3 ms·

We kept thinking: why can't SF be more like BCN? Because you'd have to demolish acres and acres of 100+ year-old architecture (generally considered to be among

We kept thinking: why can't SF be more like BCN? Because you'd have to demolish acres and acres of 100+ year-old architecture (generally considered to be among the planet's most distinctive) to make it that way. And even if we did -- it wouldn't look anything like Barcelona (and its fabulously integrated 100 year-old architecture and street grid), either. Most likely, I betcha, it would end up looking like a pepped up, West Coast version of this place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_Park_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_Park_City Which I'm sure would suit many of the "Who cares about historic architecture, as long as I can get a shot at a $2400 studio!" advocates here just fine.

sangnoir 10y ago
> Which I'm sure would suit many of the "Who cares about historic architecture, as long as I can get a shot at a $2400 studio!" advocates here just fine. As opposed to the status quo, which suits many of the "Who cares about the middle class, as long as we can preserve all of the 100+ year old architecture" advocates just fine.
- melq 10y ago
  You can't touch such historic buildings, that house is 100 years old! We have to preserve the character of our city! I've lived here 3 years and really treasure it. Let's just continue the wholesale replacement of the people and culture that gave rise to it in the first place.
  - Camillo 10y ago
    The people and culture that gave rise to it have already been replaced, actually. Did you know that the Mission used to be an Irish neighborhood, for instance?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      Did you know that the Mission used to be an Irish neighborhood, for instance? The point is that it used to be an affordable neighborhood. And the city in general used to be more or less affordable for the middle class, also -- independent of the ethnic background of its inhabitants. And that changes (including full-scale transformations of neighborhoods) which used to take generations to transpire now happen in the course of 10 years or so. Just because change has happened before doesn't mean that all "change" is equivalent (or even "natural").
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  As long as we can preserve all of the 100+ year old architecture" "all of" being a straw man, of course.
rak00n 10y ago
It doesn't have to be like that. There are places like SoMa where we have industrial buildings that city can easily get rid of.
Camillo 10y ago
> Because you'd have to demolish acres and acres of 100+ year-old architecture (generally considered to be among the planet's most distinctive) to make it that way. SF's architecture is nice for being in the US. And the interesting parts are actually quite limited. The Sunset and the Richmond have pretty much zero architectural value, for instance.

sangnoir 10y ago

> Which I'm sure would suit many of the "Who cares about historic architecture, as long as I can get a shot at a $2400 studio!" advocates here just fine. As opposed to the status quo, which suits many of the "Who cares about the middle class, as long as we can preserve all of the 100+ year old architecture" advocates just fine.

melq 10y ago
You can't touch such historic buildings, that house is 100 years old! We have to preserve the character of our city! I've lived here 3 years and really treasure it. Let's just continue the wholesale replacement of the people and culture that gave rise to it in the first place.
- Camillo 10y ago
  The people and culture that gave rise to it have already been replaced, actually. Did you know that the Mission used to be an Irish neighborhood, for instance?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Did you know that the Mission used to be an Irish neighborhood, for instance? The point is that it used to be an affordable neighborhood. And the city in general used to be more or less affordable for the middle class, also -- independent of the ethnic background of its inhabitants. And that changes (including full-scale transformations of neighborhoods) which used to take generations to transpire now happen in the course of 10 years or so. Just because change has happened before doesn't mean that all "change" is equivalent (or even "natural").
kafkaesq 10y ago
As long as we can preserve all of the 100+ year old architecture" "all of" being a straw man, of course.

rak00n 10y ago

It doesn't have to be like that. There are places like SoMa where we have industrial buildings that city can easily get rid of.

Camillo 10y ago

> Because you'd have to demolish acres and acres of 100+ year-old architecture (generally considered to be among the planet's most distinctive) to make it that way. SF's architecture is nice for being in the US. And the interesting parts are actually quite limited. The Sunset and the Richmond have pretty much zero architectural value, for instance.