Rebecca Solnit on San Francisco

[jochen stremmel]

I'm full of respect, Ian.

2013/3/4 Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com>:
> 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
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>