Rebecca Solnit on San Francisco

[Robert Mahnke]

I don't actually live in SF, and I'm resigned to the fact that I may
keep making choices that keep me from living there.  But I love the
city, and wish and hope that the Rebecca Solnits of the world can
continue to live there.  Rather than bitching about Google, building
more housing would do a lot more to make that happen.

On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 <
>>
>>
>