The results are in—and the AMS has chosen HBBH+BH to be the architects for the new Student Union Building (SUB).

HBBH+BH—a partnership between Vancouver-based Hotson Bakker Boniface Haden and B + H Architects—was chosen over finalists Bing Thom Architects and Busy Perkins+Will to design the $103 million SUB, which is scheduled to be completed in 2014.

VP Administration Ekaterina Dovjenko made the announcement at the July 14 council meeting, two weeks earlier than anticipated.

“The AMS is confident that HBBH+ BH is the right firm and demonstrated that they have a deep understanding of students’ needs,” said Dovjenko in a press release.

The AMS expects a preliminary design for the building to be completed by December.

In the meantime, HBBH+BH, alongside the AMS will be launching a schematic design forum in September 2010 to consult with students. They will host workshops on topics ranging from sustainability to social and green spaces.

The selection process saw each competing firm submit a proposal which was then ranked on a scale of 0 to 100, with 60 points for technical, 20 for the interview process and 20 for cost.

All three firms achieved scores above fifty but HBBH+BH led in all three categories, Dovjenko told Council.

Two of the four principal architects from the winning firm will be directly involved with the project. Dovjenko confirmed that one of the contending firms suffered in its assessment because the SUB Renew Committee felt that access to the senior architects was not sufficient.

According to their newly launched website for the project, www.whatsyoursub.com, HBBH+BH will be focusing on ecological, social and financial sustainability as top priorities.

The firms are no strangers to UBC, having designed the Marine Residences and Commons Block, the ICICS facilities and the Hugh Dempster Lecture Pavillion.

“The fact that UBC is not an urban campus means the SUB building is the heart of the student community.” Bruce Haden, design leader and HBBH partner, said in an interview posted on their website. “It’s like a mini city, replacing the functions and funkiness that surround urban campuses”

This final selection marks the end of a multi-year process to choose an architect. In April 2010, 2400 students chose three architectural firms as finalists in the SUB Renew vote.

Construction on the 255,000 sq ft. SUB will begin in 2012, with an expected completion date of 2014. The AMS will provide $78 million dollars of this funding, with the university providing the rest.

After nearly six hours of often tense debate, the AMS approved a “temporary operational framework” budget that will guide spending decisions for the next month until a budget can be finalized at the next council meeting.

This provisional solution came after the budget had been initially voted down by the council, with 11 in favour and 11 against, with the motion needing 2/3rds approval to pass.

While councilors had concerns about the future of Block Party and discretionary spending funds, the Executive argued that not passing any budget would paralyze the student union. Some councilors then supported a motion to revive the budget.

The debate to revisit the budget was strongly opposed by a vocal minority, who argued that since many councilors had left the meeting after originally voting it down, overturning the vote would be undemocratic.

The final compromise, which saw council approve the budget “as an operational framework” passed unanimously, with VP Finance Elin Tayyar asking councilors to meet with him in the coming weeks to resolve the debate.

A full story on the debate will be at ubyssey.ca tomorrow.

AMS Council will debate and vote on the 2010/2011 budget later tonight, with the elimination and reduction of several services and jobs paid for by students slated to become official. (Click here for the official budget)

In a March council meeting, Tayyar told council that unless drastic cuts were made to the budget, the AMS, which had revenues of $13.9 million in 2009/2010, would go bankrupt in less than two years.

It was at that meeting that several cuts were made to some of the services the AMS provides, including a 50% reduction of the Safewalk Budget, and the elimination of the AMS Equity office.

The budget also contains additional cuts, including $37,000 from executive staff salaries, and the elimination of a Policy Analyst, saving the society over $75,000.

As well, the $38,000 subsidy to Block Party—the year-end concert put on since 2008—has been eliminated, with the AMS pledging that a new, revenue-neutral model will be introduced by October for the event, which may have a new name. Last April’s Block Party, which had the Barenaked Ladies as the headliner, lost $142,841.

“Ticket sales, maybe students didn’t like band? I heard complaints about that,” said Tayyar about the loss.

“We want something that’s revenue-neutral, so we’re not going to lose money…hopefully we’ll have different options to go forward with,” he added.

However, the budget also contains a few increases in expenditures, chief among them special funds for various branches of student government. This includes a $22,500 fund for a new BC lobbying group, an $11,000 increase in the “Special Projects” fund for the executive, and a new $8000 fund for “Conference and Official Business” for the executive, which has already been spent on a professional development conference in Calgary. These increases were not allocated in the preliminary budget sent out by Tayyar in April, but were added after it was decided to cut the Policy Analyst position.

Increases to different parts of the budget “depends on what the focuses on the executives are,” said Tayyar, and said it was the priority of the executive to meet and work with different student unions during their term in office. “It’s very beneficial to see how other societies are operating.”

The budget also includes a proposal to give each of the executives up to $1,200 for a supplementary health care plan, similar to what permanent staff in the AMS receive, and a $75/month cell phone plan.

Andrew Carne, a former AMS councillor who was on the budget committee, criticized the way the budget was created.

“The whole process was a bit of a joke. We’d have meetings, go through the budget in great detail, and approve each section. Then right at the end we got an email from Ben Cappellacci (the VP Academic) or Elin Tayyar saying a few ‘minor changes’ had been made, without detailing any of them. I’m not impressed.”

Tayyar defended the process, saying that ultimately, all changes to the budget were approved by the committee. However, he acknowledged that there were frustrations.

“It was very difficult, because 4 or 5 meetings couldn’t take place because we couldn’t reach quorum, so we opted for email discussions a lot of the time.

“The process wasn’t perfect.”

Was the budget botched?

Andrew Carne (UBC Insiders): Speaking as someone who was on the budget committee… the complete removal of Block Party was certainly not something we discussed or approved.

In fact, the discussion surrounding it was only that everyone agreed it should be more revenue neutral. What I got out of our discussion was that the budget would be reduced to somewhere around $10k loss. As such, I’m surprised that this was not communicated in the final budget.

In fact, the whole process was a bit of a joke. We’d have meetings, go through the budget in great detail, and approve each section. Then right at the end we got an email from Ben or Elin (VP Finance) saying a few ‘minor changes’ had been made, without detailing any of them. I’m not impressed.

I’m frustrated by the whole process. I think I spoke up against just about every change, but it all fell on deaf ears. Particularly frustrating as most other people on the committee didn’t actually have much experience working with the AMS.

McElroy: When you’re cutting Foodbank by $1600, MiniSchool by $500, Tutoring Services by $9000, and Safewalk by $67,000, it takes a fair bit of, um…gumption to try and get a bonus $1200 health plan.

Byers: a $9000 / $10000+ cut to Tutoring, but fancy health plans/benefits for the execs? That just doesn’t make sense. Someone’s priorities are flat out wrong. Bijan is also getting another $1000 for furniture and equipment. On top of the $5000 he already got. Hmm…

Yang: If that’s the case, I really hope our AMS councillors call the executives out on this during the next AMS at which the budget will be discussed. A half-scrutinized budget stands to adversely affect everyone.

Further to this point, Conferences & Official Business is only $8000 in the Executive Committee budget but it looks like each executive has his/her own Conference & Official Business budget as well:

• $2500 for President
• $2000 for VP Academic
• $1500 for VP Admin
• $1000 for VP Ex
• $2500 for VP Finance

For a total of what, 8k + 2.5k + 2k + 1.5k + 1k + 2.5K = $17500 for “Conferences and Official Business?”

Am I misreading this?

McElroy: Nope, you aren’t Justin. The executive deliberately wants to do a lot of outreach/self-improvement to better the society, hence the increases. Although, I’m sure other services would like money for initiatives this year, but you get certain perks when you’re at the top, hey?

Andrew, would you be able to elaborate on which items were changed by Bijan and Ben without explanation? Outside of the Executives, the numbers for the budget have few fluctuations, or were pre-announced cuts—which leads me to believe it was in their own departments that they made changes.

Carne: Justin,

It was things like boosts to furniture lines, the inclusion of ‘technology budgets’ to buy cell phones, and other things. I caught some of them, but again as we went through the budget in piecemeal originally, and it was given to us as a final copy, with (and I quote) “some small changes in most of the budgets that the committee has approved.”

Things like the ‘technology budget’ and the increase in benefits we were told was out of our purview as a committee because, being exec benefits, they get approved by council separately.

I emailed Bijan in response to his ‘AMS End-of-Year Party Will Stay’ email, pointing out that there should still be expense and income lines in the budget for the event, and was told:

“I think it should have been left out of the budget until Shea (Event Dep’t) has finished the new business model in consultation with the Student Life Committee. Once he’s done, if the final business model requires a budget, it’ll come to Budget Committee and Council for approval.”

This tells me they either don’t understand how a budget works, or have more sinister motives, as regardless there need to be line items.

One of the other big changes to note in this budget is that the Policy Advisor has been completely removed. This is one thing I fought quite hard for, but couldn’t gain any headway. It was extremely frustrating as nobody on Budget had worked with the position before, and it was an important support role for the External and Code and Policies committees. I was told that Bijan and Jeremy feel they can handle the role this year, and it will be reintroduced in next year’s budget. I pointed out that part of the position is to maintain an institutional memory of our policies and allow long-term policies to be well implemented, but that fell on deaf ears.

McElroy: Andrew, looking over the preliminary budget from April, and now looking at the actual budget going forward, it’s clear: The increases in health benefits, “special projects” funds, the $22,500 provincial lobbying group, the phone fund, the furniture fund—none of that was in the preliminary budget. The funds for that only became available after the policy advisor was cut. And suddenly, an extra $70,000 was available. So the question is, what is more important: Funds available for the executive to help them do a good job? Or a policy advisor?

Loren: What about cutting a policy advisor and then just not using the extra $70k? Does the “doomed lifetime” of the AMS mean nothing, or are they just crossing their fingers that the student fee referendum passes and they get more money?

Yonson: Personally, I’d prefer a policy advisor because it provides much-needed institutional memory and provides more support to the execs than new chairs and slush funds ever could. Most of all though, this leaves the execs with little credibility. The premise for cutting services was that it was a do-or-die proposal, and that the execs would also feeling the pain and making cuts to their own budgets. Instead, they seem to have found plenty of extra funds, and it was allocated to the execs for their own uses.

Welcome to the The Scoop, an email roundtable where members of the student media give their quick take on some of the issues being talked about at UBC. This week, we’re talking about the AMS Budget, which was released last week and is set to be voted on at tonight’s council meeting.

What will Block Party look like?

Justin McElroy (The Ubyssey): So, the AMS Budget is finally out, is set to be passed today, and even with the big cuts to Safewalk and other services which were announced back in April, there’s still a lot getting changed (see the fancy charts here). One thing affected is Block Party, which sometime in the next four months will but change to “End of Year Concert at McInnes Field Organized By the AMS and Mystery Faculty Constituencies”. The event will happen, but they haven’t figured out any budget for it yet, causing confusion for campus blogs over the weekend. In theory, this make the event profitable, and bring more students out. Last year, the event lost $142,000, so changes are in order…though we’re not quite sure what changes will be happening yet. But fundamentally, is partnering with constituencies a flawed model, or is it a case of good idea/bad communication?

Justin Yang (UBC Spectator): The cuts to Safewalk and other Services are, to my understanding, no surprise. VP Academic Ben Cappellacci had been working last year on a new model for Safewalk last year and it’s nice to see that vision working out (at least on paper). Other services underwent similar budget cuts in order to improve general fiscal sustainability of service delivery. But it’s definitely a tight crunch for a lot of services, as the numbers show.

As for Block Party, I’m more than a little suspicious that constituency engagement may be a euphemism for fiscal obligation. Revenue neutrality, I hope, is not a coded reference to constituency-paid bailout. Cappellacci (who chairs Budget Committee) and Elin Tayyar seem trustworthy enough, however. I want to hear their story. I only think it’s unfortunate that they weren’t painfully clear about this issue prior to the publication of the budget.

Neal Yonson (UBC Insiders): My guess at this point is that the model is flawed – mostly because there doesn’t appear to be any model in place. We’d all like to see “End of Year concert…” operating in a financially sustainable way, but since no large events on campus operate this way, it seems overly idealistic. Like Yang, I also suspect the increased constituency involvement will involve a significant financial contribution, and that the communication around this has been awful. However, I’d say that the communication problem is mostly a result of having nothing of substance to communicate.

As for the overall budget, there’s a ton of money is going into what amounts to executive slush funds. Line items like “Partnership building” (increasing by $5,500), “Conferences & Official Business” (increasing by OVER $9000!!!!!) and the slushiest of slush funds, “Special Projects” (overall increase of more than $25,000). If this budget was supposed to be deficit-busting those should have been cut down, not massively increased.

McElroy: “Conferences & Official Business” is only $8000 in the Executive Committee budget, sadly. But yes, the executive are getting a lot of perks ($1200 more each for benefits, $600-$900 more each for phones), so it’ll be interesting to see if council is fine with that, in light of all the cuts to Equity/Safewalk and the like. The budget does need 2/3rds approval to pass.

Kevin Byers (Student Editorial Team): I don’t think that anyone could not agree that a profitable/revenue neutral end of year concert would be great; however, in reality, this isn’t going to happen. If it was possible, it would have been done already. Not including a line item in the budget was horrible communication, and I highly doubt it was left blank with the other/constituencies involvement model in mind. Bijan’s reactive email due to the media outcry was laughable, and clearly shows that they have no idea what’s going on.

Taylor Loren (AMS Confidential): The communication around Block Party was horrible. Even if you plan on an event being revenue-neutral (yay!), line items still need to exist on the budget. Not communicating the “why’s” behind placing a big fat $0 beside Block Party was an error which will hopefully not happen again.

I foresee the issue of increasing the executive’s benefits to be a hot topic at council. While I can understand that they’re adjusting them to be aligned with that of other full time employees…the difference is that the executives are students who qualify for the plan that they supply to other students. Something doesn’t look quite right when you’re talking about potentially cutting the student’s health plan while increasing your own.

UP NEXT: Was the entire process for creating the budget flawed?

Welcome to the The Scoop, an email roundtable where members of the student media give their quick take on some of the issues being talked about at UBC. This week, we’re joined by AMS Councilor Michael Haack as we discuss land-use planning, future food options in the SUB, and student leaders at UBC-Okanagan being arrested at the G20 protests.

Will students take a stand on land-use and governance issues?

Justin McElroy (The Ubyssey): The Board of Governors had a special meeting on Friday to discuss the process by which they will change the Official Community Plan for UBC. In other words, they’re going to officially kick off the process to create a unique, independent governance model for the university. As this will impact every single land-use/municipal issue that happens at UBC for decades, this is arguably bigger than say, University Boulevard or the Farm, but so far, students have yet to engage with the issue like they did in those two campaigns. Will they?

Neal Yonson (UBC Insiders): The question is flawed. The Board did kick off the process of revising the OCP. Creating a new governance model, on the other hand, is not ongoing and is something UBC will likely avoid for as long as possible (hint: having such a structure in place would make it a lot more pesky to do things like, say, revise the OCP).

Presumably this question is now about how zoning issues are even less engaging to students than governance issues?

Taylor Loren (AMS Confidential): I sincerely doubt that students are going to rally over some boring, though important, issue of “governance.” To be honest, I didn’t even know what “Metro Vancouver” really meant until now. The current first to third-years haven’t had an issue to associate themselves with yet. We didn’t Save the U-Pass, or the Farm, or Build the SUB. Is “Establish a City Council” going to be it? No.

Alyssa Koehn (11′ Eleven”): I agree with Justin’s point that it is hard to define an single issue within the OCF change which would spur student involvement. The biggest draw the Farm and University Boulevard campaigns had was a loss and a tangible, physical aspect. The governance model is very different. It is not deemed as a loss per se. The opportunity to have single control of governance for the university, if not seen as entirely positive, would have some benefits. This is a change in operating procedures, not a loss all together, which makes it that much harder to capture students attention As well, the fight is behind closed doors in this case and does not extend to a piece of campus students love and don’t want to lose.

Trevor Record (The Ubyssey): I don’t think that a lack of student interest has anything to do with there being a lack of a single clear issue, or that the issue is boring. Few students really understood why they were trying to save the farm, and I don’t see what is interesting about the Knoll. I think it has to do with no one stepping up to try and make students care so far, or at least doing so effectively.

People will rally in response to issues or causes that have basically no importance whatsoever, if some one can frame it in a manner that seems urgent and relevant to them. If the AMS, or whatever remains of the once-active campus left, starts trying to get students to care about anything from getting more say in the governance of UBC to simply taking issue with single zoning issues within the OCP, then there will be interest.

Up next: Discussing new food options in the new SUB…

Food Options in the New SUB?

McElroy: The AMS is currently working with a food service consulting group to figure out our eating options in the new SUB. We’ve been told that students will be invited to the sessions, but thus far we haven’t heard much. Since we’ve all had our fair share of SUB grub, let’s have a little feedback session here. I’d like to see a 24-hour place of some sort, a pizza joint where you’re not screwed if you don’t like the three options available (otherwise the incoming Fresh Slice will dominate the market), and lineups that don’t spill out into stairwells. Your thoughts?

Michael Haack: There was a food consultation meeting on Tuesday, the 22nd of June from 10am-2pm, however I wasn’t able to attend due to scheduling conflicts.

I don’t live on campus, so I’m rarely at UBC after 9pm (save AMS council meetings). Therefore, I’ve no idea if the “market” is available to support a 24-hour pizza place.

However, it’s something I’d like to see only if it can be profitable. By no means is the AMS in a position to be losing more money than it already is. If it’s feasible, then I have no qualms. Let’s build it! Logistics such as a selection of more than three pizzas, etc, can be determined on a later date. But if this is something that’s costing the AMS money, I could never offer my support.

Loren: I would love to see something, anything, that is open late. I think the AMS does a really great job of providing a lot of vegetarian options, and I would also like to see the Pendulum have prime real estate over, say, some A&W franchise. The food is healthy and it’s cheap. What would be great is if they developed a grab n’ go section of packaged-that-day eats, like sandwiches that aren’t disgusting UBC Food Services ones. Now if only a panini didn’t take 25 minutes…

Record: I agree with the 24-hour idea if it is possible, but another pizza place? Greasy/salty snackable foods for the late-night studying/drinking crowd would be great, and there’s tons of other options. A good falafel/shawarma place, a french fry joint like Fritz’s on Davie, maybe even a Pho or Ramen restaurant would be a great addition. And any of those would offer us a bit more variety during the day than than…pizza alternatives to the three Pi R^2 pies. Although I would like to use this space to formally ask, on behalf of all vegetarians like myself, that Pi R^2 permanently remove the beet pizza from their veggie rotation.

Koehn: I love the beet pizza! Just me? Really?

Like the rest, I support a 24-hour food outlet. Past 8pm it’s already hard to find anything but pizza and pub food, so I would love to see anything new be moderately healthy, or at least have healthy options. Living on campus for going on 4 years and spending a mad amount of meal card dollars at Totem Park’s convenience store, I feel like there is definitely a market if a 24 hour food space was done right. There needs to be room for hanging out, studying, and a good atmosphere. A campus Calhouns, perhaps?

Up next: Can Vancouver and Okanagan student leaders find common ground despite ideological differences?

Can UBC-V and UBC-O student execs. get along?

McElroy: Alright, final question: It seems the student executives at our Okanagan branch got their protest on this weekend in Toronto, and are now facing charges for it (Grayson Lepp, their chair, is seen in the picture above). In theory, the AMS and the UBCSUO (That’s UBC Students Union Okanagan for those unaware) should be working together on issues to better education for all students at our university, regardless of their campus. In practice, the fact that they’re members of the CFS and we’re members of CASA seems to be an annual stumbling block, and the amount of initiatives where both groups have worked together is nil. A meeting between the two executives is in the works, but given the seeming ideological divides between the two groups again this year, do you have any optimism for change? Are there any issues the two schools should work together on?

Yonson: I don’t foresee any big change in the AMS-UBCSUO relationship this year. Given that much of the business of a student union is internal and/or campus-specific, the list of issues where working together might make sense isn’t that large to begin with, and they tend to be of broad interest to all student unions in BC, not only the two from UBC.

Even if the AMS and UBCSUO did manage to identify initiatives of mutual interest, working with a CFS-affiliated student union holds very little appeal at UBC-V. The best description I’ve heard is that that the CFS has achieved “Voldemort-like status” amongst hacks at UBC, and I can’t see this changing in the short term.

Haack: I’m not really sure how the UBCSUO executives being arrested has to do with CASA-CFS relations…

Record: The UBCSUO and the AMS won’t fight for tuition together, but that doesn’t mean they can’t work together on other issues. Whether you dread being jailed for exercising your freedom to vandalize a police car or for evading the taxation of your hard-earned investment income, there’s a great deal of bridge-building that needs to be done between our two campuses. If the two student unions don’t get involved in that process at some point, these “bridges” will be built with far less student input. Students at UBC-V have little to no understanding of what UBC-O is or why it matters*. The student unions could work together to help raise student awareness of the existence of those fabled lands East of Alma.

Further, I have heard complaints from several sources that it is difficult to transfer from UBC-O to UBC-V; it’s apparently comparable to transferring from Langara. The student unions could try to help ensure that students can more easily attend classes at either campus. I’d also like to see more opportunities for students at UBC-O and UBC-V pursuing similar academic goals to interact without leaving their campus. At the very least. the AMS could try to connect their academic clubs with the ones at UBC-O in cases where a comparable club exists.

*I’m not sure what the general vibe over at UBC-O is regarding us, so my assumption that they are aware of UBC-V may be UBC-V arrogance.

Emomotimi Azorbo, the deaf man arrested by police and charged with assaulting a police officer, was released on bail Saturday afternoon.

Azorbo, who will reappear in court August 23, was arrested on Friday after an altercation with Toronto police (photos below). After engaging in contact with an officer who had ordered him to move out from an intersection, he was tackled by police.

However, Ubyssey photographer Michael Thibault, who happened to be at the incident (photos below), said that the conflict arose because of Azorbo’s hearing impairment.

“It was a great deal of misunderstanding from both sides,” he said. “[Azorbo] bumped into police…and the police starting yelling at them to get back, he didn’t understand. His friends were trying to tell the police that he was deaf, trying to explain the communication barrier.”

“[The police] were about to let him leave, but then he got into their faces, and then was tackled,” added Thibault. “I think he was just intimidated.”

Gary Malkowski, advisor to the president of the Canadian Hearing Society, told the Toronto Sun that the arrest should not have been made.

“Police did not give him the charges properly,” he said. “Police violated their own policy and made a no ha attempt to get him interpretation.”

Azorbo, who is not allowed in the downtown area until Monday as part of the terms of his release, is a restaraunt kitchen worker in Toronto.

Click here to view the slideshow.

TORONTO (CUP) — Saturday’s anti-G20 protest culminated in over 100 arrests, after a mob numbering in the hundreds stormed downtown Toronto streets, smashed shop and bank windows and set police cruisers ablaze.

The riots were largely led by a group donning black clothing, goggles, bandannas and ski masks, who some news outlets are identifying as a black bloc group — a protest tactic in which participants aim to conceal their identity in order to carry out acts of violence. They were joined by members of the activist group No One is Illegal, as well as another socialist group.

Chants of “No justice, no peace, fuck the police!” rang through the air of a city that seemed entirely deserted, aside from protesters and riot police, who hid behind large, transparent shields.

The smashing of glass was punctuated by cheering and the low drone of vuvuzelas.

One employee inside a pizza shop on Yonge St. — one of the city’s main thoroughfares — glared angrily at the rioters through the broken glass of his front window as they marched past.

The band of rioters had broken away from the larger, peaceful protest, filling the intersection of Queen St. West and Spadina Ave. in the downtown core before they ran off toward the East.

Their attempts to approach the summit perimeter, where a three-metre fence has been erected to protect the venue where world leaders are meeting, were foiled by a row of riot police.

Several police cruisers seemed to have been abandoned on King St. West and Bay St., which the angry mob quickly set aflame, sending a plume of thick, black smoke up into the air, where it was visible from across the city for the next few hours.

The protesters then headed north on Yonge St., throwing rocks and smashing large, store-front windows as they passed one of Toronto’s emblematic malls, the Eaton Centre.

There was a notable lack of police intervention; instead, rows of cops lined several adjacent streets and guarded the summit borders, largely allowing the vandalism and rioting to run its course.

“No fences, no borders, fuck law and order!” the mob hollered, along with, “This is what a police state looks like!”

While passing a jewelery store, one young woman shouted, “It’s okay, we don’t need your blood diamonds anyway!”

The mob partially dissipated upon returning to Queen’s Park, the provincial legislative grounds, where police converged on the protesters from two sides and made several arrests.

“I am profoundly disappointed in the criminal acts that have taken place,” said Toronto police chief Bill Blair during a press conference around 9:15 p.m. “I want to ensure you that the persons responsible will be held accountable. We know who many of them are and have photographs of many others.”

Blair confirmed the use of tear gas at Queen St. West and Peter St. where a lot of the violent destruction occurred. He denied the use of rubber bullets and other devices, but photos of the alleged rubber bullets have been posted to Twitter.

“We have never seen that level of wanton criminality on our streets,” Blair said, also describing the day’s events as “shocking.”

The protests continued on into the evening as police tried to regain control of the crowds in several areas of the city. Blair said he expected violent acts to continue through the night.