Rebecca Solnit on San Francisco

[Bled Welder]

It's interesting, I don't want to argue with you Morris, I'm not up
for it, I'm curious though, I thought SF was one of the most compact
cities.   Punched up there into the pninnsula?  It's a beautiful city.
 I landed in Tenderloin, then graduatuated to Upper Haight.

Never drove.

Wait. Maybe I did.  Did I fucking drive in SF?  Huh.  I know I drove
too SF, but I think we rented that sucker.

On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 1:46 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> And NIMBY's should be exposed as anti-green.  Contrary to common mythology,
> dense Cities are inherently Green.  No cars. Everything walkable or by easy
> public transit. And dense architecture is inherently self-thermo-insulating
> by function of shared interior walls.  Cities should be as dense as demand
> allows, with reasonable regulation in the form of zoning focused on goals,
> not fears.
>
>
> On Sunday, March 3, 2013, David Morris wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Robert.  SF needs more density, but the squatters want to
>> keep their legislated Disney Land North quaint.  I can understand historic
>> districts being preserved, but NIMBY should not be the general rule.
>>
>> True Cities need density to expand housing, with a goal of keeping
>> affordability and diversity.  In hand with density is the need for expanded
>> public transit for those still unable to afford the City.
>>
>> DC is another City in need of density, for all the same reasons.
>>
>> On Sunday, March 3, 2013, Robert Mahnke wrote:
>>
>> I want San Francisco like it is, with more housing.  I certainly don't
>> want San Francisco to be like San Jose, where I live only because I
>> can have a five-minute commute.  I want people to be able to afford to
>> live in San Francisco, and since the demand for housing there is so
>> high, the way to do that is to make more housing.  Which means
>> building up.  If you want to have a city that's friendly for artists,
>> that means having cheap housing.  See, e.g., Berlin.
>>
>> I'm sure the people who zoned San Jose and the Valley thought they
>> were doing a good thing, but there are no truly urban spaces, and
>> housing is freakishly expensive here, too.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>It has cost way too much to live in SF for a long time now, before
>> >>Google.  Fifteen years ago, I wanted to live in SF but moved to
>> >>Berkeley instead.  A big part of the problem is that SF won't allow
>> >>denser housing.  I wish Solnit had talked about that.  A sentimental
>> >>preservationist attitude and basic NIMBYism makes things worse for
>> >>everyone.
>> >
>> > No. It makes things worse for the people who came sooner to the promised
>> > land. The problem is not preservationist attitudes, it is reformist
>> > ones. SF
>> > does not need to become a denser SJ. If you want beige malls, live in SJ
>> > or
>> > Sili Valley. If you want what San Francisco is, then leave beige mall
>> > thinking behind. Some cities are fine with being unique, and I am
>> > grateful
>> > for those cities. For the others, well, they help to contain somewhat
>> > the
>> > effects of overpopulation. If you want a new city, go to Portland or
>> > Seattle.
>> >
>> > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Robert Mahnke <rpmahnke at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I have lived in the Bay Area (Berkeley and San Jose) for most of the
>> >> last fifteen years, and used to commute to a job in downtown SF.  Now
>> >> I work at a big Silicon Valley company that runs buses for employees
>> >> who want to live in SF.  I think Solnit is generally fantastic, but I
>> >> had somewhat more fixed feelings about this piece.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Also, to defend the Googles of the world for running private buses
>> >> instead of using mass transit, the fundamental problem is with the
>> >> urban planning years ago that produced SIlicon Valley.  The density in
>> >> the Valley is way too low, which cripples mass transit down here.  The
>> >> train system was designed for commuters from the Peninsula to go to
>> >> work in SF.  Silicon Valley is zoned like a massive suburb, full of
>> >> single-family houses but if you're looking for an apartment, keep
>> >> looking.  That's not Google's fault.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 6:32 PM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n03/rebecca-solnit/diary
>> >> >
>> >> > good piece on the effects of Google and its ilk on the culture of San
>> >> > Francisco. interesting contrast with Gold Rush in the 19th century
>> >> > and
>> >> > the mining rush in Wyoming, North Dakota and other places today. lots
>> >> > of Pynchonian echoes
>> >> >
>> >> > Rich
>> >> >
>> >> > 'All this is changing the character of what was once a great city of
>> >> > refuge for dissidents, queers, pacifists and experimentalists. Like
>> >> > so
>> >> > many cities that flourished in the post-industrial era, it has become
>> >> > increasingly unaffordable over the past quarter-century, but still
>> >> > has
>> >> > a host of writers, artists, activists, environmentalists, eccentrics
>> >> > and others who don’t work sixty-hour weeks for corporations– though
>> >> > we
>> >> > may be a relic population. Boomtowns also drive out people who
>> >> > perform
>> >> > essential services for relatively modest salaries, the teachers,
>> >> > firefighters, mechanics and carpenters, along with people who might
>> >> > have time for civic engagement. I look in wonder at the store clerks
>> >> > and dishwashers, wondering how they hang on or how long their commute
>> >> > is. Sometimes the tech workers on their buses seem like bees who
>> >> > belong to a great hive, but the hive isn’t civil society or a city;
>> >> > it’s a corporation.'
>> >> >
>> >> > Last summer, I went to look at a house for sale whose listing hadn’t