I don't know why SF is being so difficult about an ugly fountain, but if SF doesn't want an Apple store maybe Apple should take their business elsewhere. I'm sure there are many other cities that would be more appreciative.
There is one, and only one relevant issue for this store:
Who owns the property and does Apple's plans have their support?
If the answer is Yes, it shouldn't matter what the mayor thinks or some Ellsworth Toohey douchebag at a newspaper thinks. They have NO RIGHT to stop Apple and the property owner from doing what they want.
This shows how corrupt government is. Government is supposed to protect rights, not violate them.
If they stop Apple from building the store the want the way they want, they are criminals and belong in jail.
This is what Liberty is. This is what this country was founded on and what every politician claims to protect.
The very idea that Apple has to get permission from the City or some "preservation board" is offensive to everyone who believes in human rights.
If Apple were doing something that violated the rights of the property owner, or was a danger to people, that would be one thing... but that's not the case here.
The writer can express whatever ignorant opinion he wants.
But anyone who stops Apple from doing what they want with this land (other than the current land owner) is a criminal, and belongs in jail.
This is also how countries fall-- you start to think that dipshits like the mayor or "preservationists" have the right to violate human rights and pretty soon there are no rights.
There is one, and only one relevant issue for this store:
Who owns the property and does Apple's plans have their support?
If the answer is Yes, it shouldn't matter what the mayor thinks or some Ellsworth Toohey douchebag at a newspaper thinks. They have NO RIGHT to stop Apple and the property owner from doing what they want. [ ...the rest of naive rant...]
There are all kinds of rules and regulations imposed by cities regarding buildings. Apple has dealt with this many times before. It is just part of doing business, no big deal. Just because you own a property doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. You have to get permits, environmental reviews, traffic and pedestrian impact studies, on, and on, and on. Now if you happen to be in a historic district then things get really complicated with neighborhood meetings, etc. It generally works out with a compromise on both sides.
There is one, and only one relevant issue for this store:
Who owns the property and does Apple's plans have their support?
If the answer is Yes, it shouldn't matter what the mayor thinks or some Ellsworth Toohey douchebag at a newspaper thinks. They have NO RIGHT to stop Apple and the property owner from doing what they want.
This shows how corrupt government is. Government is supposed to protect rights, not violate them.
If they stop Apple from building the store the want the way they want, they are criminals and belong in jail.
This is what Liberty is. This is what this country was founded on and what every politician claims to protect.
The very idea that Apple has to get permission from the City or some "preservation board" is offensive to everyone who believes in human rights.
If Apple were doing something that violated the rights of the property owner, or was a danger to people, that would be one thing... but that's not the case here.
The writer can express whatever ignorant opinion he wants.
But anyone who stops Apple from doing what they want with this land (other than the current land owner) is a criminal, and belongs in jail.
This is also how countries fall-- you start to think that dipshits like the mayor or "preservationists" have the right to violate human rights and pretty soon there are no rights.
You'd be surprised what the city government can dictate what one can or cannot do with their property. It's called the building department. They issue building permits and thus in charge of what work they'll allow or disallow.
IF people really like this fountain, they can buy it when the property owner auctions it off. They can raise money and make a bid for it.
NOBODY, other than the owner of the property, has the right to "preserve" that fountain.
just one of dozens of ignorant comments here. the founatain and plaza were required as condidtions of the adjacent hotel project's approval way back when, and that obligation is still binding. the Levi Store was orignally a restaurant entered from the Plaza, but Levis' ruined that already. the fountain has been enjoyed by tens of thousands of people over the years - its dozens of humerous details of local landmarks are fun. whereas Apple could build its fancy new store anyplace, but wants to be on Union Square merely for the "prestige" location.
two points:
Apple has zero chance to get this project approved by the City as is.
all you guys who are so dismissive of our local SF values - go f-up your own cities.
"People should basically just stop with the "it's ugly" or "it's not art" comments because it's completely irrelevant anyway."
True, the relevant issue is, it's private property owned by the hotel.
Per the article: "The Grand Hyatt Hotel, which owns the plaza and the fountain, says it's too premature to address any potential changes to Apple's proposal."
Private property is subject to permitting etc. BUT that is, still, private property not "San Francisco".
More lawyers, sigh.
Apple, as part of the mitigation process most any permit includes, could reasonably be expected to pay for a reinstallation of the fountain at another, perhaps public park, locale, as well as perhaps open up the Stockton Street side wall with street level glass perhaps, all part of the negotiating process whenever a project is done.
just one of dozens of ignorant comments here. the founatain and plaza were required as condidtions of the adjacent hotel project's approval way back when, and that obligation is still binding. the Levi Store was orignally a restaurant entered from the Plaza, but Levis' ruined that already. the fountain has been enjoyed by tens of thousands of people over the years - its dozens of humerous details of local landmarks are fun. whereas Apple could build its fancy new store anyplace, but wants to be on Union Square merely for the "prestige" location.
two points:
Apple has zero chance to get this project approved by the City as is.
all you guys who are so dismissive of our local SF values - go f-up your own cities.
I'm born and raised in San Francisco and going on 45 years old. I have generations of family living here. Hell, I'm older than that fountain. You do not speak for me, and many of my neighbors that have been here far longer than even I have been. Whatever you may think our "Local SF values" are, one thing is for certain, my city is more screwed up than most other places and our elected officials have f-ed it up pretty well. When other cities buy their homeless citizens a one-way bus ticket to San Francisco because they know we will gladly accept their problems and my hard-earned tax dollars pays for this while no one fixes my potholes and pays our teachers, while bus drivers are earning 6-figure salaries with lifetime benefits while I scrape by, there's not much room left to go downhill.
If that fountain is so important, move it to the plaza itself so people can actually SEE it. I for one will GLADLY have a high revenue-generating, tax-paying and job creating business there than some rarely-seen fixture that you bestow way more credit than it deserves.
Fricken libtard mentality. I wonder if you're a San Francisco native, or just some transplant from somewhere else that has a false-belief that living here a few years suddenly qualifies you as knowing what's best for MY city. The reality is our current SF values are seriously screwed-up and an embarrassment. There's a reason SF is a mockery in the US.
just one of dozens of ignorant comments here. the founatain and plaza were required as condidtions of the adjacent hotel project's approval way back when, and that obligation is still binding. the Levi Store was orignally a restaurant entered from the Plaza, but Levis' ruined that already. the fountain has been enjoyed by tens of thousands of people over the years - its dozens of humerous details of local landmarks are fun. whereas Apple could build its fancy new store anyplace, but wants to be on Union Square merely for the "prestige" location.
two points:
Apple has zero chance to get this project approved by the City as is.
all you guys who are so dismissive of our local SF values - go f-up your own cities.
I do find the fountain ugly but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, I guess. I can see how this fountain might represent the values of many SF citizens but I am equally sure it doesn't represent 'the city's values' as such. I certainly hope not. Regardless, you must be an old curmudgeon - you speak as if FANCY is a derogatory term describing the Apple store. And you dismiss Apple for to be in Union Square merely for the "prestige" location. Well... YEAH! Of course. That is the point, isn't it? Perhaps the fountain would be better served if it was moved to a less prestige location?
Fricken libtard mentality. I wonder if you're a San Francisco native, or just some transplant from somewhere else that has a false-belief that living here a few years suddenly qualifies you as knowing what's best for MY city. The reality is our current SF values are seriously screwed-up and an embarrassment. There's a reason SF is a mockery in the US.
Let me guess, you're probably an Ammiano fan too?
Move the damn fountain.
Holy crap - another curmudgeon. Are there a lot of you in SF?
"People should basically just stop with the "it's ugly" or "it's not art" comments because it's completely irrelevant anyway."
True, the relevant issue is, it's private property owned by the hotel.
Per the article: "The Grand Hyatt Hotel, which owns the plaza and the fountain, says it's too premature to address any potential changes to Apple's proposal."
Private property is subject to permitting etc. BUT that is, still, private property not "San Francisco".
More lawyers, sigh.
It was a different time back then. Union Square was not the place it is now. Times have changed, Union Square has changed, priorities changed. It's a fact of life. Union Square was originally a lush and green park, enjoyed by people of a different era in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Then, it slowly decayed into a homeless camp with syringe needles in the bushes. People started complaining, avoiding it, and business took a hit. I do miss the garden aspect of Union Square and at first was horrified when they ripped up the square and turned it into what it is now. It was the best decision they made as it became a hub of bustling activity, arts and shows, and an ice-skating rink during Christmas.
Someone decided that the old had to leave to make way for the new.
It being private property may be a better thing. If I were the land-owner and the city wanted to play hardball with me by denying me the right to generate even more income from my investment, all the while the city denying itself even more tax-revenue, I'd shut down the Levi's store, put plywood on all the windows, maybe even let the homeless people squat in it and ruin the square. I'll bet the politicians and the office of building-inspection will change their tune quickly.
Holy crap - another curmudgeon. Are there a lot of you in SF?
So I'm a curmudgeon because I care about my city generating tax revenue, and wanting to make my city a better place for my tax-paying family, business, consumers, and tourists over having some rarely-seen sculpture in an area that most don't even know is there? I don't want the fountain destroyed. That would be a shame. I think it should be moved somewhere in the square itself to be appreciated by all.
I hope there are plenty more like me in SF. I'm sick of politicians being yes-men to everyone else except to those that actually pay their over-inflated salaries.
Fricken libtard mentality. I wonder if you're a San Francisco native, or just some transplant from somewhere else that has a false-belief that living here a few years suddenly qualifies you as knowing what's best for MY city. The reality is our current SF values are seriously screwed-up and an embarrassment. There's a reason SF is a mockery in the US.
Let me guess, you're probably an Ammiano fan too?
Move the damn fountain.
Holy crap - another curmudgeon. Are there a lot of you in SF?
I am guessing that SF has fewer than most other places.....
It was a different time back then. Union Square was not the place it is now. Times have changed, Union Square has changed, priorities changed. It's a fact of life. Union Square was originally a lush and green park, enjoyed by people of a different era in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Then, it slowly decayed into a homeless camp with syringe needles in the bushes. People started complaining, avoiding it, and business took a hit. I do miss the garden aspect of Union Square and at first was horrified when they ripped up the square and turned it into what it is now. It was the best decision they made as it became a hub of bustling activity, arts and shows, and an ice-skating rink during Christmas.
Someone decided that the old had to leave to make way for the new.
It being private property may be a better thing. If I were the land-owner and the city wanted to play hardball with me by denying me the right to generate even more income from my investment, all the while the city denying itself even more tax-revenue, I'd shut down the Levi's store, put plywood on all the windows, maybe even let the homeless people squat in it and ruin the square. I'll bet the politicians and the office of building-inspection will change their tune quickly.
True, I've seen that "hardscaping" conversion from San Diego to New York City. Radical changes in plantings as well to eliminate ANY hidden places. Often with a lot of local, vocal, discussion. Washington Square Park was and is a classic of that sort of transition and IMHO, it's better for it.
I do think some pedestrian level glass panelling on Stockton might not be a design killer.... open up that side of the store. But then I'm a huge fan of views.
It is not beloved. It sits on the steps of a strange, somewhat abandoned dead-end plaza that is bordered by Levi's store entrance and the side of the Grand Hyatt Hotel. Most SF residents avoid that area because it is populated by out-of-town shoppers and the homeless. An Apple Store would definitely draw more business to that corner. I am sure the local businesses would prefer an Apple Store over a fountain that nobody realized was there until last week. The fountain should be moved elsewhere... maybe at one the BART stations so others may bathe in it.
So I'm a curmudgeon because I care about my city generating tax revenue, and wanting to make my city a better place for my tax-paying family, business, consumers, and tourists over having some rarely-seen sculpture in an area that most don't even know is there? I don't want the fountain destroyed. That would be a shame. I think it should be moved somewhere in the square itself to be appreciated by all.
I hope there are plenty more like me in SF. I'm sick of politicians being yes-men to everyone else except to those that actually pay their over-inflated salaries.
No - it was the grumpy tone of your comment, and your grouping everything that's wrong into a 'libtard' classification (Classic curmudgeon wether left or right leaning). You are obviously smarter than that. I am sick of politician being yes-men, too. I'd like them to lead with vision and conviction, not by the sway of money. But much as I am not crazy about the fountain I don't think it should be destroyed if SF'ers like it. There are many things that seem ugly and graceless that once was viewed as the opposite, and vice versa. Like design, taste is not a static absolute thing.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by msimpson
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
End of the Vietnam war was sort of a big deal, but then you were probably not around at the time, were you?
Except the Vietnam War was not over in 1973. It lasted until 1975. I was around at the time.
Sorry I should have been more specific.
U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973.
The Vietnamese Army continued fighting until 1975 ending with the fall of Saigon.
I don't know why SF is being so difficult about an ugly fountain, but if SF doesn't want an Apple store maybe Apple should take their business elsewhere. I'm sure there are many other cities that would be more appreciative.
Who owns the property and does Apple's plans have their support?
If the answer is Yes, it shouldn't matter what the mayor thinks or some Ellsworth Toohey douchebag at a newspaper thinks. They have NO RIGHT to stop Apple and the property owner from doing what they want.
This shows how corrupt government is. Government is supposed to protect rights, not violate them.
If they stop Apple from building the store the want the way they want, they are criminals and belong in jail.
This is what Liberty is. This is what this country was founded on and what every politician claims to protect.
The very idea that Apple has to get permission from the City or some "preservation board" is offensive to everyone who believes in human rights.
If Apple were doing something that violated the rights of the property owner, or was a danger to people, that would be one thing... but that's not the case here.
The writer can express whatever ignorant opinion he wants.
But anyone who stops Apple from doing what they want with this land (other than the current land owner) is a criminal, and belongs in jail.
This is also how countries fall-- you start to think that dipshits like the mayor or "preservationists" have the right to violate human rights and pretty soon there are no rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msimpson
Good for San Francisco. Stand up for what is important.
Violating property rights is important? Really?
IF people really like this fountain, they can buy it when the property owner auctions it off. They can raise money and make a bid for it.
NOBODY, other than the owner of the property, has the right to "preserve" that fountain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
There is one, and only one relevant issue for this store:
Who owns the property and does Apple's plans have their support?
If the answer is Yes, it shouldn't matter what the mayor thinks or some Ellsworth Toohey douchebag at a newspaper thinks. They have NO RIGHT to stop Apple and the property owner from doing what they want. [ ...the rest of naive rant...]
There are all kinds of rules and regulations imposed by cities regarding buildings. Apple has dealt with this many times before. It is just part of doing business, no big deal. Just because you own a property doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. You have to get permits, environmental reviews, traffic and pedestrian impact studies, on, and on, and on. Now if you happen to be in a historic district then things get really complicated with neighborhood meetings, etc. It generally works out with a compromise on both sides.
You'd be surprised what the city government can dictate what one can or cannot do with their property. It's called the building department. They issue building permits and thus in charge of what work they'll allow or disallow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
Violating property rights is important? Really?
IF people really like this fountain, they can buy it when the property owner auctions it off. They can raise money and make a bid for it.
NOBODY, other than the owner of the property, has the right to "preserve" that fountain.
just one of dozens of ignorant comments here. the founatain and plaza were required as condidtions of the adjacent hotel project's approval way back when, and that obligation is still binding. the Levi Store was orignally a restaurant entered from the Plaza, but Levis' ruined that already. the fountain has been enjoyed by tens of thousands of people over the years - its dozens of humerous details of local landmarks are fun. whereas Apple could build its fancy new store anyplace, but wants to be on Union Square merely for the "prestige" location.
two points:
Apple has zero chance to get this project approved by the City as is.
all you guys who are so dismissive of our local SF values - go f-up your own cities.
"People should basically just stop with the "it's ugly" or "it's not art" comments because it's completely irrelevant anyway."
True, the relevant issue is, it's private property owned by the hotel.
Per the article: "The Grand Hyatt Hotel, which owns the plaza and the fountain, says it's too premature to address any potential changes to Apple's proposal."
Private property is subject to permitting etc. BUT that is, still, private property not "San Francisco".
More lawyers, sigh.
Apple, as part of the mitigation process most any permit includes, could reasonably be expected to pay for a reinstallation of the fountain at another, perhaps public park, locale, as well as perhaps open up the Stockton Street side wall with street level glass perhaps, all part of the negotiating process whenever a project is done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr
just one of dozens of ignorant comments here. the founatain and plaza were required as condidtions of the adjacent hotel project's approval way back when, and that obligation is still binding. the Levi Store was orignally a restaurant entered from the Plaza, but Levis' ruined that already. the fountain has been enjoyed by tens of thousands of people over the years - its dozens of humerous details of local landmarks are fun. whereas Apple could build its fancy new store anyplace, but wants to be on Union Square merely for the "prestige" location.
two points:
Apple has zero chance to get this project approved by the City as is.
all you guys who are so dismissive of our local SF values - go f-up your own cities.
I'm born and raised in San Francisco and going on 45 years old. I have generations of family living here. Hell, I'm older than that fountain. You do not speak for me, and many of my neighbors that have been here far longer than even I have been. Whatever you may think our "Local SF values" are, one thing is for certain, my city is more screwed up than most other places and our elected officials have f-ed it up pretty well. When other cities buy their homeless citizens a one-way bus ticket to San Francisco because they know we will gladly accept their problems and my hard-earned tax dollars pays for this while no one fixes my potholes and pays our teachers, while bus drivers are earning 6-figure salaries with lifetime benefits while I scrape by, there's not much room left to go downhill.
If that fountain is so important, move it to the plaza itself so people can actually SEE it. I for one will GLADLY have a high revenue-generating, tax-paying and job creating business there than some rarely-seen fixture that you bestow way more credit than it deserves.
Fricken libtard mentality. I wonder if you're a San Francisco native, or just some transplant from somewhere else that has a false-belief that living here a few years suddenly qualifies you as knowing what's best for MY city. The reality is our current SF values are seriously screwed-up and an embarrassment. There's a reason SF is a mockery in the US.
Let me guess, you're probably an Ammiano fan too?
Move the damn fountain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr
just one of dozens of ignorant comments here. the founatain and plaza were required as condidtions of the adjacent hotel project's approval way back when, and that obligation is still binding. the Levi Store was orignally a restaurant entered from the Plaza, but Levis' ruined that already. the fountain has been enjoyed by tens of thousands of people over the years - its dozens of humerous details of local landmarks are fun. whereas Apple could build its fancy new store anyplace, but wants to be on Union Square merely for the "prestige" location.
two points:
Apple has zero chance to get this project approved by the City as is.
all you guys who are so dismissive of our local SF values - go f-up your own cities.
I do find the fountain ugly but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, I guess. I can see how this fountain might represent the values of many SF citizens but I am equally sure it doesn't represent 'the city's values' as such. I certainly hope not. Regardless, you must be an old curmudgeon - you speak as if FANCY is a derogatory term describing the Apple store. And you dismiss Apple for to be in Union Square merely for the "prestige" location. Well... YEAH! Of course. That is the point, isn't it? Perhaps the fountain would be better served if it was moved to a less prestige location?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
Fricken libtard mentality. I wonder if you're a San Francisco native, or just some transplant from somewhere else that has a false-belief that living here a few years suddenly qualifies you as knowing what's best for MY city. The reality is our current SF values are seriously screwed-up and an embarrassment. There's a reason SF is a mockery in the US.
Let me guess, you're probably an Ammiano fan too?
Move the damn fountain.
Holy crap - another curmudgeon. Are there a lot of you in SF?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138
"People should basically just stop with the "it's ugly" or "it's not art" comments because it's completely irrelevant anyway."
True, the relevant issue is, it's private property owned by the hotel.
Per the article: "The Grand Hyatt Hotel, which owns the plaza and the fountain, says it's too premature to address any potential changes to Apple's proposal."
Private property is subject to permitting etc. BUT that is, still, private property not "San Francisco".
More lawyers, sigh.
It was a different time back then. Union Square was not the place it is now. Times have changed, Union Square has changed, priorities changed. It's a fact of life. Union Square was originally a lush and green park, enjoyed by people of a different era in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Then, it slowly decayed into a homeless camp with syringe needles in the bushes. People started complaining, avoiding it, and business took a hit. I do miss the garden aspect of Union Square and at first was horrified when they ripped up the square and turned it into what it is now. It was the best decision they made as it became a hub of bustling activity, arts and shows, and an ice-skating rink during Christmas.
Someone decided that the old had to leave to make way for the new.
It being private property may be a better thing. If I were the land-owner and the city wanted to play hardball with me by denying me the right to generate even more income from my investment, all the while the city denying itself even more tax-revenue, I'd shut down the Levi's store, put plywood on all the windows, maybe even let the homeless people squat in it and ruin the square. I'll bet the politicians and the office of building-inspection will change their tune quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
Holy crap - another curmudgeon. Are there a lot of you in SF?
So I'm a curmudgeon because I care about my city generating tax revenue, and wanting to make my city a better place for my tax-paying family, business, consumers, and tourists over having some rarely-seen sculpture in an area that most don't even know is there? I don't want the fountain destroyed. That would be a shame. I think it should be moved somewhere in the square itself to be appreciated by all.
I hope there are plenty more like me in SF. I'm sick of politicians being yes-men to everyone else except to those that actually pay their over-inflated salaries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
Fricken libtard mentality. I wonder if you're a San Francisco native, or just some transplant from somewhere else that has a false-belief that living here a few years suddenly qualifies you as knowing what's best for MY city. The reality is our current SF values are seriously screwed-up and an embarrassment. There's a reason SF is a mockery in the US.
Let me guess, you're probably an Ammiano fan too?
Move the damn fountain.
Holy crap - another curmudgeon. Are there a lot of you in SF?
I am guessing that SF has fewer than most other places.....
He does have a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
It was a different time back then. Union Square was not the place it is now. Times have changed, Union Square has changed, priorities changed. It's a fact of life. Union Square was originally a lush and green park, enjoyed by people of a different era in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Then, it slowly decayed into a homeless camp with syringe needles in the bushes. People started complaining, avoiding it, and business took a hit. I do miss the garden aspect of Union Square and at first was horrified when they ripped up the square and turned it into what it is now. It was the best decision they made as it became a hub of bustling activity, arts and shows, and an ice-skating rink during Christmas.
Someone decided that the old had to leave to make way for the new.
It being private property may be a better thing. If I were the land-owner and the city wanted to play hardball with me by denying me the right to generate even more income from my investment, all the while the city denying itself even more tax-revenue, I'd shut down the Levi's store, put plywood on all the windows, maybe even let the homeless people squat in it and ruin the square. I'll bet the politicians and the office of building-inspection will change their tune quickly.
True, I've seen that "hardscaping" conversion from San Diego to New York City. Radical changes in plantings as well to eliminate ANY hidden places. Often with a lot of local, vocal, discussion. Washington Square Park was and is a classic of that sort of transition and IMHO, it's better for it.
I do think some pedestrian level glass panelling on Stockton might not be a design killer.... open up that side of the store. But then I'm a huge fan of views.
with all due respects, it looks ugly :[
It is not beloved. It sits on the steps of a strange, somewhat abandoned dead-end plaza that is bordered by Levi's store entrance and the side of the Grand Hyatt Hotel. Most SF residents avoid that area because it is populated by out-of-town shoppers and the homeless. An Apple Store would definitely draw more business to that corner. I am sure the local businesses would prefer an Apple Store over a fountain that nobody realized was there until last week. The fountain should be moved elsewhere... maybe at one the BART stations so others may bathe in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
So I'm a curmudgeon because I care about my city generating tax revenue, and wanting to make my city a better place for my tax-paying family, business, consumers, and tourists over having some rarely-seen sculpture in an area that most don't even know is there? I don't want the fountain destroyed. That would be a shame. I think it should be moved somewhere in the square itself to be appreciated by all.
I hope there are plenty more like me in SF. I'm sick of politicians being yes-men to everyone else except to those that actually pay their over-inflated salaries.
No - it was the grumpy tone of your comment, and your grouping everything that's wrong into a 'libtard' classification (Classic curmudgeon wether left or right leaning). You are obviously smarter than that. I am sick of politician being yes-men, too. I'd like them to lead with vision and conviction, not by the sway of money. But much as I am not crazy about the fountain I don't think it should be destroyed if SF'ers like it. There are many things that seem ugly and graceless that once was viewed as the opposite, and vice versa. Like design, taste is not a static absolute thing.