Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian
There seems to be a lot of dsyslexia going on here. People so love to argue against points that were never made.
|
Ironic. lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian
What I said was to the topic of the thread: Not that SF didn't have "urban renewal" and not that you couldn't argue that renewal was not ultimately a good thing, but that its "downtown" (or even its city fabric on a large scale) was not "killed" by urban renewal the way it was being argued Phoenix's was.
...
Niether is NY by the way.
|
So I'll agree with the spirit of your point, but I don't think the particulars of the argument are all that accurate. This is exactly the same type of urban renewal freeway building that happened in cities like Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit:
https://goo.gl/maps/7AvM13hCssJikJv87
And you don't have to go far from here to find, in SF, the telltale signs of the destructive forces of our mid-century obsession with automobile traffic (i.e. surface lots):
https://goo.gl/maps/cjxbQtUxDNmAQGSa7
One thing I find interesting about SF, considering how expensive land is there, is how much surface parking lots still exist so close to the city's core. These lots exist just several blocks from some of the city's signature skyscrapers. In a New Yorker's eyes, this is pretty weird.