View Single Post
  #117  
Old Posted May 19, 2015, 8:02 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Actually, I think this quote from the link you provided above says it all:

"A large number of buildings in San Francisco were rebuilt exactly as they had been before the earthquake and fire, but there were significant changes as well. On Market Street, for example, many of the smaller buildings were replaced by much taller structures. South of Market, commercial buildings, small factories, and middle-class apartments were built in areas that had once been slums. Nob Hill was transformed from a wealthy enclave of lavish mansions into luxury apartments and hotels. Civic Center was also redesigned, and a new classically inspired city hall was erected a block away from the one that had been destroyed. Although the new city hall was not dedicated until 1915, and the main library was not completed until 1917, much of the city was rebuilt within a year of the devastation, and virtually the entire city was restored by 1909. Although approximately 28,000 buildings had been destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire, by 1909 more than 20,500 better-constructed buildings had replaced them and formed the heart of a new city."


Urban renewal, at its finest.
We've swayed a little off of the original intent of my post, which was to state that most of the buildings that (quickly) replaced the earthquake damaged ones are still standing to this day, and SF has a very attractive city core perhaps as a result of this. Walk around Union Square and the architecture is interesting and vibrant. You can look anywhere in the downtown area and find buildings from the early 20th century that are either updated or repurposed. And it hasn't hurt the city one bit.

I'm sure you're right that many of the buildings lost in the quake were slums (the standard of living in the US back then was quite lower than today, of course), but there were many impressive, larger scale buildings lost that would likely still be standing now.

So what point were you trying to make? That you find the homes of poor people being toppled in an earthquake (taking many of their lives) impressive? "Urban renewal, at its finest"? I don't get it.

Oops... forgot... satire, right?
Reply With Quote