Rebecca Solnit on San Francisco

[David Morris]

I am a Fking Architect, and an expert at urban design, especially urban
residential.
Ian?  Give it up!  Quit.

Ugly?  Is NYC ugly?  Do you prefer Brooklyn or the Bronx?

?

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

> No, they don't have to be, but they invariably are, in the US, anyway.
> Except, that is, for a few old beauties that have been restored. I strongly
> disagree about housing density making cities more interesting. It only
> makes them more dense.
>
> From my girlfriend, who was raised in SF from the age of about 2 yrs., all
> you folks that want to remodel San Francisco should.... Well, I won't use
> that language here, but I'll translate: Take an aviated fornication at a
> rolling pastry. There are a lot of people who still love The City and who
> will oppose developer types tooth and nail to the end. You won't find many
> natives fond of your ideas.
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Robert Mahnke <rpmahnke at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To the contrary, housing density makes for much more interesting cities,
> because it supports a greater diversity of store, restaurants, civic
> associations, religions, etc.
>
> I agree that apartment buildings can be ugly, but they don't have to be.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 3, 2013, at 6:25 PM, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> San Francisco is small, it doesn't take much to screw it up. We pretty
> well knew it was done a living city when the TransAmerica pyramid went up,
> followed by big, black glass Bank of America monolith. Ugliness has had
> it's foothold, and the developers are drooling all over the possibilities
> for more gruesome erections. The neighborhoods are all that's left of San
> Francisco. It will be too awfully sad to see them go. Apartment complexes
> suck the life out of cities, turn them gray, dull, beige.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:10 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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:
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130303/4da1b458/attachment.html>