Rebecca Solnit on San Francisco

[Robert Mahnke]

The association you draw between ugliness and density isn't
necessarily right.  E.g.,

London: 5,100 people per square km
Paris: 3,550 people per square km
San Francisco/Oakland: 2,350 people per square km
Copenhagen: 1,850 people per square km

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html



On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have not seen a unique, beautiful, crafted building built in an urban
> location in the last 50 years. I have seen many beautiful buildings in the
> last 50 years, just none in a major city. I have worked on many of them in
> both categories, beautiful suburban homes and butt ugly city boxes and
> skyscrapers. Skyscrapers and boxes just suck. There seems to be no way to
> make them nice to the eye, or comfortable to the people who live in and
> around them. I'm not your enemy, I'm just stating my opinion. You are
> entitled to yours, as well. I am stating mine in reference to your claim
> from New Orleans that San Francisco should become more dense, therefore more
> uniform and mundane, to fit in with the drab new cities in the US. I don't
> oppose new building, if it is beautiful and made to endure as an artistic
> habitat for humans living on the planet. I just loathe boxes, and don't feel
> comfortable in them. Boxes have been around for millennia, it's time to move
> on.
>
> Hm. Reactionary. Your'e a first on that particular attempt to insult.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:53 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
>