Rebecca Solnit on San Francisco

[David Morris]

You are being extreme.  I said districts, quarters, might rightfully
preserved ad infinitum.  Just not whole Cities.

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

> Well, I suppose the French Quarter is on the chopping block, too, then,
> right? Put in a nice glass tower and a super-size parking lot, some nice
> new row of offices and apartments along Champs-Elysees?
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:30 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Glass boxes versus brick boxes?  Stucco malls are suburban, and thus are
> moot in this discussion.  I'm talking about Cities.
>
> If your ideal is less procreation, fine.  But that has no vital link to
> architectural preservation.  Your chicken coop will be too crowded
> until you kill some chickens. Biology is.  Urbanism should follow biology,
> not wealth.
>
>
> On Sunday, March 3, 2013, Ian Livingston wrote:
>
> 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 <
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130303/0dfaadaa/attachment.html>