> These people don't tend to be very positive about it, yet they feel the need to say something about my appearance, because I wear colorful stuff.
I'm a man and I've recently started wearing a lot of "Hawaiian" shirts (loud, colorful prints) and I get a lot of compliments on the street. Not sure if it's about the color or about wearing something that reads as a "party" shirt, though.
if you dress a way that you are not, people will get mad, and if you do, they are happy.
this thread wasn't talking about fashion choices anyway. the reason for this is totally uninteresting. we're seeing the circumstances of assets like cars and houses being sold to future people and surviving, and the ones that future people by have less of the prior owner's personality to them.
why are new houses so boxy and drab? consider that the brutalist VA building in Chicago and federal building in boston are equally as historically important, if not more so, than your average twee little crumbling victorian in san francisco. but hey, you can demolish the "ugly" buildings and critically, do something fuck all different with the land, than those absolutely destitute sticks buildings. i don't think the economic stories are interesting.
The absolute destitute sticks buildings stay up out of some perverse mixture of house-as-investment (instead of land-as-investment), American house building culture, the state of construction in this country, and a really misplaced desire for “historical” preservation of “neighborhood character”.
The Victorian houses are nice but they all need to go.
I don't know shit about San Francisco (which I assume you're talking about here), but I'm very glad that Baltimore isn't knocking down all of our 1890s brick-and-masonry rowhome shells to put up more 4+1 apartment complexes.
I'm a man and I've recently started wearing a lot of "Hawaiian" shirts (loud, colorful prints) and I get a lot of compliments on the street. Not sure if it's about the color or about wearing something that reads as a "party" shirt, though.