Rebecca Solnit on San Francisco

[David Morris]

But I would be pleased beyond ever to be allowed to design and build the
first glass 2 story in the French Quarter.  It'll never happen, but I'd do
it right if it did.

On Sunday, March 3, 2013, David Morris wrote:

> 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/20130303/4a1c6630/attachment.html>