reposted from the critical theory and information studies PhD seminar blog

For the past several months, a network of bay area activists and artists have been staging protests surrounding a fleet of luxury coach buses. These private buses regularly use public bus stops to pick up hi-tech employees from San Francisco and shuttle them to Silicon Valley. The buses are used by a range of tech companies, but the protests have become known as the “Google Bus” protests.

 

google bus protests, 2014, link to source

google bus protests, 2014, link to source

 

Following the initial protests, local officials were relatively quick to come to an agreement that involved the shuttle companies paying the city a one dollar fee for every time a bus uses a public bus stop. The particular details of this private-bus-on-public-bus-stop situation are somewhat banal, to the extent that most highways and roads in the US, could be described as public infrastructure that supports the use of private automobiles. But such a reading, fails to get to the heart of the matter, nor does it allow one to fully appreciate why the “Google Bus” is a fascinating object to put at the center this discussion.

As a site of protest and class antagonism, the “Google Bus” functions as both a literal expression of privatized infrastructure, and a symbolic expression of economic inequality. Through this lens, the buses should be read as one small part of a complex set of entangled systems, that define the current conditions and flow of urban life. While an account of the these systems would include food, education, healthcare, waste management, water and power, communications, and transportation, it is housing, or housing policy, that is arguably at the center of this discussion. While there are a range of rent control and preservation policies that are unique to San Francisco, the unbridled “success” of the one percent, the suppression of real wages for working and middle class households, and a failure of civic imagination, are national trends, and have directly translated into rising rent and greater precariousness for working people. The average rental costs, for most major US cities, has exceeded the recommended 30% mark of  household income. In Los Angeles, where I’m writing from, the median rent has increased by 25% in the last 12 years, and more than half of the population pays rent that exceed 30% of their income. Across California, roughly 20% of households spend more than 50% of their income on rent.

The architect-artist Teddy Cruz argues that we have entered into an era of “urban crisis,” where most major cities around the world are characterized by dramatic social-economic inequality. In a collaborative lecture with political scientist Fonna Forman, the two argue that historic notions of happiness have directly translated into the design of cities. From Aristotle’s conception that happiness coming from our capacity to collaborate with our peers, to modernist notions of happiness coming from personal pleasure; the urban landscape has shifted from cities that centered around public commons, to enclaves of private space. For Forman and Cruz, this spatial architectural shift, is accompanied by the decline of “civic imagination,” and our sense of social responsibility.

 

Teddy Cruz, Urban Crisis 2013

Teddy Cruz, Urban Crisis 2013

 

In San Francisco, like many other cities, the social contracts of solidarity have long been broken. Whether it be personal stories of senior citizens and longtime residents being evicted, or the gradual erosion of opportunity for working people, the Google bus protests mark the continuation of working class protest and struggle. While one could situate, some of the more expressive moments of the Google bus protests within a genealogy or activist art, or regional traditions of San Francisco pranksters and interventionists, the critical themes motivating the work has a strong connection to the history of rent strikes. While the labour movement has been largely organized to combat worker exploitation – abolition of child labour, promotion healthier work conditions, fair wages, job security et cetera; residential rent is also one of the major ways wealth is extracted from the working class.

The history and logic of urban life can largely be understood as an expression of class hierarchy and antagonism. The very systems that support and manage urban life, often reinforce the socio-economic divisions of privilege and oppression. Reflecting this structural dynamic, there is a history of socialist and union organized residential rent strikes. In the UK and other social democracies, rent strikes are identified as part of the historic prelude to the formation of publicly owned social housing. In the US, rent strikes played a direct role in the short-term lowering of rents and the promotion of regional rent protection laws.

Rent Strike, New York Times, 1919.

Rent Strike, New York Times, 1919.

 

In the case of the recent bus protests, locating the protests along the transportation system, foregrounds an intuitive understanding that urban life is defined by an assemblage of related systems. When taken to its rational conclusion, one will inevitably arrive at a socio-ecological orientation. That is to say, the accounting of corporate profits, doesn’t acknowledge the true social and environmental costs enabling business as usual to happen. A holistic account of urban life is a prerequisite of a more equitably “civic imagination.”

In California, many have been quick to present a supply-and-demand analysis of the “rental crisis,” but a free-market approach is not going to resolve the layered problems we face. For one, there is little incentive for for-profit real-estate developers and landlords to undo the very market conditions that are creating substantial profits. Nationally, the US federal government should make considerable investments in affordable housing, to be released as regional grants. Regionally, the combination of a affordable housing trusts, that would keep large collections of housing stock outside of the market, along with universal rent control, and the creation of rent-to-own policies, or the expansion of subsidized mortgages for the remaining private housing stock, are a few possibilities for addressing the issue of affordable housing.

I want to conclude this text, by directing our attention to the “Freedom Budget,” a compressive proposal written by civil rights and labour activists in 1965. The “Freedom Budget” summarized its goals with the following list:

1) the abolition of poverty
2) guaranteed full employment
3) full production and high economic growth
4) adequate minimum wages
5) farm income parity
6) guaranteed incomes for all unable to work
7) a decent home for every American family
8) modern health services for all
9) full educational opportunity for all
10) updated social security and welfare programs
11) and equitable tax and money policies

 

References

Dewan, Shaila. “In Many Cities, Rent Is Rising Out of Reach of Middle Class.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Apr. 2014. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.

“Freedom Budget.” - Social Justice Wiki. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. http://socialjustice.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/index.php/Freedom_Budget#The_Budget.27s_Proposals

Harvey, David. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. New York: Verso, 2012. Print.

“High Rent, Few Options: Rising Rents and Short Supply Have Angelenos Weighing Their Choices | 89.3 KPCC.” High Rent, Few Options: Rising Rents and Short Supply Have Angelenos Weighing Their Choices | 89.3 KPCC. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.

KPCC in Los Angeles, produced an interactive map illustrating the rental costs and income ratio for the greater LA region. http://projects.scpr.org/static/longreads/high-rent-few-options/

“How Burrowing Owls Lead To Vomiting Anarchists (Or SF’s Housing Crisis Explained) | TechCrunch.” TechCrunch. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. An overview of the regional dynamics and history of San Francisco’s housing crisis. http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/

Illich, Ivan. Deschooling Society. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. Print.

Nichols, John. The S Word: A Short History of an American Tradition… Socialism. Brooklyn, NY: Verso, 2011. Print.

“The Urbanization of Happiness and the Decline of Civic Imagination with Fonna Forman and Teddy Cruz.” YouTube. YouTube, 14 Apr. 2014. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. Lecture about the history of happiness and urbanization https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK33-qDLCow

“Why the Private Market Can Never Solve SF’s Housing Crisis – 48 Hills.” 48 Hills. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.

SF housing crisis and affordable housing alternatives. http://48hillsonline.org/2014/04/14/private-market-can-never-solve-sfs-housing-crisis/

 

For some years now, I’ve collaborated with my friends at The Center for Research in Engineering, Media and Performance (REMAP). The blog Gizmodo recently wrote a blog post cover a public demonstration of a new mobile interpretive media app we’ve been building for downtown LA.

Reposted from Gizmodo:

Los Angeles To Launch Nation's Largest Interactive Urban Trail Network

Los Angeles is a big place—0ver 400 square miles. Even though it’s home to the country’s largest urban park many of its residents do not have easy access to a public green space. A new “interactive interpretive” urban trail system hopes to close that distance, while connecting Angelenos to the hidden cultural and fitness opportunities in their city.

Gizmodo got a hands-on of the new app (which will be released officially in April) during a walk yesterday with its creators at the Interpretive Media Laboratory (IMLab). IMLab is a partnership between UCLA’s School of Theater, Film and Television and California State Parks that develops tech tools to help Angelenos access public space.

Joining us on the walk were Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, who was in town to announce a new initiative that will connect local youth with urban wildlife refuges.

Read More

a few concepts
siren server – behind every all large companies and projects are super computers that calculate market variables in order to maximize profit and externalize risk.

levees – “free” markets inherently require (state) regulations. Historically, the labour movement, unions, tenure, etc, have functioned as “levees” regulating the market and protecting middle and working class interests. Lanier asks how do we create digital levees?

user data compensation – Lanier offers argues that if corporations are going to collect user data and profit from this collection, then users should be compensated for their data.

 

Dustin O'Hara Facebook network visualization

Facebook Network Visualization using Gephi

This visualization was made in a PhD research methods seminar at UCLA, in the Information Studies Department, at the Charles E Young Research Library. The system that was used to run the network analysis and create the visualization is called Gephi. The research librarians at YRL are full of interesting tricks and tips, if you’re in the area I recommend a visit.

The different clusters illustrate different groups and organizations I’ve been a part of over the past ten+ years. The large mass in the center, is my undergraduate class at UCLA, the top right mass are cohort members from a masters program at UC Santa Cruz. The bottom-left pink cluster are high school friends that friended me some years after our graduation. The small blue cluster below the high school group was my first job out of college at RoadTrip Nation, and the red clusters to the right of that, are close friends and family, and friends from London. The names that are scaled up, are larger because they bridge the different clicks in my network. In total, the network is made of 700+ nodes or people.

 

reposted from fibreculture journal

Ippolita
Italy

Geert Lovink
University of Amsterdam

Ned Rossiter
University of Nottingham, Ningbo

0.

The internet turns out to be neither the problem nor the solution for the global recession. As an indifferent bystander it doesn’t lend itself easily as a revolutionary tool. The virtual has become the everyday. The New Deal is presented as green, not digital. The digital is a given. This low-key position presents an opportunity to rethink the Web 2.0 hype. How might we understand our political, emotional and social involvement in internet culture over the next few years?

1.

News media is awash with ‘economic crisis’, indulging in its self-generated spectacle of financial meltdown. Experts are mobilised, but only to produce the drama of dissensus. Programmed disagreement is the consensus of daily news. Crisis, after all, is the condition of possibility for capitalism. Unlike the dotcom crash in 2000-2001, when the collapse of high-tech stocks fueled the global recession, the internet has so far managed to stay out of the blame game. Web 2.0 only suffers mild side effects from the odd collection of platforms and services, from Google to Wikipedia,PhotobucketCraigslistMySpaceFacebookTwitterHabbo and so-called regional players such as Baidu and51.com. Despite its benign existence, there still is hyper-growth wherever you look. Web 2.0 applications and platforms remain ‘new’ but show a tendency to get lost inside the boring, stressful and uncertain working life of the connected billions.

2.

Social networks are technologies of entertainment and diffusion. The social reality they create is real, but as a technology of immediacy you can’t get no satisfaction. We initially love them for their distraction from the torture of now-time. Networking sites are social drugs for those in need of the Human that is located elsewhere in time or space. It is the pseudo Other that we are connecting to. Not the radical Other or some real Other. We systematically explore weakness and vagueness and are pressed to further enhance the exhibition of the Self. ‘I might know you (but I don’t). Do you mind knowing me?’. The pleasure principle of entertainment thus diffuses social antagonisms—how does conflict manifest within the comfort zones of social networks and their tapestries of auto-customisation? The business-minded ‘trust doctrine’ has all but eliminated the open, dirty internet forums. Most Web 2.0 are echo chambers of the same old opinions and cultural patterns. As we can all witness, they are not exactly hotbeds of alternative sub-culture. What’s new are their ‘social’ qualities: the network is the message. What’s created here is a sense or approximation of the social. Social networks register a ‘refusal of work’. But our net-time, after all, is another kind of labour. Herein lies the perversity of social networks: however radical they may be, they will always be data-mined. They are designed to be exploited. Refusal of work becomes just another form of making a buck that you never see.

3.

Social networking sites are as much fashion victims as everything else. They come and go. Their migration across space signals the enculturisation of software. While Orkut disappeared in G8 countries, it is still Big in Brazil. Is anyone still seriously investing in real estate in Second Life? What the online world needs is sustainable social relations. The moving herds that go from one server to the next merely demonstrate an impulsive grazing mentality: once the latest widgets are installed, it is time to move on. Sustainability is connected to scaleability. Here, we see lessons from the major social movements over the last 50 years. The force of accumulated social-political desires manifest, eventually, in national and global forums that permeate back into policy discourse and social practice: think March on Washington, 1963 (Black Civil Rights), Rio, 1992 (Earth Summit), Porto Alegre, 2001 (World Social Forum), Geneva and Tunis, 2003-2005 (World Summit on the Info-Society). None of these examples are exempt from critique. We note them here to signal the relationship between sustainability and scalar transformation. We are familiar with formats such as barcamps, unconferencing and have participated in DIY techno-workshops at those seasonal media arts festivals. But these are hardly instances of sustainability. Their temporality of tinkering is governed by the duration of the event. True, there is occasionally resonance back in the local hack-lab, but such practices are exclusive to techno-secret societies, not the networked masses. Social networking sites are remarkable for their capacity to scale. Their weakness is their seeming incapacity to effect political change in any substantive way. The valorisation of citizen-journalism is not the same as radical intervention, and is better understood as symptomatic of the structural logic of outsourcing media production and election campaign management.

4.

From social to socialism is a small step for humankind ­ but a big step for the Western subject. What makes the social attractive, and socialism so old school and boring? What is the social anyway? We have to be aware that such postmodern academic language games do not deepen our understanding of the issues, nor widen our political fantasies. We need imagination, but only if it illuminates concepts that transform concrete conditions. The resurrection of the social after its disappearance is not an appealing slogan. Some ideas have an almost direct access to our body. Others remain dead. This in particular counts for insider jargon such as rent, multitude, common, commons and communism. There’s a compulsion to self-referentiality here that’s not so different from the narcissistic default of so many blogs. What, then, are the collective concepts of the social networked masses? For now, they are engineered from the top-down by the corporate programmers, or they are outsourced to the world of widgets. Tag, Connect, Friend, Link, Share, Tweet. These are not terms that signal any form of collective intelligence, creativity or networked socialism. They are directives from the Central Software Committee. «Participation» in «social networks» will no longer work, if it ever did, as the magic recipe to transform tired and boring individuals into cool members of the mythological Collective Intelligence. If you’re not an interesting individual, your participation is not really interesting. Data clouds, after all, are clouds: they fade away. Better social networks are organized networks involving better individuals—it’s your responsibility, it’s your time. What is needed is an invention of social network software where everybody is a concept designer. Let’s kill the click and unleash a thousand million tiny tinkerers!

5.

We are addicted to ghettoes, and in so doing refuse the antagonism of ‘the political’. Where is the enemy? Not onFacebook, where you can only have ‘friends’. What Web 2.0 lacks is the technique of antagonistic linkage. Instead, we are confronted with the Tyranny of Positive Energy. Life only consists of uplifting experiences. Depression is not a design principle. Wikipedia‘s reliance on ‘good faith’ and its policing of protocols quite frequently make for a depressing experience in the face of an absence of singular style. There ain’t no ‘neutral point of view’. This software design principle merely reproduces the One Belief System. Formats need to be transformed if they are going to accommodate the plurality of expression of networked life. Templates function as zones of exclusion. But strangely, they also exclude the conflict of the border. The virus is the closest thing to conflict online. But viruses work in invisible ways and function as a generator of service labour for the computer nerd who comes in and cleans your computer.

6.

The critique of simulation falls short here. There is nothing ‘false’ about the virtuality of social networking sites. They are about as real it gets these days. Stability accumulates for those hooked to networks. Things just keep expanding. More requests. More friends. More time for social-time. With the closure of factories comes the opening of data-mines. Privacy is so empty of curiosity that we are compelled to slap it on our Wall for all to see. If we are lucky, a Friend refurbishes it with a comment. And if you are feeling cheeky, then Throw A Sheep! You would be hard-pressed to notice any substantive change. But you will be required to do never-ending maintenance work to manage all your data feeds and updates. That’ll subtract a bit of time from your daily routine.

7.

The Network will not be Revolutionized. What does this mean for Indymedia 2.0? The question of why indymedia.orgfailed and did not further develop into an active and open social networking site or clearly take up a position in the Web 2.0 debate is something that needs to be addressed (see the nettime debate of May 2009). Have media activists already learnt enough of the Brechtian Indymedia Lehrstueck that started in the late nineties? Is global branding and branching, as in the case of Indymedia (one name, often similar design, sharing of servers, some syndication of content, etc.), still as important as it used to be? Indymedia met the challenge of scaleability in amazing ways only to discover its limits. Contamination seems key for transnational social-political networks. As do regular face-to-face meetings. Let your network connect with the concrete and adaptation and transformation will undoubtedly kick in. Then try reconnecting across networks (and other institutional and organizational forms) on the global scale. Conflict will already have multiplied and the primary condition of sustainability will be underway.

8.

Web 2.0 is not for free. ‘Free as in free beer’ is not like ‘free as in freedom’. Open does not equal free. These days ‘free’ is just another word for service economies. The linux fiefdom know that all too well. We need to question naïve campaigns that merely promote ‘free culture’ without questioning the underlying parasitic economy and the ‘deprofessionalization’ of cultural work. Pervasive profiling is the cost of this opening to ‘free market values’. As users and prosumers we are limited by our capacity as data producers. Our tastes and preferences, our opinions and movements are the market price to pay. At present, Facebook‘s voluntary and enthusiastic auto-filing system on a mass scale represents the high point of this strategy. But we cannot succumb to the control paranoia and to the logic of fear. Let’s inject more kaos in it! So what if you have your anti-whatever Facebook group? What does it change other than expanding your number of friends? Is deleting the radical gesture of 2009? Why not come up a more subversive and funny, anti-cyclical act? Are you also looking for rebel tactical tools?

9.

Soon the Web 2.0 business model will be obsolete. It is based on the endless growth principle, pushed by the endless growth of consumerism. The business model still echoes the silly 90s dotcom model: if growth stagnates, it means the venture has failed and needs to be closed down. Seamless growth of customised advertising is the fuel of this form of capitalism, decentralized by the user-prosumer. Mental environment pollution is parallel to natural environment pollution. But our world is finished (limited). We have to start elaborating appropriate technologies for a finite world. There is no exteriority, no other worlds (second, third, fourth worlds) where we can dump the collateral effects of insane development. We know that Progress is a bloodthirsty god that extracts a heavy human sacrifice. A good end cannot justify a bad means. On the contrary, technologies are means that have to justify the end of collective freedom. No sacrifice will be tolerated: martyrs are not welcome. Neither are heroes.

10.

‘Better a complex identity than an identity complex’. We need to promote peer-education that shifts the default culture of auto-formation to the nihilist pleasure of hacking the system. Personal exhibition on Web 2.0 social networks resembles the discovery of sexuality. Anxiety over masturbation meets digital narcissism (obsessive touching up of personal profiles) and digital voyeurism (compulsive viewing of other’s profiles, their list of friends, secrets, etc.). To avoid the double trap of blind technophilia and luddite technophobia, we have to develop complex digital identities. They have to answer to individual desires and satisfy multiple needs. Open-ID are a good starting point. ‘Steal my profile’. It’s time to remix identity. Anonymity is a good alternative to the pressures of the control society, but there must be alternatives on offer. One strategy could be to make the one (‘real’) identity more complex and, where possible, contradictory. But whatever your identify might be, it will always be harvested. If you must participate in the accumulation economy for those in control of the data mines, then the least you can do is Fake Your Persona.

Authors’ Biographies

Ippolita is an Italian Collective.

Geert Lovink is a Research Professor of Interactive Media at the Hogeschool van Amsterdam (HvA) and an Associate Professor of New Media at the University of Amsterdam (UvA). Lovink is the founding director of the Institute of Network Cultures, whose goals are to explore, document and feed the potential for socio-economical change of the new media field through events, publications and open dialogue. He is the author of many books, including Dark FiberUncanny NetworksMy First Recession and Zero Comments: Blogging and Critical Internet Studies.

Ned Rossiter is Associate Professor of Network Cultures, University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China and Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Cultural Research, University of Western Sydney, Australia. He is author of Organized Networks: Media Theory, Creative Labour, New Institutions (2006) and co-editor of numerous volumes, including (with Geert Lovink) MyCreativity Reader: A Critique of Creative Industries (2007).

Shoreditch_Park_Dustin_O'Hara_001

Shoreditch Park Project, Dustin O’Hara.

re-posted from the Shoreditch Park Project Website.

Standing in Shoreditch Park, it’s hard to comprehend the scale of destruction that set things in motion. Like many parks in east London, it’s a former WWII bomb site. A neighborhood of Victorian era houses flattened by the Blitz. Now, some seventy years later, it’s a well used and well equipped neighborhood park. Bordered, almost exclusively, by council owned social housing estates, the area has an established working class history. As part of this history, for nearly thirty years prior to becoming a park, the site was home to a neighbourhood of prefabricated homes.

Organized and funded by the British central government, the Temporary Housing Act of 1944, provided hundreds-of-thousands of people with their own prefabricated home. For many residents, their ‘prefab’ gave them their first day-to-day experience of living with indoor plumbing, modern appliances, and what middle class sensibilities would consider sufficient living space.

The Shoreditch Park Project emerged out of the basic impulse to orient oneself, to understand the social and material landscape of the neighbourhood, and the stories of how it has changed. In its current form, the park, offered a prime case study for exploring how social memory and local mythologies are reflected in the landscape. As a point of research, the Shoreditch Park Project has been thematically focused on this neighbourhood of prefab homes.

As factory built homes – the postwar prefabs, can be understood as an architectural-industrial expression of hope. The prefab program was a critical nexus point, of social policy, industrial urbanism, and design thinking that reshaped the domestic reality and daily lives of countless people. At the same time, the prefab housing program was part of a much wider campaign to rebuild the nation. From the National Health Service, to Universal Child Benefit, to state funded education, numerous programs, that act as instruments for social justice, emerged in the postwar years.

dustinohara_ahoreditch_park_project_interview

Shoreditch Park Project, conducting an interview in the park. Listening to memories of living in the prefabricated homes in Shoreditch Park.

How does one situate this, established historic narrative of the Temporary Housing Act, in relation to the less fixed mythologies of life in this specific neighborhood? When interviewing people about how the neighborhood has changed, you quickly find contradictions and anecdotal details that reveal competing interests and embedded power relations that have historically shaped the neighborhood and continue to inform the stories we tell ourselves about the place. Often the voice itself, acts as powerful cultural register, determining our relational understanding of class, race, gender, and region. With regard to the prefabs, and housing in general, one will quickly comes to realize that housing is always an issue, and that the critical problems the prefab program addressed are still present, in one way or another.

Working with a group of youth researchers, we’ve held six months of weekly workshops, anchored in a curriculum that mixes new media literacy with heritage and social documentation research. We’ve reviewed the local council archives, hosted tea party gatherings, collected man-on-the-street style interviews, and gone on field trips to postwar prefabs that are still in use. In total we’ve conducted over 60 oral history interviews. The project has culminated in the production of an audio visual collection, website, park installation, and short sound piece. In this way, the project is a research/educationally driven interpretive project, that actively relocates the notion of cultural heritage from a noun to a verb, from a fixed object to an inherently collaborative and performative act.

- Dustin O’Hara, 20th June 2013

Visit the Shoreditch Park Project Website for more.

Dustin O'Hara A Brooks

A. Brooks
04 April – 18 May 2013
Private View: 04 April 2013 18.00 – 21.00

A Brooks Art is delighted to present A. Brooks a new project by Dustin O’Hara.

Before becoming a gallery, A. Brooks was a family run flower shop. For roughly 70 years the Brooks family sold flowers to their neighbours. Remembered by many local residents, the A. Brooks flower shop, and its family, became an integral part of the Hoxton landscape. The transition from a family run flower shop to a contemporary art gallery is emblematic of the wider changes currently unfolding across the neighbourhood. This exhibition mines the shop’s recent and personal history, as a way of reflecting upon both the personal lives that animated the flower shop and the wider collective identity of the Hoxton neighbourhood.

“The power of ordinary urban landscapes to nurture citizens’ public memory, to encompass shared time in the form of shared territory – remains untapped for most working people’s neighbourhoods” Dolores Hayden, The Power of Place

Dustin O'Hara A Brooks

The A. Brooks exhibition was developed in collaboration between Dustin O’Hara, Julia Riddiough, and Toni Brooks. Dustin O’Hara’s work could be described as experimental community archiving, Julia Riddiough currently runs the A. Brooks gallery and Toni Brooks is a retired florist. Kathy and Mark Brooks also worked in the shop and family business for over thirty years. Mark now has a stall in Hoxton Street market and continues to sell flowers today.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 133 other followers