Paul,
You mean this little thing -
http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/paris.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=59
?
Went to the Louvre, never went in,
César
Panama City, Florida
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Of course the pyramid at the Louvre is even more disparaged. However,
I kind of like it. _The DaVinci Chronicles_ probably helped make it
more palatable. The book gave it a reason to exist, albeit a fictional
one.
On Apr 1, 2006, at 5:33 PM, John Forbes wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 22:05:38 +0100, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I think more peoplw would consider the Golden Gate Bridge to be
the iconic structure for San Francisco. While I'm sure there are
many people who can remember the City by the Bay without the bridge,
it's been around a little longer that the TransAmerica building.
I know I'm ignorant, but at least I'm not alone. :-) I've never
heard of "the Pyramid" (except for the one at the Louvre). On the
other hand, the Golden Gate Bridge is almost as well known as the
Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty, and the Grand Canyon.
And much more so than the Alamo, which I recall as an uninspiring
little shack of only local interest.
I think the Pyramid has some catching up to do. The Eiffel Tower it
is not.
John
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 11:48:40PM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
It's easy to "imagine" San Francisco without "the Pyramid." which is
actually called the Transamerica Tower. It's a recent addition to
the city
- built around 1970-1972 - which makes it but 34 years old. Like the
Eiffel Tower, it met with disdain and opposition when it was
planned and
built. To this day many long-time San Franciscans consider it an
abomination.
Shel
>It's hard to imagine Paris w/o it though. Like London w/o Big Ben,
>Seattle w/o the Space Needle, SF w/o the Pyramid, St. Louis w/o the
>arch, NYC w/o the Empire State Building.
