Rebecca Solnit on San Francisco

Mon Mar 4 13:47:44 CST 2013

You are the embodiment of NIMBY.  You don't want any information that might
change your mind.  Are you a Republican?

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/ce0a4462/attachment.html>