Discussion:
Historical Preservation(McMansion branch off)
(too old to reply)
William
2007-10-01 02:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Heres some food for thought for all you anti-history people out there

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1452935.html

Linda Mack: Making history

To appreciate the impact of the preservation efforts made in the last
30 years, imagine what Minneapolis and St. Paul would have looked like
without them.
--------------------------------------------

With its elegant bronze fountain shaded by giant oaks and the porched
and turreted houses surrounding it, St. Paul's Irvine Park is such a
pure piece of Victorianna that it's hard to believe it hasn't always
been there. But this charming corner of the city fell on bad times.
The fountain was removed in 1927, the 19th-century houses were carved
up for rooms, and by 1969 the city planned to raze the area and
replace it with public housing.

Thus was St. Paul's historic preservation movement born. Outraged
residents and the Minnesota Historical Society joined forces to save
the houses and the park. It wasn't an easy victory. One summer, after
four of the houses were torched, Tom Lutz of the Minnesota Historical
Society slept in the park to prevent more arson. But by 1978 both the
houses and the park had been renovated, and residents celebrated by
installing a replica fountain, once again the centerpiece.

Irvine Park is one of the Twin Cities' most dramatic historic
preservation victories and one of the many places that some 2,000
preservationists will visit this week when they attend the annual
conference of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. They'll
also hear Garrison Keillor expound on St. Paul's quirks, and they'll
tour both cities' riverfronts, visit historic Native American sites,
canoe down the Minnesota River and take a candlelight tour of Summit
Avenue houses.

Rightly enough, the conference is based in St. Paul, which embraced
preservation earlier than its more economically ambitious sibling.

(While St. Paul saved the 1902 Old Federal Courts Building as Landmark
Center, Minneapolis razed the 1889 Metropolitan Building and the
oldest 30 percent of its downtown.) But Minneapolis' recent
preservation successes, including the F&M Bank's revival as a Westin
Hotel and the massive Sears building's rebirth as the Midtown
Exchange, will be on the agenda as well.

To appreciate the impact of historic preservation over the last 30
years, imagine what the Twin Cities would look like without it.

The Quadriga, the four horses on the State Capitol, would be
tarnished. The St. Paul Cathedral would look dingy, and its roof would
leak. Summit Avenue would be tawdry, as it was in 1970, and some of
the houses would have been leveled. Lowertown's muscular brick and
stone warehouses would be gone, replaced with ugly 1970s buildings--or
nothing at all. The Dayton's Bluff neighborhood east of downtown would
be run down.

On the University of Minnesota East Bank campus, Jones and Nicholson
halls would be gone rather than beautifully renovated, and the
historic Knoll, the oldest part of the campus, would be decimated.
Coffman Union would still look like it did after an unfortunate 1970s
renovation, and it would still turn its back on the Mississippi River.

Along the Mississippi in Minneapolis, the appealing brick buildings
that gave birth to Pracna on Main and St. Anthony Main would be gone,
as would the West Bank mills that now house lofts, office space and
the Mill City Museum. The Stone Arch Bridge would still be encased in
chain link fence. No one would live on Nicollet Island.

Upriver, the friendly tower of the Grain Belt Brewery would be absent.
The Warehouse District would have been razed, and hundreds of houses,
parks and libraries in both cities would convey no sense of the city's
past.

Preservation hasn't solved every urban ill. Historic properties such
as the Hamm's and Schmidt breweries and the Upper Post at Fort
Snelling still daunt developers. Development and preservation still
clash, as they have on Nicollet Island over plans to install a
football field on city parkland or as they have in St. Paul over plans
to build a massive complex called The Bridges across the Mississippi
River from downtown.

But what's happened in the last 30 years is remarkable. Developers
have come to love older buildings for the character they offer.
Preservationists have come to welcome sensitive development. Residents
of the Twin Cities have come to value historic environments for their
human scale, their ties to the past and their livability.

Thirty years ago preservation seemed to focus on the past. Today it is
fueling the future.
Jack May
2007-10-01 04:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Heres some food for thought for all you anti-history people out there
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1452935.html
Linda Mack: Making history
To appreciate the impact of the preservation efforts made in the last
30 years, imagine what Minneapolis and St. Paul would have looked like
without them.
--------------------------------------------
With its elegant bronze fountain shaded by giant oaks and the porched
and turreted houses surrounding it, St. Paul's Irvine Park is such a
pure piece of Victorianna that it's hard to believe it hasn't always
been there. But this charming corner of the city fell on bad times.
The fountain was removed in 1927, the 19th-century houses were carved
up for rooms, and by 1969 the city planned to raze the area and
replace it with public housing.
Thus was St. Paul's historic preservation movement born. Outraged
residents and the Minnesota Historical Society joined forces to save
the houses and the park. It wasn't an easy victory. One summer, after
four of the houses were torched, Tom Lutz of the Minnesota Historical
Society slept in the park to prevent more arson. But by 1978 both the
houses and the park had been renovated, and residents celebrated by
installing a replica fountain, once again the centerpiece.
Irvine Park is one of the Twin Cities' most dramatic historic
preservation victories and one of the many places that some 2,000
preservationists will visit this week when they attend the annual
conference of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. They'll
also hear Garrison Keillor expound on St. Paul's quirks, and they'll
tour both cities' riverfronts, visit historic Native American sites,
canoe down the Minnesota River and take a candlelight tour of Summit
Avenue houses.
Rightly enough, the conference is based in St. Paul, which embraced
preservation earlier than its more economically ambitious sibling.
(While St. Paul saved the 1902 Old Federal Courts Building as Landmark
Center, Minneapolis razed the 1889 Metropolitan Building and the
oldest 30 percent of its downtown.) But Minneapolis' recent
preservation successes, including the F&M Bank's revival as a Westin
Hotel and the massive Sears building's rebirth as the Midtown
Exchange, will be on the agenda as well.
To appreciate the impact of historic preservation over the last 30
years, imagine what the Twin Cities would look like without it.
The Quadriga, the four horses on the State Capitol, would be
tarnished. The St. Paul Cathedral would look dingy, and its roof would
leak. Summit Avenue would be tawdry, as it was in 1970, and some of
the houses would have been leveled. Lowertown's muscular brick and
stone warehouses would be gone, replaced with ugly 1970s buildings--or
nothing at all. The Dayton's Bluff neighborhood east of downtown would
be run down.
On the University of Minnesota East Bank campus, Jones and Nicholson
halls would be gone rather than beautifully renovated, and the
historic Knoll, the oldest part of the campus, would be decimated.
Coffman Union would still look like it did after an unfortunate 1970s
renovation, and it would still turn its back on the Mississippi River.
Along the Mississippi in Minneapolis, the appealing brick buildings
that gave birth to Pracna on Main and St. Anthony Main would be gone,
as would the West Bank mills that now house lofts, office space and
the Mill City Museum. The Stone Arch Bridge would still be encased in
chain link fence. No one would live on Nicollet Island.
Upriver, the friendly tower of the Grain Belt Brewery would be absent.
The Warehouse District would have been razed, and hundreds of houses,
parks and libraries in both cities would convey no sense of the city's
past.
Preservation hasn't solved every urban ill. Historic properties such
as the Hamm's and Schmidt breweries and the Upper Post at Fort
Snelling still daunt developers. Development and preservation still
clash, as they have on Nicollet Island over plans to install a
football field on city parkland or as they have in St. Paul over plans
to build a massive complex called The Bridges across the Mississippi
River from downtown.
But what's happened in the last 30 years is remarkable. Developers
have come to love older buildings for the character they offer.
Preservationists have come to welcome sensitive development. Residents
of the Twin Cities have come to value historic environments for their
human scale, their ties to the past and their livability.
Thirty years ago preservation seemed to focus on the past. Today it is
fueling the future.
It all depends if preservation is used to stop all architecture advances /
changes or if it is used to be part of the variety of a city.

San Francisco uses preservation to keep SF as a place where the future goes
to die. Of course SF is where the future goes to die for a lot of things
besides just architecture.

Few people can live in the large number of old Victorian houses in SF, so
most of them are totally gutted inside and rebuilt so that people can live
in them.

The Victorians were not good architects and like most old houses those
houses were probably not well built. They certainly don't have adequate
utilities usually don't even have a garage or much of a back yard.

Having your kids play in the street in SF is deadly and leaving your car on
the street is an invitation for vandalism. Forget about using the poor
Muni system.

There is a fight back movement in SF now to make it easier to build house
that advance architecture and can even win awards.
george conklin
2007-10-01 11:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Few people can live in the large number of old Victorian houses in SF, so
most of them are totally gutted inside and rebuilt so that people can live
in them.
The Victorians were not good architects and like most old houses those
houses were probably not well built. They certainly don't have adequate
utilities usually don't even have a garage or much of a back yard.
The goal is to preserve old upper class housing. What the workers lived
in is best forgotten. Urbanism is an upper class issue anyway.
William
2007-10-02 01:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
Few people can live in the large number of old Victorian houses in SF, so
most of them are totally gutted inside and rebuilt so that people can live
in them.
The Victorians were not good architects and like most old houses those
houses were probably not well built. They certainly don't have adequate
utilities usually don't even have a garage or much of a back yard.
The goal is to preserve old upper class housing. What the workers lived
in is best forgotten.
Urbanism is an upper class issue anyway.

Haha, tell that to inner city crime and poverty rates...
Jack May
2007-10-02 03:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Urbanism is an upper class issue anyway.
Haha, tell that to inner city crime and poverty rates...
The poor and criminals would not be typical house buyers and would not be
worried about preservation.
Pat
2007-10-02 12:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by george conklin
Urbanism is an upper class issue anyway.
Haha, tell that to inner city crime and poverty rates...
The poor and criminals would not be typical house buyers and would not be
worried about preservation.
I think Urbanism IS a upper class issue. The upper class worries
about it. So even live in cities by choice, so that makes them
especially concerned.

The poor and the disenfranchised live in cities by necessity. They
have different concerns re their living environment.

If you house is full of lead paint, your school is crappy, and you
have to deal with drug dealers, you're not too concerned about whether
or not there is live theater.
George Conklin
2007-10-02 15:50:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by Jack May
Post by george conklin
Urbanism is an upper class issue anyway.
Haha, tell that to inner city crime and poverty rates...
The poor and criminals would not be typical house buyers and would not be
worried about preservation.
I think Urbanism IS a upper class issue. The upper class worries
about it. So even live in cities by choice, so that makes them
especially concerned.
The poor and the disenfranchised live in cities by necessity. They
have different concerns re their living environment.
If you house is full of lead paint, your school is crappy, and you
have to deal with drug dealers, you're not too concerned about whether
or not there is live theater.
We ALL had lead paint. My father painted only with lead paint. We are all
still alive.
Baxter
2007-10-02 16:18:03 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by George Conklin
Post by Pat
The poor and the disenfranchised live in cities by necessity. They
have different concerns re their living environment.
If you house is full of lead paint, your school is crappy, and you
have to deal with drug dealers, you're not too concerned about whether
or not there is live theater.
We ALL had lead paint. My father painted only with lead paint. We are all
still alive.
But brain damaged.
Stephen Sprunk
2007-10-02 20:09:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Pat
If you house is full of lead paint, your school is crappy, and you
have to deal with drug dealers, you're not too concerned about whether
or not there is live theater.
We ALL had lead paint. My father painted only with lead paint.
That sure explains a lot...

S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
George Conklin
2007-10-02 20:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Sprunk
Post by George Conklin
Post by Pat
If you house is full of lead paint, your school is crappy, and you
have to deal with drug dealers, you're not too concerned about whether
or not there is live theater.
We ALL had lead paint. My father painted only with lead paint.
That sure explains a lot...
There was also lead in the gasoline. That sure explains George Bush.
William
2007-10-05 00:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
We ALL had lead paint. My father painted only with lead paint. We are all
still alive.
Unless your a three year old child who likes to suck on things.....
Amy Blankenship
2007-10-05 02:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
We ALL had lead paint. My father painted only with lead paint. We are all
still alive.
Unless your a three year old child who likes to suck on things.....
Just as a FYI, "your" means "belonging to you", not a contraction of "you
are." So "your three-year-old-child" would mean you are a very young daddy.
"Your a three-year-old child" means you're a young daddy with an Italian
accent.

HTH;

Amy
Amy Blankenship
2007-10-02 13:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by george conklin
Urbanism is an upper class issue anyway.
Haha, tell that to inner city crime and poverty rates...
The poor and criminals would not be typical house buyers and would not be
worried about preservation.
When I bought my first house I was making $13K a year.
Jack May
2007-10-02 16:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Jack May
Post by george conklin
Urbanism is an upper class issue anyway.
Haha, tell that to inner city crime and poverty rates...
The poor and criminals would not be typical house buyers and would not be
worried about preservation.
When I bought my first house I was making $13K a year.
That would have been decades ago and does not apply to present houses and
buyers.
Amy Blankenship
2007-10-02 16:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Jack May
Post by george conklin
Urbanism is an upper class issue anyway.
Haha, tell that to inner city crime and poverty rates...
The poor and criminals would not be typical house buyers and would not
be worried about preservation.
When I bought my first house I was making $13K a year.
That would have been decades ago and does not apply to present houses and
buyers.
It was actually 1995. You really think people on low incomes don't buy
houses today?
Jack May
2007-10-03 19:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
It was actually 1995. You really think people on low incomes don't buy
houses today?
The poor bought a lot during the sub prime scams, but during normal times,
much less likely. Of course where I live low cost houses start at half a
million dollars.

In the more rational parts of the US, I guess the poor could afford a house.
Amy Blankenship
2007-10-03 21:35:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Amy Blankenship
It was actually 1995. You really think people on low incomes don't buy
houses today?
The poor bought a lot during the sub prime scams, but during normal times,
much less likely. Of course where I live low cost houses start at half a
million dollars.
In the more rational parts of the US, I guess the poor could afford a house.
That is precisely why I did not go to work in San Francisco. :-)

-Amy
William
2007-10-02 23:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by george conklin
Urbanism is an upper class issue anyway.
Haha, tell that to inner city crime and poverty rates...
The poor and criminals would not be typical house buyers and would not be
worried about preservation.
Yes, but they still are issues in cities or "Urbanism" as you like to
call it. Thus proving you
point of Urbanism being an upper class issue wrong
George Conklin
2007-10-02 12:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
Few people can live in the large number of old Victorian houses in SF, so
most of them are totally gutted inside and rebuilt so that people can live
in them.
The Victorians were not good architects and like most old houses those
houses were probably not well built. They certainly don't have adequate
utilities usually don't even have a garage or much of a back yard.
The goal is to preserve old upper class housing. What the workers lived
in is best forgotten.
Urbanism is an upper class issue anyway.
Haha, tell that to inner city crime and poverty rates...
More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city.
William
2007-10-02 23:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
Few people can live in the large number of old Victorian houses in SF,
so
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
most of them are totally gutted inside and rebuilt so that people can
live
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
in them.
The Victorians were not good architects and like most old houses
those
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
houses were probably not well built. They certainly don't have
adequate
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
utilities usually don't even have a garage or much of a back yard.
The goal is to preserve old upper class housing. What the workers
lived
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
in is best forgotten.
Urbanism is an upper class issue anyway.
Haha, tell that to inner city crime and poverty rates...
More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city.
Considering theres a lot more suburbs in America then cities I am not
surprised. The ratio however, is much more significant in inner
cities.
William
2007-10-02 23:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
Few people can live in the large number of old Victorian houses in SF,
so
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
most of them are totally gutted inside and rebuilt so that people can
live
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
in them.
The Victorians were not good architects and like most old houses
those
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
houses were probably not well built. They certainly don't have
adequate
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
utilities usually don't even have a garage or much of a back yard.
The goal is to preserve old upper class housing. What the workers
lived
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
in is best forgotten.
Urbanism is an upper class issue anyway.
Haha, tell that to inner city crime and poverty rates...
More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city.
More "poor" live in the suburbs, whatever that means, but many more
homeless reside in the inner city. You can't swing a dead cat by its
tail without hitting a homeless person in Chicago....
Pat
2007-10-03 03:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by Jack May
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
Few people can live in the large number of old Victorian houses in SF,
so
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
most of them are totally gutted inside and rebuilt so that people can
live
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
in them.
The Victorians were not good architects and like most old houses
those
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
houses were probably not well built. They certainly don't have
adequate
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
utilities usually don't even have a garage or much of a back yard.
The goal is to preserve old upper class housing. What the workers
lived
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
in is best forgotten.
Urbanism is an upper class issue anyway.
Haha, tell that to inner city crime and poverty rates...
More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city.
More "poor" live in the suburbs, whatever that means, but many more
homeless reside in the inner city. You can't swing a dead cat by its
tail without hitting a homeless person in Chicago....
William, just for your info, you are treading an areas that is hugely
controversial.

Be careful with the word "homeless" as the various definitions are
very different. The Federal definition is quite restrictive and has a
geographic bias to create more homelessness in warmer climates than in
colder ones. Often states and their agencies have "weaker"
definitions that better match what you think of as homeless.

Many, many people -- who a reasonable person would classify as
homeless -- don't meet the Federal definition.

Because of the money and votes involved, this is a hot political
issue.

The way homelessness is counted can also have a drastic impact on the
number of homeless people that you find.

You also run into some definitional problems for "poor". For example,
a family of 4 is considered "low income" if they make under $61,750 in
Nassau or Suffolk counties in New York (aka Long Island) but a family
in NYC is low income at $50,250. Therefore, a family at $55,000 in
the suburbs is low income but in the city the same family is not.
Meanwhile is much of upstate, rural New York (including where I live),
the equivalent income limit is $39,900
William
2007-10-04 03:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Jack May
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
Few people can live in the large number of old Victorian houses in SF,
so
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
most of them are totally gutted inside and rebuilt so that people can
live
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
in them.
The Victorians were not good architects and like most old houses
those
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
houses were probably not well built. They certainly don't have
adequate
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
utilities usually don't even have a garage or much of a back yard.
The goal is to preserve old upper class housing. What the workers
lived
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
in is best forgotten.
Urbanism is an upper class issue anyway.
Haha, tell that to inner city crime and poverty rates...
More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city.
More "poor" live in the suburbs, whatever that means, but many more
homeless reside in the inner city. You can't swing a dead cat by its
tail without hitting a homeless person in Chicago....
William, just for your info, you are treading an areas that is hugely
controversial.
Be careful with the word "homeless" as the various definitions are
very different. The Federal definition is quite restrictive and has a
geographic bias to create more homelessness in warmer climates than in
colder ones. Often states and their agencies have "weaker"
definitions that better match what you think of as homeless.
Many, many people -- who a reasonable person would classify as
homeless -- don't meet the Federal definition.
Because of the money and votes involved, this is a hot political
issue.
The way homelessness is counted can also have a drastic impact on the
number of homeless people that you find.
You also run into some definitional problems for "poor". For example,
a family of 4 is considered "low income" if they make under $61,750 in
Nassau or Suffolk counties in New York (aka Long Island) but a family
in NYC is low income at $50,250. Therefore, a family at $55,000 in
the suburbs is low income but in the city the same family is not.
Meanwhile is much of upstate, rural New York (including where I live),
the equivalent income limit is $39,900
Cool thanks, I didn't need to know all that. You wanna say theres more
"Homeless" (People who have to sleep on the streets) in the suburbs
then in inner cities be my guest. Have fun with that one.
Pat
2007-10-04 13:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Jack May
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
Few people can live in the large number of old Victorian houses in SF,
so
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
most of them are totally gutted inside and rebuilt so that people can
live
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
in them.
The Victorians were not good architects and like most old houses
those
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
houses were probably not well built. They certainly don't have
adequate
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
utilities usually don't even have a garage or much of a back yard.
The goal is to preserve old upper class housing. What the workers
lived
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
in is best forgotten.
Urbanism is an upper class issue anyway.
Haha, tell that to inner city crime and poverty rates...
More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city.
More "poor" live in the suburbs, whatever that means, but many more
homeless reside in the inner city. You can't swing a dead cat by its
tail without hitting a homeless person in Chicago....
William, just for your info, you are treading an areas that is hugely
controversial.
Be careful with the word "homeless" as the various definitions are
very different. The Federal definition is quite restrictive and has a
geographic bias to create more homelessness in warmer climates than in
colder ones. Often states and their agencies have "weaker"
definitions that better match what you think of as homeless.
Many, many people -- who a reasonable person would classify as
homeless -- don't meet the Federal definition.
Because of the money and votes involved, this is a hot political
issue.
The way homelessness is counted can also have a drastic impact on the
number of homeless people that you find.
You also run into some definitional problems for "poor". For example,
a family of 4 is considered "low income" if they make under $61,750 in
Nassau or Suffolk counties in New York (aka Long Island) but a family
in NYC is low income at $50,250. Therefore, a family at $55,000 in
the suburbs is low income but in the city the same family is not.
Meanwhile is much of upstate, rural New York (including where I live),
the equivalent income limit is $39,900
Cool thanks, I didn't need to know all that. You wanna say theres more
"Homeless" (People who have to sleep on the streets) in the suburbs
then in inner cities be my guest. Have fun with that one.
I never said that. However there IS more homelessness in warmer
climates than in colder ones because of the federal definition.

What I said about the suburbs was that the incomes are often different
so that you can have a relatively "richer" class of low income in the
suburbs.
William
2007-10-05 03:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city.
More "poor" live in the suburbs, whatever that means, but many more
homeless reside in the inner city. You can't swing a dead cat by its
tail without hitting a homeless person in Chicago....
William, just for your info, you are treading an areas that is hugely
controversial.
Be careful with the word "homeless" as the various definitions are
very different. The Federal definition is quite restrictive and has a
geographic bias to create more homelessness in warmer climates than in
colder ones. Often states and their agencies have "weaker"
definitions that better match what you think of as homeless.
Many, many people -- who a reasonable person would classify as
homeless -- don't meet the Federal definition.
Because of the money and votes involved, this is a hot political
issue.
The way homelessness is counted can also have a drastic impact on the
number of homeless people that you find.
You also run into some definitional problems for "poor". For example,
a family of 4 is considered "low income" if they make under $61,750 in
Nassau or Suffolk counties in New York (aka Long Island) but a family
in NYC is low income at $50,250. Therefore, a family at $55,000 in
the suburbs is low income but in the city the same family is not.
Meanwhile is much of upstate, rural New York (including where I live),
the equivalent income limit is $39,900
Cool thanks, I didn't need to know all that. You wanna say theres more
"Homeless" (People who have to sleep on the streets) in the suburbs
then in inner cities be my guest. Have fun with that one.
I never said that. However there IS more homelessness in warmer
climates than in colder ones because of the federal definition.
What I said about the suburbs was that the incomes are often different
so that you can have a relatively "richer" class of low income in the
suburbs.
"More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city."-George
Conklin

This, however vague, is simply not true.
George Conklin
2007-10-05 10:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city.
More "poor" live in the suburbs, whatever that means, but many more
homeless reside in the inner city. You can't swing a dead cat by its
tail without hitting a homeless person in Chicago....
William, just for your info, you are treading an areas that is hugely
controversial.
Be careful with the word "homeless" as the various definitions are
very different. The Federal definition is quite restrictive and has a
geographic bias to create more homelessness in warmer climates than in
colder ones. Often states and their agencies have "weaker"
definitions that better match what you think of as homeless.
Many, many people -- who a reasonable person would classify as
homeless -- don't meet the Federal definition.
Because of the money and votes involved, this is a hot political
issue.
The way homelessness is counted can also have a drastic impact on the
number of homeless people that you find.
You also run into some definitional problems for "poor". For example,
a family of 4 is considered "low income" if they make under $61,750 in
Nassau or Suffolk counties in New York (aka Long Island) but a family
in NYC is low income at $50,250. Therefore, a family at $55,000 in
the suburbs is low income but in the city the same family is not.
Meanwhile is much of upstate, rural New York (including where I live),
the equivalent income limit is $39,900
Cool thanks, I didn't need to know all that. You wanna say theres more
"Homeless" (People who have to sleep on the streets) in the suburbs
then in inner cities be my guest. Have fun with that one.
I never said that. However there IS more homelessness in warmer
climates than in colder ones because of the federal definition.
What I said about the suburbs was that the incomes are often different
so that you can have a relatively "richer" class of low income in the
suburbs.
"More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city."-George
Conklin
This, however vague, is simply not true.
The census released that factoid within the past year. I suggest you catch
up on some facts and leave your emotions behind.
William
2007-10-05 11:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city.
More "poor" live in the suburbs, whatever that means, but many
more
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
homeless reside in the inner city. You can't swing a dead cat by
its
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
tail without hitting a homeless person in Chicago....
William, just for your info, you are treading an areas that is
hugely
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
controversial.
Be careful with the word "homeless" as the various definitions are
very different. The Federal definition is quite restrictive and has
a
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
geographic bias to create more homelessness in warmer climates than
in
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
colder ones. Often states and their agencies have "weaker"
definitions that better match what you think of as homeless.
Many, many people -- who a reasonable person would classify as
homeless -- don't meet the Federal definition.
Because of the money and votes involved, this is a hot political
issue.
The way homelessness is counted can also have a drastic impact on
the
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
number of homeless people that you find.
You also run into some definitional problems for "poor". For
example,
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
a family of 4 is considered "low income" if they make under $61,750
in
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Nassau or Suffolk counties in New York (aka Long Island) but a
family
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
in NYC is low income at $50,250. Therefore, a family at $55,000 in
the suburbs is low income but in the city the same family is not.
Meanwhile is much of upstate, rural New York (including where I
live),
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
the equivalent income limit is $39,900
Cool thanks, I didn't need to know all that. You wanna say theres more
"Homeless" (People who have to sleep on the streets) in the suburbs
then in inner cities be my guest. Have fun with that one.
I never said that. However there IS more homelessness in warmer
climates than in colder ones because of the federal definition.
What I said about the suburbs was that the incomes are often different
so that you can have a relatively "richer" class of low income in the
suburbs.
"More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city."-George
Conklin
This, however vague, is simply not true.
The census released that factoid within the past year. I suggest you catch
up on some facts and leave your emotions behind.
Two things you need to do

1. Define "poor"
2.Find this so called census instead of just describing it's
exsistence.

So George, when people move from poor ghettos in Chicago to the
suburbs there just making bigger mistake cause there just moving into
larger poor ghettos?
George Conklin
2007-10-05 12:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city.
More "poor" live in the suburbs, whatever that means, but many
more
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
homeless reside in the inner city. You can't swing a dead cat by
its
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
tail without hitting a homeless person in Chicago....
William, just for your info, you are treading an areas that is
hugely
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
controversial.
Be careful with the word "homeless" as the various definitions are
very different. The Federal definition is quite restrictive and has
a
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
geographic bias to create more homelessness in warmer climates than
in
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
colder ones. Often states and their agencies have "weaker"
definitions that better match what you think of as homeless.
Many, many people -- who a reasonable person would classify as
homeless -- don't meet the Federal definition.
Because of the money and votes involved, this is a hot political
issue.
The way homelessness is counted can also have a drastic impact on
the
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
number of homeless people that you find.
You also run into some definitional problems for "poor". For
example,
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
a family of 4 is considered "low income" if they make under $61,750
in
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Nassau or Suffolk counties in New York (aka Long Island) but a
family
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
in NYC is low income at $50,250. Therefore, a family at $55,000 in
the suburbs is low income but in the city the same family is not.
Meanwhile is much of upstate, rural New York (including where I
live),
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
the equivalent income limit is $39,900
Cool thanks, I didn't need to know all that. You wanna say theres more
"Homeless" (People who have to sleep on the streets) in the suburbs
then in inner cities be my guest. Have fun with that one.
I never said that. However there IS more homelessness in warmer
climates than in colder ones because of the federal definition.
What I said about the suburbs was that the incomes are often different
so that you can have a relatively "richer" class of low income in the
suburbs.
"More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city."-George
Conklin
This, however vague, is simply not true.
The census released that factoid within the past year. I suggest you catch
up on some facts and leave your emotions behind.
Two things you need to do
1. Define "poor"
2.Find this so called census instead of just describing it's
exsistence.
So George, when people move from poor ghettos in Chicago to the
suburbs there just making bigger mistake cause there just moving into
larger poor ghettos?
William, do you own research. And stop asking dumb questions. The census
has don this type of research for several generations now, so I suggest you
catch up your facts with your emotions.
Pat
2007-10-05 14:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city.
More "poor" live in the suburbs, whatever that means, but many
more
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
homeless reside in the inner city. You can't swing a dead cat by
its
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
tail without hitting a homeless person in Chicago....
William, just for your info, you are treading an areas that is
hugely
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
controversial.
Be careful with the word "homeless" as the various definitions are
very different. The Federal definition is quite restrictive and has
a
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
geographic bias to create more homelessness in warmer climates than
in
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
colder ones. Often states and their agencies have "weaker"
definitions that better match what you think of as homeless.
Many, many people -- who a reasonable person would classify as
homeless -- don't meet the Federal definition.
Because of the money and votes involved, this is a hot political
issue.
The way homelessness is counted can also have a drastic impact on
the
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
number of homeless people that you find.
You also run into some definitional problems for "poor". For
example,
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
a family of 4 is considered "low income" if they make under $61,750
in
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Nassau or Suffolk counties in New York (aka Long Island) but a
family
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
in NYC is low income at $50,250. Therefore, a family at $55,000 in
the suburbs is low income but in the city the same family is not.
Meanwhile is much of upstate, rural New York (including where I
live),
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
the equivalent income limit is $39,900
Cool thanks, I didn't need to know all that. You wanna say theres more
"Homeless" (People who have to sleep on the streets) in the suburbs
then in inner cities be my guest. Have fun with that one.
I never said that. However there IS more homelessness in warmer
climates than in colder ones because of the federal definition.
What I said about the suburbs was that the incomes are often different
so that you can have a relatively "richer" class of low income in the
suburbs.
"More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city."-George
Conklin
This, however vague, is simply not true.
The census released that factoid within the past year. I suggest you catch
up on some facts and leave your emotions behind.
Two things you need to do
1. Define "poor"
2.Find this so called census instead of just describing it's
exsistence.
So George, when people move from poor ghettos in Chicago to the
suburbs there just making bigger mistake cause there just moving into
larger poor ghettos?
If you define "poor" as either 50% or 80% of Area Median Income, which
are two common definitions of "low income", then the highest
percentage of "poor" is in rural areas due to a interesting quick in
the formula used to calculate "median income".

For non-rural areas, AMI is calculated based on (...drum roll
please...) the median income of the county or MSA. But in rural areas
it is calculated using the HIGHER of the county's median income OR the
median income of the state's entire non-metro population. This is
because median income can be so low in rural areas. So for many rural
communities, Area Median Income has well over half the population
below "median".

In urban areas, there's a safety switch that goes the other direction
the keeps median income from going too high -- but that circuit
breaker is not used nearly as often as the rural one.

So as a percentage of population, it is the rural areas that have the
most low income.

So George, there's an interestig anomaly for you -- more than 50% of
people being below "median income".

Here's now it works:

Go to http://www.huduser.org/Datasets/IL/IL07/ny_fy2007.pdf
for NYS.

The first thing you see is the Albany MSA. Right under the name you
see the MFI is 66,300. AMI is calculated based on a family size of 4
and "very low income" is 50% of AMI. So if you go to that point in
the grid, you see 33,150. That's how it is "supposed" to be and
that's they way it is for the MSA and most counties. But for the
poorer, more rural areas it changes. The first rural county is
"Allegany" and believe me, that's rural. The MFI is 46,500. (which
is the median income of the county) but the 50% limit for a family of
4 is 25,450 (which is half of 50,900. So for this rural area, the
median income is adjusted to 50,900 instead of what it really is,
56,500. So, for government purposes more than 50% of the people are
below median income (it is the group between 46,500 and 56,500).
George Conklin
2007-10-05 12:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by Pat
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city.
More "poor" live in the suburbs, whatever that means, but many more
homeless reside in the inner city. You can't swing a dead cat by its
tail without hitting a homeless person in Chicago....
William, just for your info, you are treading an areas that is hugely
controversial.
Be careful with the word "homeless" as the various definitions are
very different. The Federal definition is quite restrictive and has a
geographic bias to create more homelessness in warmer climates than in
colder ones. Often states and their agencies have "weaker"
definitions that better match what you think of as homeless.
Many, many people -- who a reasonable person would classify as
homeless -- don't meet the Federal definition.
Because of the money and votes involved, this is a hot political
issue.
The way homelessness is counted can also have a drastic impact on the
number of homeless people that you find.
You also run into some definitional problems for "poor". For example,
a family of 4 is considered "low income" if they make under $61,750 in
Nassau or Suffolk counties in New York (aka Long Island) but a family
in NYC is low income at $50,250. Therefore, a family at $55,000 in
the suburbs is low income but in the city the same family is not.
Meanwhile is much of upstate, rural New York (including where I live),
the equivalent income limit is $39,900
Cool thanks, I didn't need to know all that. You wanna say theres more
"Homeless" (People who have to sleep on the streets) in the suburbs
then in inner cities be my guest. Have fun with that one.
I never said that. However there IS more homelessness in warmer
climates than in colder ones because of the federal definition.
What I said about the suburbs was that the incomes are often different
so that you can have a relatively "richer" class of low income in the
suburbs.
"More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city."-George
Conklin
This, however vague, is simply not true.
Dear Mr. Emotions:

I thought I'd go ahead and post a story about the census, a governmental
bureau you don't want to know about.
-----
A move from the city to the suburbs used to signal prosperity for American
families. But last year, the number of poor suburbanites outnumbered poor
people in cities by 1 million for the first time. That startling statistic
is part of a new report that examines poverty trends in the first part of
the decade.

On a snowy afternoon in Bedford Heights, Ohio, 67-year-old Shirley Coasten
pushes her metal grocery cart across the parking lot at the Southhaven
United Church of Christ. Coasten took a five-mile bus ride to get to the
church's basement food pantry. She has to hustle to pick up today's
offering.

Coasten used to work as a restaurant manager, in between stints as a
department store clerk. Now, $700 a month in Social Security has to cover
rent, electricity, medication and other bills. The pantry is a big help.

"Some of the items we get are items we usually don't buy," Coasten says.
"And sometimes, we just get the same things over and over each month...that
helps us so we can budget out our food money.

No Longer Havens from Big-City Woes

Six years ago, about 50 families used the Southhaven United food pantry
regularly. Today, more than 700 do. They come from communities such as
Warrensville Heights, Maple Heights and Walton Hills -- cities which used to
be considered havens from big-city problems.

But researchers at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., say this
surprising shift in poverty demographics began long before the economic
downturn of the early 2000s. That recession just kicked it into overdrive.

Alan Berube directs research for the Metropolitan Policy Program at
Brookings. His team studied Census data from the country's 100 largest
metropolitan areas, from 1999 to 2005. Six of the 10 cities with the biggest
poverty-rate increases were in the Midwest. Toledo and Cleveland are two
other Ohio cities in that category.

Berube says it's mostly just common sense that there are more poor people
living in suburbs. Over the past three decades, as industrial and retail
jobs vanished or moved outside urban centers, working poor families
followed.

"It's really the Rust Belt and areas of the Southeast that relied heavily on
industries like textiles, where there have been large job losses," Berube
says. "[That's] a lot of people displaced from decent-paying jobs."

A Matter of Suburbs Close to Cities?

Other things were happening, too. For example, Berube says more immigrants
settled in suburbs not only for work, but because housing was cheaper. More
and more immigrant families are doubling and tripling up in suburban houses
and apartments.

Some researchers say suburban poverty is fairly localized. Rebecca Blank is
dean of the School of Social Policy at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor.
She says low-income people in suburbs aren't necessarily living near the
gleaming office towers and upscale subdivisions near the far reaches. Most
just moved right outside the city.

"In some cases, these suburbs never had a lot of employment," Blank says.

She notes that many close-in suburbs were built in the post-World War II
period when houses were smaller two-, three- or at most four-bedroom models.

"If you look at what's happening to housing size, and where people who are
moving who are middle- and upper-income families, that's not the homes they
want," she says.

But researcher Berube estimates that 60 percent of the suburban poor live
beyond that inner ring of suburbs. They're the ones cleaning those gleaming
office towers near freeways, he says. Wherever low-income workers migrate,
Berube says, it's ultimately the "wrong side of the tracks."

"In a lot of metropolitan areas now," he says, "poverty, fiscal distress,
poor-performing schools, little to no job growth is concentrating on one
side of the region along with the poor, while a lot of the growth and
opportunity goes to the other side of the region."

The Brookings report suggests that city planners and officials need to pay
close attention to this booming trend. They'll need to give a lot more
thought to issues such as affordable transportation, social services and
affordable housing for low-income families.
Amy Blankenship
2007-10-05 13:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city.
More "poor" live in the suburbs, whatever that means, but many more
homeless reside in the inner city. You can't swing a dead cat by its
tail without hitting a homeless person in Chicago....
"More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city."-George
Conklin
This, however vague, is simply not true.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6598999
William
2007-10-05 21:43:29 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 5, 8:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by William
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city.
More "poor" live in the suburbs, whatever that means, but many more
homeless reside in the inner city. You can't swing a dead cat by its
tail without hitting a homeless person in Chicago....
"More poor people live in the suburbs than in the city."-George
Conklin
This, however vague, is simply not true.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6598999
Dam, well you were right George. Let it be known I admit that I was
wrong. Okay, now I still do belive there are more people who do not
have a job or a house in inner cities.
RJ
2007-10-07 04:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
I never said that. However there IS more homelessness in warmer
climates than in colder ones because of the federal definition.
Also, because sleeping outside is easier in warmer climates.
Rotten
2007-10-05 03:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Jack May
Few people can live in the large number of old Victorian houses in SF, so
most of them are totally gutted inside and rebuilt so that people can live
in them.
The Victorians were not good architects and like most old houses those
houses were probably not well built. They certainly don't have adequate
utilities usually don't even have a garage or much of a back yard.
The goal is to preserve old upper class housing. What the workers lived
in is best forgotten.
Urbanism is an upper class issue anyway.
Haha, tell that to inner city crime and poverty rates...
How would you tell it to inner city crime and poverty rates?
Baxter
2007-10-01 19:12:23 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Jack May
The Victorians were not good architects and like most old houses those
houses were probably not well built. They certainly don't have adequate
utilities usually don't even have a garage or much of a back yard.
The Victorians were fine architects - else those houses would not have
lasted so long. They built according to the needs and mores of the day -
they had plenty of utilities for the day, and the Victorian era preceeded
the automobile. Many people didn't want a backyard in those days - and many
do not want backyards today either.
Rotten
2007-10-05 03:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Heres some food for thought for all you anti-history people out there
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1452935.html
Linda Mack: Making history
To appreciate the impact of the preservation efforts made in the last
30 years, imagine what Minneapolis and St. Paul would have looked like
without them.
--------------------------------------------
With its elegant bronze fountain shaded by giant oaks and the porched
and turreted houses surrounding it, St. Paul's Irvine Park is such a
pure piece of Victorianna that it's hard to believe it hasn't always
been there. But this charming corner of the city fell on bad times.
The fountain was removed in 1927, the 19th-century houses were carved
up for rooms, and by 1969 the city planned to raze the area and
replace it with public housing.
Thus was St. Paul's historic preservation movement born. Outraged
residents and the Minnesota Historical Society joined forces to save
the houses and the park. It wasn't an easy victory. One summer, after
four of the houses were torched, Tom Lutz of the Minnesota Historical
Society slept in the park to prevent more arson. But by 1978 both the
houses and the park had been renovated, and residents celebrated by
installing a replica fountain, once again the centerpiece.
Irvine Park is one of the Twin Cities' most dramatic historic
preservation victories and one of the many places that some 2,000
preservationists will visit this week when they attend the annual
conference of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. They'll
also hear Garrison Keillor expound on St. Paul's quirks, and they'll
tour both cities' riverfronts, visit historic Native American sites,
canoe down the Minnesota River and take a candlelight tour of Summit
Avenue houses.
Rightly enough, the conference is based in St. Paul, which embraced
preservation earlier than its more economically ambitious sibling.
(While St. Paul saved the 1902 Old Federal Courts Building as Landmark
Center, Minneapolis razed the 1889 Metropolitan Building and the
oldest 30 percent of its downtown.) But Minneapolis' recent
preservation successes, including the F&M Bank's revival as a Westin
Hotel and the massive Sears building's rebirth as the Midtown
Exchange, will be on the agenda as well.
To appreciate the impact of historic preservation over the last 30
years, imagine what the Twin Cities would look like without it.
The Quadriga, the four horses on the State Capitol, would be
tarnished. The St. Paul Cathedral would look dingy, and its roof would
leak. Summit Avenue would be tawdry, as it was in 1970, and some of
the houses would have been leveled. Lowertown's muscular brick and
stone warehouses would be gone, replaced with ugly 1970s buildings--or
nothing at all. The Dayton's Bluff neighborhood east of downtown would
be run down.
On the University of Minnesota East Bank campus, Jones and Nicholson
halls would be gone rather than beautifully renovated, and the
historic Knoll, the oldest part of the campus, would be decimated.
Coffman Union would still look like it did after an unfortunate 1970s
renovation, and it would still turn its back on the Mississippi River.
Along the Mississippi in Minneapolis, the appealing brick buildings
that gave birth to Pracna on Main and St. Anthony Main would be gone,
as would the West Bank mills that now house lofts, office space and
the Mill City Museum. The Stone Arch Bridge would still be encased in
chain link fence. No one would live on Nicollet Island.
Upriver, the friendly tower of the Grain Belt Brewery would be absent.
The Warehouse District would have been razed, and hundreds of houses,
parks and libraries in both cities would convey no sense of the city's
past.
Preservation hasn't solved every urban ill. Historic properties such
as the Hamm's and Schmidt breweries and the Upper Post at Fort
Snelling still daunt developers. Development and preservation still
clash, as they have on Nicollet Island over plans to install a
football field on city parkland or as they have in St. Paul over plans
to build a massive complex called The Bridges across the Mississippi
River from downtown.
But what's happened in the last 30 years is remarkable. Developers
have come to love older buildings for the character they offer.
Preservationists have come to welcome sensitive development. Residents
of the Twin Cities have come to value historic environments for their
human scale, their ties to the past and their livability.
Thirty years ago preservation seemed to focus on the past. Today it is
fueling the future.
Whatever. Do you want to live in a museum or in a real city?
Jack May
2007-10-05 04:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rotten
Post by William
Heres some food for thought for all you anti-history people out there
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1452935.html
Whatever. Do you want to live in a museum or in a real city?
I am not sure what you mean. I have almost finished refurbishing
(preserving) my house because I want a nice place to live in for a long
time.

I am living in a real place which gets messy etc, but can look very nice
when I want it to look nice (actually, most of time when the cleaning
people make it look nice ).
Rotten
2007-10-05 13:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Rotten
Post by William
Heres some food for thought for all you anti-history people out there
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1452935.html
Whatever. Do you want to live in a museum or in a real city?
I am not sure what you mean. I have almost finished refurbishing
(preserving) my house because I want a nice place to live in for a long
time.
I am living in a real place which gets messy etc, but can look very nice
when I want it to look nice (actually, most of time when the cleaning
people make it look nice ).
The question wasn't directed to you, but to William.
William
2007-10-05 21:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rotten
Post by Jack May
Post by Rotten
Post by William
Heres some food for thought for all you anti-history people out there
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1452935.html
Whatever. Do you want to live in a museum or in a real city?
I am not sure what you mean. I have almost finished refurbishing
(preserving) my house because I want a nice place to live in for a long
time.
I am living in a real place which gets messy etc, but can look very nice
when I want it to look nice (actually, most of time when the cleaning
people make it look nice ).
The question wasn't directed to you, but to William.
Nope, I don't want to live in a museum. Infact Minneapolis was ranked
the most high tech city in the nation. And we just got wireless
internet that goes throught out the entire city. Hows that for not
wanting to live in a museaum?
rotten
2007-10-06 02:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by Rotten
Post by Jack May
Post by Rotten
Post by William
Heres some food for thought for all you anti-history people out there
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1452935.html
Whatever. Do you want to live in a museum or in a real city?
I am not sure what you mean. I have almost finished refurbishing
(preserving) my house because I want a nice place to live in for a long
time.
I am living in a real place which gets messy etc, but can look very nice
when I want it to look nice (actually, most of time when the cleaning
people make it look nice ).
The question wasn't directed to you, but to William.
Nope, I don't want to live in a museum. Infact Minneapolis was ranked
the most high tech city in the nation. And we just got wireless
internet that goes throught out the entire city. Hows that for not
wanting to live in a museaum?- Hide quoted text -
On what basis was that ranking I wonder? Probably horseshit like most
of these rankings are.

Anyway, besides that you obviously didn't get my point.
William
2007-10-07 04:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by William
Post by Rotten
Post by Jack May
Post by Rotten
Post by William
Heres some food for thought for all you anti-history people out there
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1452935.html
Whatever. Do you want to live in a museum or in a real city?
I am not sure what you mean. I have almost finished refurbishing
(preserving) my house because I want a nice place to live in for a long
time.
I am living in a real place which gets messy etc, but can look very nice
when I want it to look nice (actually, most of time when the cleaning
people make it look nice ).
The question wasn't directed to you, but to William.
Nope, I don't want to live in a museum. Infact Minneapolis was ranked
the most high tech city in the nation. And we just got wireless
internet that goes throught out the entire city. Hows that for not
wanting to live in a museaum?- Hide quoted text -
On what basis was that ranking I wonder? Probably horseshit like most
of these rankings are.
Anyway, besides that you obviously didn't get my point.
Thats okay, you don't get my point that not everything has to be made
in that past five years.
And heres my basis for the ranking.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/generaltechnology/fb679aa138b84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd/2.html
George Conklin
2007-10-05 10:45:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rotten
Post by William
Heres some food for thought for all you anti-history people out there
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1452935.html
Linda Mack: Making history
To appreciate the impact of the preservation efforts made in the last
30 years, imagine what Minneapolis and St. Paul would have looked like
without them.
--------------------------------------------
With its elegant bronze fountain shaded by giant oaks and the porched
and turreted houses surrounding it, St. Paul's Irvine Park is such a
pure piece of Victorianna that it's hard to believe it hasn't always
been there. But this charming corner of the city fell on bad times.
The fountain was removed in 1927, the 19th-century houses were carved
up for rooms, and by 1969 the city planned to raze the area and
replace it with public housing.
Thus was St. Paul's historic preservation movement born. Outraged
residents and the Minnesota Historical Society joined forces to save
the houses and the park. It wasn't an easy victory. One summer, after
four of the houses were torched, Tom Lutz of the Minnesota Historical
Society slept in the park to prevent more arson. But by 1978 both the
houses and the park had been renovated, and residents celebrated by
installing a replica fountain, once again the centerpiece.
Irvine Park is one of the Twin Cities' most dramatic historic
preservation victories and one of the many places that some 2,000
preservationists will visit this week when they attend the annual
conference of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. They'll
also hear Garrison Keillor expound on St. Paul's quirks, and they'll
tour both cities' riverfronts, visit historic Native American sites,
canoe down the Minnesota River and take a candlelight tour of Summit
Avenue houses.
Rightly enough, the conference is based in St. Paul, which embraced
preservation earlier than its more economically ambitious sibling.
(While St. Paul saved the 1902 Old Federal Courts Building as Landmark
Center, Minneapolis razed the 1889 Metropolitan Building and the
oldest 30 percent of its downtown.) But Minneapolis' recent
preservation successes, including the F&M Bank's revival as a Westin
Hotel and the massive Sears building's rebirth as the Midtown
Exchange, will be on the agenda as well.
To appreciate the impact of historic preservation over the last 30
years, imagine what the Twin Cities would look like without it.
The Quadriga, the four horses on the State Capitol, would be
tarnished. The St. Paul Cathedral would look dingy, and its roof would
leak. Summit Avenue would be tawdry, as it was in 1970, and some of
the houses would have been leveled. Lowertown's muscular brick and
stone warehouses would be gone, replaced with ugly 1970s buildings--or
nothing at all. The Dayton's Bluff neighborhood east of downtown would
be run down.
On the University of Minnesota East Bank campus, Jones and Nicholson
halls would be gone rather than beautifully renovated, and the
historic Knoll, the oldest part of the campus, would be decimated.
Coffman Union would still look like it did after an unfortunate 1970s
renovation, and it would still turn its back on the Mississippi River.
Along the Mississippi in Minneapolis, the appealing brick buildings
that gave birth to Pracna on Main and St. Anthony Main would be gone,
as would the West Bank mills that now house lofts, office space and
the Mill City Museum. The Stone Arch Bridge would still be encased in
chain link fence. No one would live on Nicollet Island.
Upriver, the friendly tower of the Grain Belt Brewery would be absent.
The Warehouse District would have been razed, and hundreds of houses,
parks and libraries in both cities would convey no sense of the city's
past.
Preservation hasn't solved every urban ill. Historic properties such
as the Hamm's and Schmidt breweries and the Upper Post at Fort
Snelling still daunt developers. Development and preservation still
clash, as they have on Nicollet Island over plans to install a
football field on city parkland or as they have in St. Paul over plans
to build a massive complex called The Bridges across the Mississippi
River from downtown.
But what's happened in the last 30 years is remarkable. Developers
have come to love older buildings for the character they offer.
Preservationists have come to welcome sensitive development. Residents
of the Twin Cities have come to value historic environments for their
human scale, their ties to the past and their livability.
Thirty years ago preservation seemed to focus on the past. Today it is
fueling the future.
Whatever. Do you want to live in a museum or in a real city?
New urbanism idealizes the past and makes the present seem grubby so they
can do whatever they want with old buildings to please TODAY's theory.
William
2007-10-05 11:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Rotten
Post by William
Heres some food for thought for all you anti-history people out there
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1452935.html
Linda Mack: Making history
To appreciate the impact of the preservation efforts made in the last
30 years, imagine what Minneapolis and St. Paul would have looked like
without them.
--------------------------------------------
With its elegant bronze fountain shaded by giant oaks and the porched
and turreted houses surrounding it, St. Paul's Irvine Park is such a
pure piece of Victorianna that it's hard to believe it hasn't always
been there. But this charming corner of the city fell on bad times.
The fountain was removed in 1927, the 19th-century houses were carved
up for rooms, and by 1969 the city planned to raze the area and
replace it with public housing.
Thus was St. Paul's historic preservation movement born. Outraged
residents and the Minnesota Historical Society joined forces to save
the houses and the park. It wasn't an easy victory. One summer, after
four of the houses were torched, Tom Lutz of the Minnesota Historical
Society slept in the park to prevent more arson. But by 1978 both the
houses and the park had been renovated, and residents celebrated by
installing a replica fountain, once again the centerpiece.
Irvine Park is one of the Twin Cities' most dramatic historic
preservation victories and one of the many places that some 2,000
preservationists will visit this week when they attend the annual
conference of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. They'll
also hear Garrison Keillor expound on St. Paul's quirks, and they'll
tour both cities' riverfronts, visit historic Native American sites,
canoe down the Minnesota River and take a candlelight tour of Summit
Avenue houses.
Rightly enough, the conference is based in St. Paul, which embraced
preservation earlier than its more economically ambitious sibling.
(While St. Paul saved the 1902 Old Federal Courts Building as Landmark
Center, Minneapolis razed the 1889 Metropolitan Building and the
oldest 30 percent of its downtown.) But Minneapolis' recent
preservation successes, including the F&M Bank's revival as a Westin
Hotel and the massive Sears building's rebirth as the Midtown
Exchange, will be on the agenda as well.
To appreciate the impact of historic preservation over the last 30
years, imagine what the Twin Cities would look like without it.
The Quadriga, the four horses on the State Capitol, would be
tarnished. The St. Paul Cathedral would look dingy, and its roof would
leak. Summit Avenue would be tawdry, as it was in 1970, and some of
the houses would have been leveled. Lowertown's muscular brick and
stone warehouses would be gone, replaced with ugly 1970s buildings--or
nothing at all. The Dayton's Bluff neighborhood east of downtown would
be run down.
On the University of Minnesota East Bank campus, Jones and Nicholson
halls would be gone rather than beautifully renovated, and the
historic Knoll, the oldest part of the campus, would be decimated.
Coffman Union would still look like it did after an unfortunate 1970s
renovation, and it would still turn its back on the Mississippi River.
Along the Mississippi in Minneapolis, the appealing brick buildings
that gave birth to Pracna on Main and St. Anthony Main would be gone,
as would the West Bank mills that now house lofts, office space and
the Mill City Museum. The Stone Arch Bridge would still be encased in
chain link fence. No one would live on Nicollet Island.
Upriver, the friendly tower of the Grain Belt Brewery would be absent.
The Warehouse District would have been razed, and hundreds of houses,
parks and libraries in both cities would convey no sense of the city's
past.
Preservation hasn't solved every urban ill. Historic properties such
as the Hamm's and Schmidt breweries and the Upper Post at Fort
Snelling still daunt developers. Development and preservation still
clash, as they have on Nicollet Island over plans to install a
football field on city parkland or as they have in St. Paul over plans
to build a massive complex called The Bridges across the Mississippi
River from downtown.
But what's happened in the last 30 years is remarkable. Developers
have come to love older buildings for the character they offer.
Preservationists have come to welcome sensitive development. Residents
of the Twin Cities have come to value historic environments for their
human scale, their ties to the past and their livability.
Thirty years ago preservation seemed to focus on the past. Today it is
fueling the future.
Whatever. Do you want to live in a museum or in a real city?
New urbanism idealizes the past and makes the present seem grubby so they
can do whatever they want with old buildings to please TODAY's theory.
Welcome to your present with no past George. http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=79569&rendTypeId=4
George Conklin
2007-10-05 12:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
Post by Rotten
Post by William
Heres some food for thought for all you anti-history people out there
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1452935.html
Linda Mack: Making history
To appreciate the impact of the preservation efforts made in the last
30 years, imagine what Minneapolis and St. Paul would have looked like
without them.
--------------------------------------------
With its elegant bronze fountain shaded by giant oaks and the porched
and turreted houses surrounding it, St. Paul's Irvine Park is such a
pure piece of Victorianna that it's hard to believe it hasn't always
been there. But this charming corner of the city fell on bad times.
The fountain was removed in 1927, the 19th-century houses were carved
up for rooms, and by 1969 the city planned to raze the area and
replace it with public housing.
Thus was St. Paul's historic preservation movement born. Outraged
residents and the Minnesota Historical Society joined forces to save
the houses and the park. It wasn't an easy victory. One summer, after
four of the houses were torched, Tom Lutz of the Minnesota Historical
Society slept in the park to prevent more arson. But by 1978 both the
houses and the park had been renovated, and residents celebrated by
installing a replica fountain, once again the centerpiece.
Irvine Park is one of the Twin Cities' most dramatic historic
preservation victories and one of the many places that some 2,000
preservationists will visit this week when they attend the annual
conference of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. They'll
also hear Garrison Keillor expound on St. Paul's quirks, and they'll
tour both cities' riverfronts, visit historic Native American sites,
canoe down the Minnesota River and take a candlelight tour of Summit
Avenue houses.
Rightly enough, the conference is based in St. Paul, which embraced
preservation earlier than its more economically ambitious sibling.
(While St. Paul saved the 1902 Old Federal Courts Building as Landmark
Center, Minneapolis razed the 1889 Metropolitan Building and the
oldest 30 percent of its downtown.) But Minneapolis' recent
preservation successes, including the F&M Bank's revival as a Westin
Hotel and the massive Sears building's rebirth as the Midtown
Exchange, will be on the agenda as well.
To appreciate the impact of historic preservation over the last 30
years, imagine what the Twin Cities would look like without it.
The Quadriga, the four horses on the State Capitol, would be
tarnished. The St. Paul Cathedral would look dingy, and its roof would
leak. Summit Avenue would be tawdry, as it was in 1970, and some of
the houses would have been leveled. Lowertown's muscular brick and
stone warehouses would be gone, replaced with ugly 1970s
buildings--or
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
Post by Rotten
Post by William
nothing at all. The Dayton's Bluff neighborhood east of downtown would
be run down.
On the University of Minnesota East Bank campus, Jones and Nicholson
halls would be gone rather than beautifully renovated, and the
historic Knoll, the oldest part of the campus, would be decimated.
Coffman Union would still look like it did after an unfortunate 1970s
renovation, and it would still turn its back on the Mississippi River.
Along the Mississippi in Minneapolis, the appealing brick buildings
that gave birth to Pracna on Main and St. Anthony Main would be gone,
as would the West Bank mills that now house lofts, office space and
the Mill City Museum. The Stone Arch Bridge would still be encased in
chain link fence. No one would live on Nicollet Island.
Upriver, the friendly tower of the Grain Belt Brewery would be absent.
The Warehouse District would have been razed, and hundreds of houses,
parks and libraries in both cities would convey no sense of the city's
past.
Preservation hasn't solved every urban ill. Historic properties such
as the Hamm's and Schmidt breweries and the Upper Post at Fort
Snelling still daunt developers. Development and preservation still
clash, as they have on Nicollet Island over plans to install a
football field on city parkland or as they have in St. Paul over plans
to build a massive complex called The Bridges across the Mississippi
River from downtown.
But what's happened in the last 30 years is remarkable. Developers
have come to love older buildings for the character they offer.
Preservationists have come to welcome sensitive development. Residents
of the Twin Cities have come to value historic environments for their
human scale, their ties to the past and their livability.
Thirty years ago preservation seemed to focus on the past. Today it is
fueling the future.
Whatever. Do you want to live in a museum or in a real city?
New urbanism idealizes the past and makes the present seem grubby so they
can do whatever they want with old buildings to please TODAY's theory.
Welcome to your present with no past George.
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=79569&rendTypeId=4
More irrelevant comments from our champion of silly posts.
Loading...