Rebecca Solnit on San Francisco
Ian Livingston
igrlivingston at gmail.com
Sun Mar 3 18:03:45 CST 2013
Oh, I'm sure those of you favoring new square glass boxes and stucco malls
will have your world. I just hope I don't have to live to see SF go
irrevocably all-out that way. Someday, maybe, people will slow down
sufficiently on the procreating thing that character and individual
aesthetics may show a resurgence. If it happens, that will be the boon of
another generation, long after we are all gone and those who would box the
world are all boxed.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/edcc51ce/attachment.html>
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list