Rebecca Solnit on San Francisco

[Ian Livingston]

My, you really are trying to lather on the insults, David. Please calm
down. Then show me some information that might change my mind.

Not in my back yard. Well, I don't want to log the redwoods or the Olympic
rain forest to get a better view of the ocean, either. Does that also make
me a NIMBY? I don't want to level choice districts of New Orleans and make
them over to fit my idea of how people should live. Does that also make me
a NIMBY? How about my position on reforming banking  and corporate
monopolies to reflect the needs of the common people? Does that make me a
Republican? Remember, too, it is the Republicans who want more business
blocks and cubicles for humans, more fracking wells pumping toxins into
your groundwater. They want it in their backyards, and in yours. I want
more creativity and room for artists like yourself to operate to the
fullest of their potential. That doesn't sound very Republican to me. And I
sure don't want someone in a different region of the country telling us
Californians to fit better into the groove of their way of living, any more
than I want tell anyone how to build their home in Wyoming. Not sure what
kind of prick that makes me.

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20130304/452cade2/attachment.html>