.

Surrey-Newton Green candidate Trevor Loke will begin hosting a series of Green Movie Nights, every Tuesday evening at the Strawberry Hill Library in Surrey. The non-partisan event will provide a forum for community members to see unique, independent documentaries and continue a discussion about the topic following the film. Admission is by donation, to help pay for the meeting room rental. Doors open at 6:15 and the movies start at 6:45pm.

TOMORROW MARCH 10 – The 11th Hour

MARCH 17 – American Drug War

MARCH 31 – Who Killed the Electric Car?

This post was updated Mar 9 11:34pm – final show date was changed