As a kind of post script to my last post, I noticed that a lot of San Francisco landmarks are identified more for the legends and pop culture that they can be identified with rather than their history. It kind of makes me think of the modern nature of the city. Any thoughts?
1 comment:
J... this seems like a sound observation. It gets at a dynamic that seems to be repeated over and over historically - whatever ideas or movements are popular at whatever time have an effect on the landscape. But at that point, the landmarks aren't just buildings and structures anymore; they're ideas that get built up in peoples' minds. It would be an interesting project to think about how this dynamic gets played out in different cities...what makes SF landmarks the way they are in peoples' minds?
I was struck by something you said in your last post:
"The white art deco tower stands at the top of the city, at the summit of Telegraph Hill, which seems to be begging the tower to be an iconic symbol on the city skyline. San Francisco is to be the kind of city that has more landmarks than it knows what to do with, and all of them come from an age and symbolize that strange era when the city seemed to become it's own country."
This nicely shows how the "begging" - or the desire to see the Coit Tower in a certain way - plays against the actual historical events and decisions. The past and present stories have almost nothing to do with each other! And yet, a building remains...
Post a Comment