Without the Internet:
Burn the Internet!
[Photo by Rusty Hodge]
I love Daisy. Her latest for Thrillist is “Why I Hate Something You Probably Love: Dolores Park” and I don’t hate it. Here’s the beginning:
If you ask almost any San Franciscan where they like to hang out on sunny days, they’ll give you the same answer: Dolores Park. Something about the good weather and the people and the close proximity to the three-hour wait for Bi-Rite ice cream. They just cannot get enough of Dolores Park. And by “they”, I mean “you”. YOU LOVE IT.
And hey, good on you. I’m all for people loving what they love. But in this case, I just don’t get it — at all. Dolores Park actually totally sucks. Like, I would rather be burned by one of the fire-swirling hula hoopers than have to hang out there for an afternoon. Before you judge, read my 13 reasons why.
Read on for the 13 reasons.
[Photo by Leland Zuñiga, via It's Always Sunny in San Francisco]
After coming across SF Weekly’s online archive, TK over at 40 Going on 28 gives a modern perspective to their 1990s take on the local food scene.
There’s lots of fun stuff in there, but I’m enjoying reading the restaurant reviews, mostly because almost every restaurant reviewed no longer exists and because the prices listed for the food seem hilariously low.
Anyone remember Paella La Movida, on 16th between Guerrero and Dolores? I don’t. I guess it was where Mozzeria is now.
La Movida is the latest snappy addition to a corridor of 16th Street between Dolores and Mission that has lately been blooming with boho chic. These days the neighborhood, with its slightly seedy glamour, seems a lot like the East Village in New York, or Earls Court in London.
And I agree, R.I.P. Dave Eggers’ Smarter Feller.
[h/t Burrito Justice]
In a piece titled “Stop Complaining About Gentrification Unless You Know What It Is,” io9 editor Annalee Newitz looks a little deeper at the topic of the day:
Gentrification is a form of immigration, though almost nobody calls it that. People who gentrify are usually new transplants to a city, changing it to suit their particular cultural needs and whims. That’s why the criticism of gentrification often sounds like a distorted version of anti-immigrant sentiment: “They have changed our neighborhoods; their shops and homes are repulsive; we no longer feel welcome here.” The difference is that the people we call immigrants are usually not rich. Gentrifiers are.
She then looks at Istanbul and Paris, and obviously San Francisco, and eventually draws this conclusion:
When different immigrant groups struggle with each other to reshape the city, gentrification is one possible outcome. There are other possible outcomes, too. City planners can manage development so that there is enough room for neighborhoods to grow without kicking anyone out. A recent study revealed that creating income-segregated neighborhoods leads to less social mobility for everyone, cementing us into a rigidly class-divided society. More than anything, we need to prevent neighborhoods from becoming divided by class.
A first step would be to revise our attitude toward immigration in cities. Instead of seeing immigrants as aliens, we should welcome their fresh perspectives, their wealth of new cultural traditions — and yes, their cash infusions. As twentieth century cities swell into twenty-first century megacities, we must make room for all our immigrant populations, rich and poor alike. The only crime is in sacrificing one to make way for the other.
The only crime. Read on for lots more data and storytelling and relevant photos.
Allan Hough (7858)
Brittany Janis & Katie Cruz (104)
