\\\\\\ KOTH's new hood and other SF locales //////

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

Sure, of course those cities have those people, but not to the same degree as SF. In fact, I can't think of any other city where gentrification/yuppification has taken such a hold...maybe Boston? There is definitely a ubiquitous, recurring hegemony/order in many SF nabes.

Have you been to all these mysterious cities that don't have gentrification to the degree of SF? Have you been to a every nabe in SF? I'm going to take a wild guess, and say no.

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

It doesn't concern you, nor is it any of your business - don't sweat it, pal.

Maybe it's not our business what your opinion is (maybe you shouldn't have voiced it to us then), but facts (i.e. demographics) are not something that are changed by opinion. If you say something that isn't true, why shouldn't we respond to that?

[blade_bltz]

I have a solution for you. It's called Palo Alto. Least yuppified place in da Yay. And I'm not talking about it's heavily gentrified eastern brother.

[kanhawk]

Thanks for posting and I hope to see more. The candid shots of people are so great . They really "capture a moment" although the naked people at these confabs usually aren't the kind of people I actually want to see naked

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

Why are you worrying about it?

It doesn't concern you, nor is it any of your business - don't sweat it, pal.

Aw, you can't get away with that. You're the one who posted a photo essay about moving to a place and then proceeded to make provocatively negative comments about it. You're obviously trying to say something and it isn't at all clear what it is to me. And I believe I have the right to respond to your thread by asking.

Your photography is quite special. It actually implies an appreciation of the place that's at odds with your words. If you want to say you're moving to a place you don't expect to like very much for reasons that have nothing to do with photography but will take advantage of what opportunities do exist for practicing your hobby/avocation, fine. That makes sense.

But don't start a thread about moving to a new place, photograph it beautifully and, to this observer admiringly, then imply you don't actually like that place and tell someone who then asks why you're moving there and why your photos suggest the opposite of your words to piss off. That's just being obnoxious. Just say, sorry, I'd rather not explain any more--I can accept that.

[Atanga]

This is fantastic.

[sfcity1]

The photothread is interesting and captures alot of what you will see in some neighborhoods. The naked people show up in folsom street fair, bay to breakers, and other similar events, but only a few times a year.

It is true that most neighborhoods are very clean and rich and some are largely caucasion. You can definitely see lots of those rich yuppy neighborhoods in SF. But many other neighborhoods are very heterogenous, latin, asian, etc.

The festivals year round that allow drinking and live music in the streets, drinking and live music in the parks, etc. is typical of this city.

Body art is pronounced and heavily visible in a number of neighborhoods, especially in the Mission District or Lower Haight.

I moved from NYC, and NYC is the benchmark of gentrification and homogeneity of yuppy neighborhoods for people getting their first jobs in advertising, law and finance.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

Ha, thanks guys!



Hardly. Most of SF is way too sterile, yuppified and gentrified for my tastes. Huge swaths of the city come off as tame and even a bit prefabricated; definitely homogeneous.

I'd take some real, down to earth people over the classist, overprententious yuppies/hipsters and associated faux liberals anyday.

Montreal, Berlin, NYC and Buenos Aires are the only cities I feel are truly cut out for me.

read: http://devanwells.blogspot.com/2009/05/sf-yo.html



LOL, they do not! SF's people remind me most of the types you'd find on the Westside and recently gentrified locales such as Silverlake (near the reservoir and Gelsons's/Trader Joes) -- hardly emblematic of the city as a whole. Also, how the people in SF look the same as us in LA is beyond me. How can the people of SF look the same as us Angelinos when LA is 60+ % Hispanic, lol? By contrast, SF is far more uniformly white; make that, white & upscale.

So I saw all of your threads and fell in love with your photos - but then your attitude killed it.

If you don't like San Francisco, then move the heck out! It's a free country, and you can move to Brooklyn in a heartbeat if you truly wanted to.

San Francisco is hands down the most urban, sophisticated, beautiful and architecturally unique city in Western North America...I think it deserves a little more respect than just whimisically writing it off as "sterile", "uniformly white" and worse, "prefabricatedc

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Aw, you can't get away with that. You're the one who posted a photo essay about moving to a place and then proceeded to make provocatively negative comments about it. You're obviously trying to say something and it isn't at all clear what it is to me. And I believe I have the right to respond to your thread by asking.

Your photography is quite special. It actually implies an appreciation of the place that's at odds with your words. If you want to say you're moving to a place you don't expect to like very much for reasons that have nothing to do with photography but will take advantage of what opportunities do exist for practicing your hobby/avocation, fine. That makes sense.

But don't start a thread about moving to a new place, photograph it beautifully and, to this observer admiringly, then imply you don't actually like that place and tell someone who then asks why you're moving there and why your photos suggest the opposite of your words to piss off. That's just being obnoxious. Just say, sorry, I'd rather not explain any more--I can accept that.

I love how he still hasn't answered these questions.

[Ayreonaut]

He closed his account.

[ozone]

IMO ugly naked bodies are not very classy and not wanting to see them doesn't make me a prude or closed-minded -it just means I have taste. As a 40-something multisexual I really find all those tired old clichés and worn-out costumes *yawn* really boring. And to all those struggling and angry underachievers always complaining about undeserving monied muthaf'kers who have yuppified and gentrified everything.... for Ginsberg's sake get a life, move or do something worthwhile cuz bitching isn't going to do anything but make you and others miserable. BTW tattoos ..er..sorry "body art" doesn't make a fat body look any thinner. San Francisco is what it is and it's always been more expensive -it all about location, location, location sucka.

[DIABOLICALIBERTY]

He was a good photographer but a bit of a pretentious twat all things considered! He was always saying silly things in London photo threads like 'muslims are gonna takeover' and inane bollocks like that..as if anyone gives a fook!..just another attention whore methinks.Great photos though!

[dktshb]

Maybe King will open his account again and show us some South America! That would be really nice.

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

So I saw all of your threads and fell in love with your photos - but then your attitude killed it.

If you don't like San Francisco, then move the heck out! It's a free country, and you can move to Brooklyn in a heartbeat if you truly wanted to.

San Francisco is hands down the most urban, sophisticated, beautiful and architecturally unique city in Western North America...I think it deserves a little more respect than just whimisically writing it off as "sterile", "uniformly white" and worse, "prefabricatedc

Really?

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by DIABOLICALIBERTY

He was a good photographer but a bit of a pretentious twat all things considered! He was always saying silly things in London photo threads like 'muslims are gonna takeover' and inane bollocks like that..as if anyone gives a fook!..just another attention whore methinks.Great photos though!

Eccentric...yes, but I think he was one of the best photographers on the site - especially with the way he captured people and gave you an intimate feel with the city...not just the buildings.

[DIABOLICALIBERTY]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

Eccentric...yes, but I think he was one of the best photographers on the site - especially with the way he captured people and gave you an intimate feel with the city...not just the buildings.

definitely a brilliant photographer!

[BigKidD]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

So I saw all of your threads and fell in love with your photos - but then your attitude killed it.

If you don't like San Francisco, then move the heck out! It's a free country, and you can move to Brooklyn in a heartbeat if you truly wanted to.

San Francisco is hands down the most urban, sophisticated, beautiful and architecturally unique city in Western North America...I think it deserves a little more respect than just whimisically writing it off as "sterile", "uniformly white" and worse, "prefabricatedc

I will concur on some points, but it's quite a mess, in my opinion. That doesn't mean I cannot find worthy attributes out of the city and county of San Francisco.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

Eccentric...yes, but I think he was one of the best photographers on the site - especially with the way he captured people and gave you an intimate feel with the city...not just the buildings.

I too think he was one of the best photographers on the site. But I wouldn't call him eccentric. He was basically a kid--just finishing high school I think. And perhaps a tad overprivileged--I think his parents gave him a trip around the world or something as a graduation present.

I'd still like to know what suddenly turned him from hot to cold on SF so suddenly (I had a long talk with him on the phone about neighborhoods and he seemed excited about going there) and why he did not go there but went rather to Argentina (I think--that would have been fun at his age).

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by BigKidD

I will concur on some points, but it's quite a mess, in my opinion. That doesn't mean I cannot find worthy attributes out of the city and county of San Francisco.

Quite a mess? Dare I ask what that means? People make a lot of passing remarks like that on this site and never explain what they mean.

[BigKidD]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Quite a mess? Dare I ask what that means? People make a lot of passing remarks like that on this site and never explain what they mean.

Political corruption, the inability to prosecute criminals through the city's justice system, the ubiquitous "quality of life" issues in certain sections of the city. It's still a marvelous city gifted by an astounding natural environment though. Thus, I'm not overly condemning the city, but I believe it could be much improved.

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I too think he was one of the best photographers on the site. But I wouldn't call him eccentric. He was basically a kid--just finishing high school I think. And perhaps a tad overprivileged--I think his parents gave him a trip around the world or something as a graduation present.

I'd still like to know what suddenly turned him from hot to cold on SF so suddenly (I had a long talk with him on the phone about neighborhoods and he seemed excited about going there) and why he did not go there but went rather to Argentina (I think--that would have been fun at his age).

I was kind of thinking the same thing (about age and social class). He talked about the hood a lot but was obviously using some MAJOR equipment for those pics. Just young and at the age where you think you understand everything. We've all been there, and when we were there, people would tell us the same thing, and we'd think they were so lame and wrong.