Why I love Waffle House - a personal reflection

I discovered that one of my friends hates Waffle House -- the fast-food, greasy-spoon, 24-hour diner chain that is nigh ubiquitous in the American South. Her contempt surfaced during an online chat with another friend of mine, who shares my penchant for ‘the Shack’ (as it’s also known).

A: Um, I just noticed you like Waffle House...? Really? You and Nathan. Really?
M: haha, yeah! you don't?!?! I especially like the hash browns. 
A: ahhhhhhh...... it brings horrible memories to my head of oversized everything, including the people who were making it!
M: I still have a Waffle House paper hat somewhere.
A: I think the Waffle House is the microcosm of the United States... you get the cheap price for a whole bunch of [excrement], the server who is at least ten times heavier than you, and the obnoxiously loud people sitting next to you... I still get jitters when I think about that place.
M: I guess you could think of it like that. Just like the U.S., some parts are bad, some parts are good... like the hash browns!

The iconic Waffle House sign

A. clearly doesn't think much of dining there. The disdain fairly drips from her words, like the oil glistening off a freshly cooked Waffle House sausage. Merely voicing a fondness for said eatery is apparently sufficient to taint my online reputation!

I was taken aback by the vehemence of her critique. I couldn't just wave it off, and dismiss her aversion as misplaced cultural elitism. I needed to contemplate, re-examine -- and ultimately reaffirm -- my position.

Don't need no Starbucks - Justin Bieber brings the Woo! to Waffle House

Why do I love Waffle House? What is it about that institution that tickles my fancy? Is it not ridiculous to express delight for an American fast food chain? And if not, why Waffle House over, say, Denny's, or McDonalds, or KFC, etc.? Moreover, what does this brand affinity imply about my values?

Reflecting on these questions has given me broader insight into my ambivalent relationships with contemporary American culture, the industrial food production system, and my oft-inadvertent complicity in the voracious attitude of excess consumption.

Good food fast in any era

A Cultural Icon of the American South
Founded in 1955 by Joe Rogers Sr. and Tom Forkner -- both of whom retain a collective majority stake in the company today -- the Waffle House chain of restaurants has grown to encompass over 1600 locations in over 25 states. Its headquarters is located near Norcross, Georgia, and industry analysts have pegged its annual revenues at over $500 million.

The Shaq at the Shack - Shaquille O'Neal is in the House!

The peculiar status of Waffle House as a regional icon of the present-day American South cannot be denied. Its towering, signature yellow signs pioneered the art of attracting the attention of passing motorists, and have been described as the 'unofficial flower of the Southern Interstate'.

The context of the restaurants is important to consider. Late night diners are a staple of the American blue-collar psychological landscape, with Edward Hopper's Nighthawks being emblematic of their influence. Waffle House, consciously or not, operates in an environment heavily informed by this influence, and its working class connotations. The coffee is always on; a pot of grits simmers perpetually...

Nighthawks - Edward Hopper

The chain has its own customs, cryptic lingo, coded communication signals, and even its own music -- every restaurant features a jukebox of 45 RPM singles with commissioned melodies ready for instant playback (Listen to the corporate theme song, "Waffle House Family" from Mary Welch Rogers -- a saccharine tune both aggressively hokey and wonderful).

The customer base is primarily working class and family oriented in nature, although pop celebrities such as Usher, Reese Witherspoon, Jay-Z, Pete Sampras, Sean "P. Diddy" Combs and -- perhaps most notoriously -- Kid Rock have all been known to wander in occasionally for a hot tasty meal.

Waffle House has also been featured in movies such as Tin Cup, Crossroads, and Due Date. The 2000 Hootie and the Blowfish album 'Scattered, Smothered & Covered' was a reference to a popular Waffle House menu item. The chain has inspired videos, songs, comedy routines, and even poetry. The popular Reddit.com website was born at a Waffle House.

Over the five decades of its existence, Waffle House has gradually evolved into a lasting and consistent fixture in the Southern fast food vernacular.

A Damning Critique
I generally subscribe to a world view of sensual relativism: De gustibus non est disputandem -- and in this case, I mean that literally. Yet I can't help but notice a defensiveness in my reaction to A.'s harsh take. Am I embarrassed by my anti-epicurean partiality? Is there a class element to this, or is it something deeper?

I understand A.'s perspective. Her repulsion is instinctively ideological. Michael Pollan (the bestselling author of In Defense of Food and The Omnivore's Dilemma) would argue that the 'nutritional contradictions of capitalism'1 demand the existence of monocultural chains like Waffle House. Every cheap, oversized, sprawling Waffle House meal is an inevitable, inexorable, unavoidable end product of a heavily subsidized system of industrial agriculture, starring corn and its infinite derivatives. The outputs of the system -- however hypertrophied -- must be distributed, served and consumed!

Stinging commentary indeed (though A. might object that I'm inferring a larger argument than she intended). How can I reconcile this censorious approach with my obvious fondness for Waffle House fare?

A Celebration of Possibility
Self-knowledge provides the guilty answer. Everything that makes my friend recoil in horror is what I love most about 'America's place to work, America's place to eat'. Label me a gourmand, not a gourmet.

Scrutinize for instance the Waffle House menu.

The choices therein speak volumes about the prevailing cultural attitude to diet: How would you like your hash browns? Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked, diced, peppered, capped, topped, country -- or heck, why not 'all the way'? And what size serving would you like? Regular, large, triple? Its sweet cream waffles are still made with the same original recipe, and the chain remains the world's leading seller of t-bone steaks. 2% of the entire United States' foodservice egg production winds up on a Waffle House plate. The establishment clearly delights in matters of appetite.

Watching a Waffle House short order cook prepare a meal in plain view is an edifying, educating experience: it is a distillation of food simplicity -- and a curt rebuttal of gastronomic pretension. As Esquire writes,

"Its menu is narrow the way the selection of notes in 'The Goldberg Variations' is narrow. Let diners expand their menus by simple, relentless addition; Waffle House relies on a higher math, so its menu, which seems a forthright declaration of its limitations, is actually a celebration of possibility."

If Dante's Third Circle had a fast food restaurant, it would probably be Waffle House.



The truth is, self-discipline has no place in Waffle House America. I accept that. I embrace it. The spectre of David Wallerstein (the McDonald's executive who invented Super-Sizing) may haunt us all, but global supply chain ramifications and fears of culinary homogeneity hold no sway when you're faced with an extra large, piping hot bowl of Bert's Chili.

A Question of Authencity
In his book Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser describes several key themes in the evolution of fast food in tandem with American society -- notably fluid automotive accessibility, franchising, standardization and uniformity, and a hazy evocation of family values in an effort to foster brand loyalty. In many ways, Waffle House is a poignant, representative example. Good food fast and friendly; open 24 hours. The well-mannered slogan chillingly, and perfectly describes what the chain is all about.

In particular, Schlosser's wry observation of the transformation of the food service industry -- from a countless multitude of independent restaurants towards an aggregated franchise model -- holds special resonance. With respect to Waffle House, Fast Food critics might argue that its folksy charm is in fact an entirely artificial effect: its nostalgic take on diners is a cloned hypocrisy, a contrived facade replicated directly out of a franchise manual.

One size fits all?

I reject that cynical perspective. We need only to interpret the chain in holistic rather than menacing terms. Every Waffle House is like a delicate coral reef -- a complex, dynamic system of interacting, diverse, interdependent entities that have come together.*

The atmosphere at Waffle House feels organic, genuine, and authentic -- and so it is. It doesn't matter that it's staged to begin with. Once set in motion, it takes on a syrupy life of its own. That forced good-timey, southern, courteous, and polite aura seduces and comforts (or horrifies and repels, in A.'s case). It is distinctly American in character -- curiously monotone, yet simultaneously eccentric.

Jonah Hill flips the WH bird

When I dine at a Waffle House, I feel like I have stolen a startling glimpse of the American empire in glacial decline. The restaurants bustle with a muscular and proletarian energy, yet they also seem worn, downtrodden, and sadly cheerful. The booths (which only seat 4) are cramped and uncomfortable, and yet clinical attention has been paid to their layout with respect to time and motion efficiency. The surfaces are clean -- but the greasy residue of years gone by can never be entirely scoured away. Everything exudes a pervasive, shambling quality of angst and introspection.

Comedian Jim Gaffigan's extended, hilarious riff on Waffle House both lampoons and rejoices in the gritty reality of it all:

"I love Waffle House [...] it's the people in there. It's like a white trash convention. Or for me, a family reunion!"

It is this heartfelt, gritty quality that ultimately redeems Waffle House. The staff -- typically older, career service-industry workers -- are familiar, real, and flawed. The customers too. The salt of the earth congregate here to eat their meals in a noisy, shared communion. Participating in the jocular interplay between customers, wait staff, and cooks is to bear witness to a sophisticated social dynamic in action -- cultural anthropologists take careful note!

There is no facade here -- it is a genuine slice of legitimate, unvarnished, kitschy American reality. It's messy, it's sticky, it's a chaotic technicolour delight.



I have come to realize that not everyone shares my predilection for the Shack. It's not for everyone. But before we rush to condemn Waffle House for its extravagant serving sizes, calculated demeanour, and rambunctious population, we should pause to consider whether it truly deserves our scorn, or whether instead we should wistfully acknowledge its impact on Southern culture -- and award it our occasional, late-night, 2AM, drunken fealty.

* The comparison to a reef is not as ludicrous as it might superficially appear. Suppliers, distributors, managers, wait staff, cooks, customers -- all of these elements are brought into play during the course of operation of a Waffle House restaurant. In the course of researching this essay I came across a case study of Waffle House's disaster supply chain management approach (many restaurants are located in areas affected by hurricanes and other potential natural disaster events). The study outlined Waffle House's philosophy and meticulous preparation with respect to natural disasters. 
"Nothing good can come from a closed Waffle House after a hurricane -- not for us, not for the community, not for the associates." This was a quote in the study from Bert Thornton, Waffle House Restaurants President and COO (and inventor of the eponymous Bert's Chili). Although naturally self-serving, the statement nevertheless betrays a surprising awareness of the role that the chain plays in local economies and of the consequential disruption caused by a fettered restaurant.




Finally, listen to this paean to Waffle House from David Wilcox.


Other posts I’ve written on Waffle House:
FEMA’s ‘Waffle House Index’ for Disaster Assessment
Waffle House Tattoo - Now That’s Commitment!

"Any idiot could do this job!"

There was an internal audit report submitted to the TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) this week. Among other issues, it was discovered that some subway and SRT collectors have been deliberately ordering fewer Metropasses for their station, so that they could avoid the hassle of doing too many cash transactions!

Even more interesting, however, was the revelation that there is presently only one requirement to be a Collector: "to be able to physically do the work."

Incredible!

The report acknowledges that customer service and cash handling skills are insufficient in the present set of Collectors, of which there are 365, and that training efforts should be undertaken to address the deficiency.

Perhaps the TTC should consider raising the hiring criteria for that position -- it might result in better service for TTC patrons. What do you think?

Is skateboarding illegal in Toronto?

This topic seems to recur every couple of months on a local skate forum I frequent, so I wrote up an aggregated answer based on the current City of Toronto bylaws. Turns out I'm a nigh-daily scofflaw...

Skateboarding on the road is prohibited in Toronto.
Yes, it's true! Technically, you're not allowed to skate on the road where there are sidewalks, in Toronto, except when crossing. Happily, this bylaw is seldom enforced, unless you're skating like an idiot—our municipal police usually have way more important matters to deal with.

The main bylaw governing skateboarding in the road is the 'Traffic and Parking Code'. The specific reference is BY-LAW No. 1409-2011, Chapter 950, Article III, Subsection 950-300, Clause D. Pedestrians' rights and duties:

D. No person shall play or take part in any game or sport upon a roadway and, where there are sidewalks, no person upon roller-skates, in-line skates or a skateboard, or riding in or by means of any coaster, scooter, toy vehicle, toboggan, sleigh or similar device, shall go upon a roadway except for the purpose of crossing the road, and, when so crossing, such person shall have the rights and be subject to the obligations of a pedestrian.

[The previous version of the skate-related municipal prohibition was 400-14A, and before that it was 522-78 in the (pre-amalgamation) City of Toronto code; you may see references to these if you are issued a ticket]

Always claim you're crossing the road! A careful reading of the text also seems to suggest that you can skate on the road if there aren't any sidewalks... And no playing ball hockey.

Further, this bylaw includes skateboards as part of its definition of vehicle (see Article 1, 950-101. Definitions). So technically, if you are skating somewhere, you are also supposed to ride according to the rules that govern 'vehicles' in this bylaw (Which is a contradiction of the above clause: if you were crossing a roadway while skating, are you acting as a vehicle or a pedestrian?).

You can't skate in Toronto bike lanes (or footpaths or pedestrian ways or bicycle paths)
You’d think that bike lanes would be perfect for commuting use by skateboarders, but apparently the bureaucrats at City Hall think otherwise. The bike lane bylaw excluding skateboards is 599-2007, chapter 886-8 and 886-10A. (and 886-1 where skateboards are defined for the purposes of the bylaw as vehicles).

"Subject to 886-11, no person shall operate a vehicle other than a bicycle in any bicycle lane except for the purpose of... [exceptions follow]"

So if you skate in a bike lane, you're breaking the law twice, once for being in the lane, and again for being on the road! Kind of sad...

The same prohibition goes for the handful of officially designated City of Toronto footpaths, pedestrian ways, and bicycle paths (respectively 886-3, 886-5, 886-6c of the same bylaw cited above) -- no skateboard riding permitted.

For example, the Martin Goodman Trail along the waterfront is designated as a footpath (see Schedule A of 599-2007). Other pedestrian ways include certain very-specific areas around:

• Trinity Square
• St. Patrick’s Market
• Ontario Street

I wonder if anyone’s ever tried to stop in-line skaters from using the Martin Goodman Trail?


You can (carefully) skate on the sidewalk 
With respect to skateboarding on the sidewalk, clause F of the abovementioned Bylaw 1409-2011 (Ch.950, Article III, subsection 950-300) states:

"No person shall ride upon or operate a bicycle with a tire size less than or equal to 61.0 centimetres (24 inches), skateboard, in-line skates or roller-skates, coaster, scooter, toy vehicle, toboggan, sleigh, or any similar device on a sidewalk recklessly or negligently or at a speed or in a manner dangerous to the public, having regard to circumstances.

In other words, don’t be an idiot on the sidewalk.

The previous version of the code was 313 (Article IV)-27, Subsection D, which originally dealt with riding horses on the sidewalk (don’t do it). Interestingly the updated code no longer makes any mention of horses—I wonder if this means you can now ride your horse on the sidewalk?

Toronto Islands (careful) street skateboarding ok
Subsection E of 313 (Article IV)-27 is basically a repeat of the language in subsection D, but applies to the Toronto Islands, and applies to the streets on Toronto Islands as well as the sidewalk. As long as you exercise due care and attention and have reasonable consideration for others, you're good.

"Pedestrians shall have the right-of-way on a sidewalk, and no person shall ride upon or operate a bicycle, roller skates, in-line skates, skateboard, coaster, toy vehicle or similar device on a street or sidewalk on the Toronto Islands without due care and attention and without reasonable consideration for others using the street or sidewalk on the Toronto Islands. [Amended 1995-03-31 by Bylaw No. 1995-0263]"

There isn’t any mention of the Toronto Islands in  Bylaw 1409-2011, so I’m not 100% sure what this means if 1409 was supposed to replace 313. Probably the best advice (as usual) is, skate away, but be careful of others.

Skateboarding not permitted in Yonge-Dundas Square
Skateboarding is prohibited in Yonge-Dundas Square (not that that's ever prevented us from skating a certain garage in close spatial proximity to that square, ahem), per municipal code 636-11 clause I.

"No person shall, within the limits of a square:
I. Ride or stand on any skateboard, roller skate or roller blade."

What, you can't even stand on your deck? You can't hand out helium-filled balloons either. Or light any fires. Oh, those crazy municipal mandarins!

Skateboarding prohibited in Nathan Phillips Square
There was also an older, unconsolidated bylaw, 34-74, the specific text of which I haven't been able to dredge up, which governs behaviour in Nathan Phillips Square. There was a subsequent amendment in 1988, 1988-0349, which is described as follows:

TO AMEND BY-LAW NO. 34-74, BEING "A BY-LAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE, REGULATION, PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT OF NATHAN PHILLIPS SQUARE.", TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF SKATEBOARDS THEREON AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PENALTY THEREUNDER TO $2,000.00.

Two grand for skating! I guess City Hall doesn't want you skating on their turf. Somewhat confusingly, the PDF link on the city web site for the 1988-0349 bylaw leads to the text of an amendment passed a decade later, in 1998, "BY-LAW No. 863-1998", which added 'Chapter 270', outlining a prohibition against skating in the 'proposed public square in the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project'. It's probable that Council intended this bylaw to apply to all public squares; the language in the text (specifically 270-2, Prohibited Activities) is essentially the same as in 636-11.

Skateboarding on certain streets prohibited
Intriguingly, skateboarding has been prohibited on two streets (including their sidewalks!) in Toronto (North York). The streets are Ptarmigan Crescent from the east limit of Wallingford to the south end, and Wallingford from the south limit of Brookbanks to the north limit of Cassandra.

This prohibition is outlined in Clause E of 1409-2011 (Ch.950, Article III, subsection 950-300):

1) For the purposes of § 950-300E(2), HIGHWAY shall be defined as in the Highway Traffic Act and shall also include sidewalks.

 2) Despite § 950-300D, no person upon a skateboard shall go upon a highway set out in Schedule XXXXII in § 950-1341 between the limits set out in the said Schedule. 

And here’s Schedule 42, which identifies Ptarmigan and Wallingford.

[The previous version of this code was 972-2003].

Makes you want to check it out, eh?

Skateboarding not permitted on the TTC 
Skateboarding on TTC property is prohibited, per TTC Bylaw 1, Section 3.8. The fine is $195 -- the same amount as it is for urinating or defecating.

No person shall roller-skate, in-line skate or skate-board in or on TTC property.

Skateboarding in Parks OK except where forbidden
Skateboarding in City of Toronto parks seems to be mostly acceptable -- except where there's a sign prohibiting such activity. Plus, you can't 'inconvenience' anyone in the park either, per bylaw 608-23.

While in a park, no person shall:

1.  Operate or utilize roller blades, skate boards, linear skates or similar conveyances where posted to prohibit or otherwise restrict the use of the conveyances; or 
2. Obstruct, inconvenience or endanger other users of the park while operating or utilizing roller blades, skateboards or similar conveyances

Two sections later in 608-25, the municipal code also prohibits you from flying a kite in any park. At least not near any trees. So if you fly a kite while skateboarding in the park...

An additional, somewhat oblique reference to skateboarding exists in the same chapter of the code, as it pertains to dogs. Under Definitions in 608-1, "Skateboard bowls, tennis courts and other sports pads" are defined as Prohibited Areas. The only other mention of Prohibited Areas in this chapter of the code is in 608-34:

While in a park, no person as owner  or person having control of a dog shall: [Amended 2007-07-19 by By-law No. 790-2007; 2009-10-27 by By-law No. 1093-2009] 

[...] 2. Excluding blind persons reliant upon a guide dog,  and a working dog providing a service to the City, allow the dog to enter a prohibited area  

From this you can infer that dogs aren't allowed in skateboard bowls in the City of Toronto (not including guide dogs or dogs working for the city). What I find interesting about this part of the code is, I can only think of one 'skateboard bowl' in all of Toronto (Vanderhoof). (Phase 2 of Ashbridges Bay will incorporate a bowl.) It's probably being pedantic to not interpret 'bowl' as actually meaning 'skate park'.

These are the Toronto bylaws I've been able to research that deal with skateboarding, for a variety of situations.

Longboards Ruled Not Vehicles in HTA
What, you might ask, does the Ontario Highway Traffic Act have to say about skateboards?

Nothing. 'Skateboards' are not mentioned in the HTA (not anymore—see update below re: towing). You might think that the HTA definition of vehicle comes pretty close to encompassing skateboards:

“vehicle” includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power, but does not include a motorized snow vehicle or a street car;

In 2009 five longboarders were charged with careless driving on Grey Road 19 in Ontario. The charges were quashed in the decision R. v. Cruz, as the JP ruled that longboards were not vehicles, and therefore as 'pedestrians' the defendants could not be charged under the HTA with careless driving. The decision referenced a previous ruling in Alberta,  R. v. Atchison, 2006 ABCA 258, where the judges concluded

[...] a person on a skateboard is a pedestrian for purposes of the [Alberta] Traffic Safety Act.

In the latter case, other court rulings were cited, finding that persons on skateboards or roller blades constitute pedestrians in various contexts: Littlewood v. Prendergast, [2004] B.C.J. No. 2115, 2004 BCSC 1321; Falconar v. Le, [2003] B.C.J. No. 2214, 2003 BCSC 1434; R. v. Zimmer, [2004] S.J. No. 680, 2004 SKQB 444; R. v. Greer, [1995] O.J. No. 655 (Ct. J.- Prov. Div.).

[R. v. Cruz doesn't show up on CanLII yet; apparently court transcript costs prevent easy replication of the decision]

Tricky!

[The astute will observe that this seems to contradict the two bylaws previously cited where skateboards were declared vehicles. Generally the HTA has precedence over municipal bylaws -- see 195.1 in the HTA -- but if a police officer tells you to get out of a bike lane, you should probably do as they ask.]

Update to HTA - No Towing behind cars or hanging on to cars

Recently Bill 31 amended the Highway Traffic Act with a number of measures mostly involving bicycles and distracted driving, but also added a prohibition against getting towed on a skateboard behind a car (i.e. skitching).

See Bill 31, Section 160:

No driver of a vehicle or street car shall permit any person riding, riding on or operating a bicycle, coaster, toboggan, sled, skateboard, toy vehicle or any other type of conveyance or wearing roller skates, in-line skates or skis to attach the same, himself or herself to the vehicle or street car on a highway.

 Section 178 (1) was also amended to prohibit hanging on to a car, with roughly the same language.

No Helmet Required

Many people believe erroneously that there's an Ontario or Federal law that skateboarders must wear helmets. They cite private member bills on the subject (e.g. John Milloy, Bill 129, or Dave Levac, Bill 111), and often mention a City of Toronto Bike Helmet Law page that alludes to it in passing. 

However, these people don't seem to understand how the legislature works -- none of these private member bills has ever made it through final reading and royal assent. The bills just get proposed and then die on the order paper or in standing committee [Milloy's bill, for example, only made it through 2nd reading]. 

In other words, there is currently no law that mandates the wearing of helmets while skateboarding, in Toronto. That being said -- head injuries suck. You should wear your helmet! Yes, 99.999% of the time it sits on your head uselessly and screws up your hair -- but that one funny time your wheels catch or the car pulls out from nowhere... you'll be glad you were wearing a lid. Trust me.

Conclusion

Whether you agree or or not, skateboarding is prohibited in the road in Toronto. Don't let that ever stop you from spreading the stoke and skating hard -- on the road. If an officer flags you down and fines you $90... suck it up pal, and frame the ticket. Wear a helmet, skate responsibly, and don't be an ass in traffic.

If you know of any other Toronto-specific bylaws pertaining to skateboarding, or have any corrections to submit, please leave a comment!

Photo credit: original taken from a skater's lament at being fined.

Minor update

There was a recent City of Toronto staff report presented to the Public Works Committee regarding the playing of ball hockey in the streets, i.e. regarding bylaw code 400-14A cited above.

The report identifies two options:

1. doing nothing and maintaining the status quo, and 
2. amending the bylaw to no longer prohibit the playing or taking part in games or sports upon roadways.

Josh Matlow is on the 'decriminalize' side. Denzil Minnan-Wong is on the 'why bother' side.

The recommendation of the report is to do nothing. (i.e. playing in the street -- and by extension skateboarding -- would still be prohibited).

For the most part, children/adults choose to play on streets where it is relatively safe to do so. Games or sports being played on the roadway generally go on without incident. The determination regarding safety and the responsibility to ensure same is, however, taken on by the individual and does not shift to the City in these situations. Therefore, the current prohibition is technically sound and operationally justified.

Enforcement of the current prohibition against the playing or taking part in any game or sport upon a roadway is the responsibility of the Toronto Police Service. Any such enforcement is discretionary and is generally complaint driven. The transient and sporadic nature of the activity makes enforcement difficult and given the responsibilities of a police officer, this matter is not given a high priority. Further, applying a charge that could result in a fine being paid by the participant in the game/sport seldom occurs.  

Usually, a warning (particularly in the case of children) is sufficient to deter the activity in a problematic location. However, the by-law prohibition does allow for enforcement to occur, if necessary.

If City Council decides to amend the bylaws, I’ll update this post.

May 2012 Update: Councillor Matlow proposed a ridiculously bureaucratic permit-approval process for legalizing ball-hockey, which presumably (but not necessarily) might have affected the bylaw’s status. After enduring scorn from many quarters, Matlow realized there was no support for it and declared:

I'm convinced. If there's no interest in staff's ball hockey compromise, let's either let it be or scrap the prohibition by-law all together
— Josh Matlow (@JoshMatlow) May 24, 2012

Other skateboarding posts I’ve written
• The Return of Longboard Haven Skate Shop
• Profile: Justin Readings, Downhill Skateboarder
• The rise of Patrick Switzer, Downhill Skateboarder
• The Toronto Board Meeting: A Short History
• Letter to Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon: Why Jeopardize the Ashbridges Bay Skate Park?
• Concrete Wave’s Lame ‘Pin-Up’ Cover
• The Banana Split -- Four Years Later
• Speed! Thrills! Women! FUBU Skate Race Recap
• Grappling with another longboarding death
• Our first longboarding tragedy

Easily compare cameras with Snapsort

A short while ago, I needed to buy a compact digital camera to take with me on my trip to Spain. My previous camera was kludgy, old, and I wasn't generally happy with the output quality, so deciding to upgrade was easy.

However, choosing a new camera to purchase was not so simple. Digital photography and feature sets have advanced considerably in the past few years (perhaps spurred by competitive innovation in the mobile-phone camera space?), and manufacturers now offer a wide plethora of different models with varying capabilities.

In 2004 Barry Schwartz wrote a popular book called The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. In his book Schwartz argues that too much choice can be inimical, leading to decision paralysis and second-guessing. In modern Western economies, we celebrate the number of choices available to us in the marketplace as being a testament to our freedom and autonomy. Unfortunately, reveals Schwartz, this overwhelming swathe of choices contributes to psychological tension and unhappiness.

The disturbing prospect of possible buyer's remorse weighs heavily on consumers: We worry that we might choose non-optimally; there might have been a better product available, a more satisfying option. Our expectations are set too high and we stress out about possible opportunity costs.

This phenomenon vigorously manifests itself in the world of digital cameras. There are hundreds of models to select from. The accompanying marketing verbiage makes each one sound like the most incredible technological artifact you could possibly imagine -- until you read the next description. How could I pick out the camera that was right for me?

I didn't have a lot of time to make my decision: the trip was coming up fast and I needed to act. Comparing camera technical specifications and reading dozens of reviews on the internet was melting my brain into a hazy fog of insensibility. The paradox of choice was exhausting.

I happened to stumble across a handy product-comparison site, Snapsort.

Summary: Snapsort is a great site for comparing cameras. * 

It has a simple, succinct, clean layout (almost too clean -- some pages look a little sparse). It works quickly. It highlights the relative strengths and weaknesses of selected cameras, in an apparently neutral fashion. It lets you compare any camera to any other camera. It has discussion areas for each camera, and useful articles about digital photography topics (e.g. understanding resolution).

Easily compare and contrast camera models with Snapsort

A recently added feature is a 'Videos' section, where links to video samples as well as external video reviews and tutorials for the selected model are posted. Users can also suggest or contribute related video content from YouTube. It's a clever idea which works well for most cameras.

There are a couple of areas which could be improved.

The price comparison feature is presently weak: it doesn't seem to aggregate data from a significant number of sources -- at least not in Canada (I can garner broader results from shopbot or photoprice, which often come up in google searches for camera names). Their biz dev guy should get working on building some more relationships with local vendors that also ship.

The other area relates to the aforementioned Videos section. As I said it's a clever idea, but honestly it wasn't what I was expecting. It needs to leverage more content. I should give them the benefit of the doubt I suppose; maybe they just haven't had a lot of time to populate the database with videos.

If I were to speculate as to the design intent for the tab, confining the content to videos allows Snapsort to keep users on the site, and to summarize and present the content in an attractive manner. However, what I kept thinking I was looking for, was a curated set of links to external in-depth reviews from major third parties, e.g. CNET, dcresource.com, Engadget, and so forth. Not just videos. Stickiness in user navigation shouldn't override the value of linked content. In any case, they should consider partnering with other sites for access to additional external data sources and reviews. Perhaps a separate 'Reviews' tab?

In short I found Snapsort to be excellent for comparing and contrasting the technical specifications and quantifiable metrics of different cameras -- but less obviously useful for discovering expert qualitative opinions and assessments.

I'm curious to see whether in the future they'll expand their offering to cover other product types, like cars or televisions or mobile phones and tablets. Roughly speaking the underlying engine would be the same, just the field labels (and obviously the content!) would be different. I'm not sure what their ultimate business model is going to be like; right now it seems to be affiliate partner driven, as well as sporting the occasional advertisement. But I hope that they succeed. Maybe they'll stick to the photography niche -- it depends how big their vision is.

To end the story, I used Snapsort to help winnow down the field to a manageable set of candidate cameras. It was a huge time-saver. And the shots I took in Spain, from the camera I eventually bought, weren't too shabby either.

Trundling down to the local store and physically handling camera models should still be part of a disciplined evaluation process, but if you're doing research online, Snapsort is a solid, handy tool for comparing cameras -- and for battling the paradox of choice.

--
* Snapsort also happens to be a Waterloo startup housed in the Accelerator Centre. I grew up in that town, and my present company maintains an ongoing relationship with the University of Waterloo, so I feel a strong affinity for companies based in that region. Go Waterloo!