Rebecca Solnit on San Francisco

Mon Mar 4 13:08:42 CST 2013

I haven't been to London, Paris, or Copenhagen. The photos and films I have
seen showing London and Paris as they appear today do not inspire me to
visit, either. The new construction looks like new construction everywhere.
Hurried, angular, uninteresting. In the US the materials typically fit the
rest of the formula, as well: the cheapest materials the contractors can
get away with using and still meet code get used. I don't know if that's
true in other countries, as well, but I've been witness to it here. It is a
flaw built into capitalist endeavor: the bottom line is more important than
the quality of the product. In US cities, the problem is often funneled
through unimaginative urban planning departments that inherently limit
architects' freedom to create beautiful, sensible, comfortable places. City
planners are conservative in their aesthetics, and the big general
contracting corporations are not in business to excel in anything but
spectacle and profit. Until the whole system gets some creative juice,
folks like San Franciscans are going resist fitting in with the molds
offered for their upgrade. Of course, for those who have been here long
enough to remember October, 1989, increasing density in SF for any reason
will always seem pretty stupid, and that becomes even more pertinent as the
federal government embraces the oil boom utilizing fracking, which has
caused earthquakes in places not generally prone to seismic activity.

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Robert Mahnke <rpmahnke at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130304/1c2cc1b6/attachment.html>