mromano18

mromano18 is a Reader contributor. See staff page for published articles.

Comments by mromano18

SOHO vs. Developers: What’s Worth Saving in San Diego?

Wow, ok. In reading this article the thought occurred to me that there may be a secret alliance of history-hating developers paying off this guy. Or that once he was exploring a beautiful Queen Anne Victorian over in Golden Hill and a termite-eaten beam hit him in the head. Maybe both. First of all, San Diego is damn lucky to even have an org like SOHO that wields any kind of influence. Many historic cities and towns in CA have been completely obliterated into seas of sprawl, malls and highrises, with only a kitschy downtown preserved as an afterthought (nearby Temecula is a good example, without the highrises). Obviously the Mills act doesn't contribute to gentrification. Look at OH, EVERY GENTRIFIED NEIGHBORHOOD IN SAN DIEGO (East village [really depressing nowadays], North Park, Hillcrest, La Jolla [especially sad here with the multi-storeys obstructing the waterfront])- all "improved" by obliterating old buildings and installing massive, incongruous new ones. Property values are kept depressed by historic designations, because you can't turn a 3-bedroom Craftsman into a 400-unit condo complex when you can't tear it down... EXACTLY LIKE MILLS SAID. The "Anglo" argument about Old Town in ludicrous. One could also argue that the banally reconstructed 60s simulacrum of a "Mexican" Old Town is far more "anglo" because it represented what the white tourists wanted to see. I'm frankly shocked that this didn't occur to Ortiz or the writer. Stripping it of modern constructs is exactly the point of SOHO managing the project. In the end, Mills is right. SD development is just about money and not about charm, authenticity, or art/architecture and its inherent cultural value. Moving to SF, bye
— September 29, 2010 3:28 p.m.