Rebecca Solnit on San Francisco

[David Morris]

You have never seen a building built in the last 50 years that you think is
beautiful.  That says a lot.  There is no conversation possible on those
terms.  But your reactionary head in sand is a loser.  The world will
continue w/o you.

On Monday, March 4, 2013, Ian Livingston wrote:

> That's great you're an architect, Dave. Maybe you design buildings that
> are unique, beautiful, crafted artworks, that make it possible for people
> to feel at ease in them. I don't know. I haven't seen anything like that
> designed and built in the last 50 years. Doesn't mean it's not out there. I
> haven't been everywhere. I've never been to Brooklyn or the Bronx, and
> barely passed through Manhattan with a few hours layover, so I have no
> sense of NYC, and I never made it up into New England at all. As far as I
> can tell, San Francisco has plenty of architects designing the cheapest
> buildings they can get away with building and charging top dollar for the
> service. Along with everyone else who loves San Francisco, I hope you make
> a wonderful living in Louisiana, and are able to entice a few architects
> away from the Bay. No offense intended, just a heartfelt wish for the
> happiness of all.
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:13 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I might want to live in SF
> But can't.
> SF is the loss.
>
> On Sunday, March 3, 2013, Robert Mahnke wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130304/f14072d5/attachment.html>