Random Fashion Thoughts (Part 3: Style farmer strikes back) - our general discussion thread

[cyc wid it]

Richard Sennett, a sociologist, thinks those kinds of cities are the best. The noisy, unruly, and even slightly unsafe cities where people are constantly hawking, screaming, and moving. He calls them "open cities."

https://www.richardsennett.com/site/senn/UploadedResources/The Open City.pdf

TBH, I agree with him. I personally dislike the super safe, planned spaces of suburbia, where you have to have a car and everything feels predictable and homogenized. IMO, cities make for better cultural spaces precisely because they have communities like gutter punks (although many, like San Francisco, are becoming gentrified and homogenized). The existence of gutter punks means a city can be more dissonant and incoherent, and thus offers a more interesting life.

I'm happy to visit cities, but prefer to live in quiet, predictable, homogenized places.

 

[justridiculous]

Richard Sennett, a sociologist, thinks those kinds of cities are the best. The noisy, unruly, and even slightly unsafe cities where people are constantly hawking, screaming, and moving. He calls them "open cities."

https://www.richardsennett.com/site/senn/UploadedResources/The Open City.pdf

TBH, I agree with him. I personally dislike the super safe, planned spaces of suburbia, where you have to have a car and everything feels predictable and homogenized. IMO, cities make for better cultural spaces precisely because they have communities like gutter punks (although many, like San Francisco, are becoming gentrified and homogenized). The existence of gutter punks means a city can be more dissonant and incoherent, and thus offers a more interesting life.

I'm not arguing for a super safe suburbia (my wife and I still choose to live in the city), but I think a relatively safe and clean city is a reasonable expectation. I don't think it's acceptable for a city to tell one part of the population (in this case, homeless people) that they can hang out/live/sleep wherever they want, leaving trash and ruining public spaces with no real repercussions, while the other part of the population has to side-step camps of people on sidewalks and step over sleeping bags and human feces when walking out of their buildings.

Also, Portland has always been homogenized. It's pretty much all white, middle-class, politically and socially liberal people who gentrify any neighborhood they can get their hands on. There's a history behind why it's so white (almost 80% white in 2019); namely the fact that Oregon was meant to be a racist utopia after the end of the Civil War. But, now it's just becoming a really filthy homogenized city and in an attempt to appear tolerant and well-meaning, the city does nothing to maintain some level of cleanliness and safety for its people.

 

[dieworkwear]

I'm not arguing for a super safe suburbia (my wife and I still choose to live in the city), but I think a relatively safe and clean city is a reasonable expectation. I don't think it's acceptable for a city to tell one part of the population (in this case, homeless people) that they can hang out/live/sleep wherever they want, leaving trash and ruining public spaces with no real repercussions, while the other part of the population has to side-step camps of people on sidewalks and step over sleeping bags and human feces when walking out of their buildings.

Also, Portland has always been homogenized. It's pretty much all white, middle-class, politically and socially liberal people who gentrify any neighborhood they can get their hands on. There's a history behind why it's so white (almost 80% white in 2019); namely the fact that Oregon was meant to be a racist utopia after the end of the Civil War. But, now it's just becoming a really filthy homogenized city and in an attempt to appear tolerant and well-meaning, the city does nothing to maintain some level of cleanliness and safety for its people.

If you haven't already, you may want to read Sennett's paper. I can't do it justice in a StyleForum post, but his point is basically: the more unruly, the better, because it means the city is more democratic and lively. His ideal isn't even, like, NYC. It's the South American city where buildings are half jerry-rigged by tenants and even squatters.

Actually, just remembered he's given talks about this, which are available on YouTube. I feel like it's easier to read the paper, but if someone wants to listen to something while washing dishes or commuting, his talks are great.

Spoiler

 

[justridiculous]

If you haven't already, you may want to read Sennett's paper. I can't do it justice in a StyleForum post, but his point is basically: the more unruly, the better, because it means the city is more democratic and lively. His ideal isn't even, like, NYC. It's the South American city where buildings are half jerry-rigged by tenants and even squatters.

I'll read it later today.

I think unruly in terms of liveliness is fine, so long as there's some semblance of order. It's nice to romanticize a vibrant city life that's bustling with people of different socio-economic statuses, cultures, background, etc., but in reality, this doesn't end of happening in places like Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, and other major U.S. cities. What happens is that one segment of the population exists solely to consume the resources and not contribute to the city's life and economy (a generalized statement, I know; I'm still speaking of gutter/crust punks). In South American, Asian, Eastern European, and Middle Eastern cities where you see the ideal of which he's speaking, you see people who are living in the city and contributing to it (working odd jobs, selling things, etc.), and there's an order to how everyone in that city lives. And in those places, being in poverty is not a choice of lifestyle, it's a reality of life that has been dealt to certain people and it's incredibly difficult to change one's situation.

 

[Coldsnap]

Crust punk is alive and well here in New Zealand.

I do high/low all the time, but I also saw a guy in a coffee shop in Pittsburgh this weekend in black Patagonia baggies, black destroyed Vans, and a black vintage monster truck tour tank top, and I was so taken by the scumbag appeal that I may never return to the high side of things

in summertime Patagonia baggies are life.

richmond, va, although we don't see as many these days

Ah, great city. When I lived in Raleigh I would visit Richmond VA all the time , really love that place.

 

[penanceroyaltea]

Richard Sennett, a sociologist, thinks those kinds of cities are the best. The noisy, unruly, and even slightly unsafe cities where people are constantly hawking, screaming, and moving. He calls them "open cities."

https://www.richardsennett.com/site/senn/UploadedResources/The Open City.pdf

TBH, I agree with him. I personally dislike the super safe, planned spaces of suburbia, where you have to have a car and everything feels predictable and homogenized. IMO, cities make for better cultural spaces precisely because they have communities like gutter punks (although many, like San Francisco, are becoming gentrified and homogenized). The existence of gutter punks means a city can be more dissonant and incoherent, and thus offers a more interesting life.

You’re one certain type of masochist

 

[dfagdfsh]

he's right though. city life is fun. there's a certain charm to leaving your tailor with a nicely tailored eidos suit and walking past homeless dudes pissing on the street corner and a drug deal in progress.

 

[dieworkwear]

You’re one certain type of masochist

StyleForum?

 

[Benesyed]

Richard Sennett, a sociologist, thinks those kinds of cities are the best. The noisy, unruly, and even slightly unsafe cities where people are constantly hawking, screaming, and moving. He calls them "open cities."

https://www.richardsennett.com/site/senn/UploadedResources/The Open City.pdf

TBH, I agree with him. I personally dislike the super safe, planned spaces of suburbia, where you have to have a car and everything feels predictable and homogenized. IMO, cities make for better cultural spaces precisely because they have communities like gutter punks (although many, like San Francisco, are becoming gentrified and homogenized). The existence of gutter punks means a city can be more dissonant and incoherent, and thus offers a more interesting life.

I like the in between. Like Providence. I do wish they would outlaw pan handling but sadly they haven't. Thankfully the North East is abrasive enough that there's not many people out begging

 

[dieworkwear]

One of the nice things about wearing a sport coat in the Bay Area is that everyone assumes you're Republican, so they don't ask anything from you.

 

[penanceroyaltea]

One of the nice things about wearing a sport coat in the Bay Area is that everyone assumes you're Republican, so they don't ask anything from you.

buy Kapital still end up looking like a crust punk

the true high low

Dat you though

 

[double00]

metro bay area is anything but open it's quite inhumane imo.

 

[mmmargeologist]

Richard Sennett, a sociologist, thinks those kinds of cities are the best. The noisy, unruly, and even slightly unsafe cities where people are constantly hawking, screaming, and moving. He calls them "open cities."

https://www.richardsennett.com/site/senn/UploadedResources/The Open City.pdf

TBH, I agree with him. I personally dislike the super safe, planned spaces of suburbia, where you have to have a car and everything feels predictable and homogenized. IMO, cities make for better cultural spaces precisely because they have communities like gutter punks (although many, like San Francisco, are becoming gentrified and homogenized). The existence of gutter punks means a city can be more dissonant and incoherent, and thus offers a more interesting life.

The problem with San Francisco is that it’s way too expensive. California is a veritable feudal State. Either inherit or marry into property or be relegated to serfdom.

 

[sinnedk]

One of the nice things about wearing a sport coat in the Bay Area is that everyone assumes you're Republican, so they don't ask anything from you.

i was joking with a friend and told them if they want peace and quiet in sf/bay area wear a MAGA hat

 

[FlyingMonkey]

The 'crust punks' you're talking about here used to be much more of a thing in Britain, where they are just known as 'crusties' - their heyday was the late eighties to late nineties and they really came out of the post-punk anarchist scene and were associated with the radical animal rights movement and environmental activism. I'm not sure whether the British scene influenced the US or vice-versa or has no real connection...

Whoever mentioned Kapital though - it's not actually a joke. I think the label was very influenced by this kind of street style, based on a mixture of military surplus, cheap no-brand basics, 'ethnic' patterns, and heavy boots.

Oh, and as an urban studies researcher, I totally agree with Richard Sennett on what makes cities interesting and worthwhile. I never thought I'd see it being discussed here...