"Brilliance invents. Genius copies." And now with a new focus on civilizing the real estate megaprojects of the Middle East, East Asia and even the USA.
... and how most of the changes pictured have constituted improvements. Of course, when I went to SF in '99, I was less impressed by the architecture and the urban design, and more appalled by the homeless people on nearly every street corner. I don't think any of Vertigo was filmed in the Tenderloin, which I believe the SF Chronicle called the "Kill Zone." Among American cities, only New Orleans (LA) and Davenport (IA) have struck me as fundamentally more troubled than SF. Large numbers of "urban campers" and slum dwellers would signal a major failure in urban design, no?
In a universe that includes Detroit, Los Angeles, parts of New York, much of Miami, much of Chicago its rather interesting to claim that San Francisco is uniquely troubled.
Homelessness-sure. But by many measures of urbanity, SF is one of the strongest cities. Investment in central city housing, retailing, a true neighborhood street life with real neighborhood shopping districts (exemplifying the three rules).
The homelessness problem is bad here for several reasons, including high housing costs (maybe a symptom of "success" in some ways when compared to vast square miles abandoned in many cities), climate (California is a better climate to be homeless in than Detroit), and the perhaps excessive (although increased frayed) tolerance for untoward behavior.
Where did Davenport Iowa come from? Why is Daevnport any more uniquely troubled than almost any similarly sized industrial town destroyed by the glories of the global economy? I'm from the Midwest originally, have been in Davenport, and don't understand why its so uniquely bad.
Cool site. Amazing how little SF has fundamentally changed.
Posted by: bkmiller | Oct 20, 2004 at 09:13 AM
... and how most of the changes pictured have constituted improvements. Of course, when I went to SF in '99, I was less impressed by the architecture and the urban design, and more appalled by the homeless people on nearly every street corner. I don't think any of Vertigo was filmed in the Tenderloin, which I believe the SF Chronicle called the "Kill Zone." Among American cities, only New Orleans (LA) and Davenport (IA) have struck me as fundamentally more troubled than SF. Large numbers of "urban campers" and slum dwellers would signal a major failure in urban design, no?
Posted by: Timothy Hulsey | Oct 22, 2004 at 12:12 PM
"Large numbers of "urban campers" and slum dwellers would signal a major failure in urban design, no?"
Only in the very broadest and ultimately meaningless sense is 'homelessness' a problem of 'urban design.'
But I assume that you know that and that the 'real answer' for you is actually 'Democrats and liberals.' No?
Posted by: David Sucher | Oct 24, 2004 at 06:27 AM
In a universe that includes Detroit, Los Angeles, parts of New York, much of Miami, much of Chicago its rather interesting to claim that San Francisco is uniquely troubled.
Homelessness-sure. But by many measures of urbanity, SF is one of the strongest cities. Investment in central city housing, retailing, a true neighborhood street life with real neighborhood shopping districts (exemplifying the three rules).
The homelessness problem is bad here for several reasons, including high housing costs (maybe a symptom of "success" in some ways when compared to vast square miles abandoned in many cities), climate (California is a better climate to be homeless in than Detroit), and the perhaps excessive (although increased frayed) tolerance for untoward behavior.
Where did Davenport Iowa come from? Why is Daevnport any more uniquely troubled than almost any similarly sized industrial town destroyed by the glories of the global economy? I'm from the Midwest originally, have been in Davenport, and don't understand why its so uniquely bad.
Posted by: Brian Miller | Oct 25, 2004 at 04:50 PM