the sf chronicle is running a series on how the loma prieta earthquake led to a sweeping makeover of the city - sfgate has it online. it is a well-written, if somewhat one-sided account of how the earthquake's destruction drove a major rethinking of architecture and civil engineering.
i agree with the authors that the makeover ended up making the city more of a gem in fact as well as in lore. the reborn embarcadero and union square, madeover civic centre and hays valley, have all made a world of difference in the city's aesthetics. however, infrastructure and transit have been shamefully left aside in this effort. the focus has largely been to make the city prettier for the residents at the expense of everyone else.
the politics of the city, largely driven by the few common sentiments of the electorate (e.g. outsiders, keep out), has no motivation to seek any redress. the city continues to host marquee conventions, attract tourists, attract filmmakers, draw in shoppers and revelers on weekends, etc. yet these are by and large the 'outsiders' least affected by the city's infrastructure and transit woes. if you live or stay in the city, you have no reason to care - you have your beautiful views, a population of ~800k, and no real need for modern infrastructure or transit. that is, unless you are elderly, disabled, or otherwise have mobility disadvantages. the extreme housing shortage in the city has only recently been examined with thought and concern for the financially disadvantaged, instead of developers.
the city definitely needed a makeover when the earthquake hit in 1989. however, was it necessary to do it as such a scale, while ignoring the pressing infrastructure problems and, in a sense, worsening them? only the coming decade can speak to whether this experiment can really be considered a success.
