Coit tower is one of my favorite landmarks of San Francisco. Whenever I go there, I see it from almost anywhere in the city. According to the internet, and especially wikipedia.com (which by the way has great information about San Francisco!), Coit tower has been a major part of pop culture in San Francisco since it was built in 1933. The sad thing about a landmark like Coit tower is that it becomes so commonplace that it is often ignored as just a part of the same old San Francisco skyline. But when you start to look for it, a rich and interesting history is revealed. Alfred Hitchcock said that he used it in Vertigo as a phallic symbol. One legend says that the tower was built to resemble a fire hose nozzle because of it's benefactress's "affinity with firefighters." But in all the years that I have gone to San Francisco for one reason or another, I have never seen or heard very much about this famous San Francisco landmark, perhaps because it seems to symbolize something different to everyone, almost the same way that the city of San Francisco does to all that see it. The Coit tower, though, when taken in the context of the age of imperialism in the city, seems to take on a different meaning. 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. Seeing the images of Coit tower reminded of some of the ads that Brechin put in his book, again because of those images that invoke a feeling of San Francisco imperialism and individualism.
Discussion Question: Do you think that Brechin accurately portrays the individualistic nature of San Francisco as a city? What do you think of Brechin's portrayal of the city in general?
2 comments:
I also chose to write on Coit Tower, and the history of it is actually quite cool.
As for Brechin's portrayal of the city, I believe he is right on target. San Francisco, while strong and wealthy, draws on all the health and resources of California, and even beyond the limits of the state. While we strive to be a "green," "healthy," "environmentalist" area, we mooch off of endless expanses of land, water, and whatever else we might need to sustain it. I think Brechin definitely get the idea.
I think Brechin's interpretation is as accurate as it can be; San Francisco is probably the most perception-based city in the world. That sounded kind of dumb but what I mean is every single person has a completely different view on it, and while Brechin's environmentally-charged commentary is definitely a solid, "right" view on the City, you can't really have a 100% complete grasp on it from just one person's point of view.
Post a Comment