Rebecca Solnit on San Francisco

[David Morris]

Everyone likes things as they were then, these days.

Boston in the late 1800's was much more beautiful and comfortable than it
is today, for a few, not counting modern medicine.
I'm talking about now and the future.
Should entire Cities be put under a bell jar?

Preservation is best accomplished by those who cannot afford to tear down
and start anew.  It's a good place to be poor and still have decent rent.

But thriving Cities are not so blessed.  Preservation is the pastime of
those preserved, already saved.  They should be given quarter, but not rule.

Growth will happen, especially in thriving places.  It shouldn't be
thwarted, especially not in favor of the rich squatters, wanting their
urban manors.

David Morris
Architect

On Sunday, March 3, 2013, Ian Livingston wrote:

> Well, you guys certainly represent the thinking that has made San
> Francisco what it is today. But I liked it before. Then again, I can say
> with James McMurtry, "I'm not from here, [either]."
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 11:46 AM, 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,
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130303/e3941776/attachment.html>