Regarding "Her year of dressing modestly" (Variety, Aug. 16): Women should dress to please themselves. I fail to see how embracing frumpiness is liberating. If a woman is spending hours on hair and makeup, she either enjoys primping or she's going about it wrong. Even in my long-ago college days, I was able to be ready for my 8 a.m. classes in 20 minutes: false eyelashes, pantyhose and heels.
I have always found dresses and skirts to be more comfortable (and in summer, cooler) than jeans or trousers. As a small girl, I climbed the highest trees in a pinafore.
Just because a woman wants to look good, enjoys fashion and is well-groomed does not mean she is buying into male fantasy. Many women want to look stylish, and what's wrong with that?
I believe women dress more for other women than for men. If a woman chooses to go dowdy, that is her choice, but she shouldn't chastise other women who don't want to take that route. Personally, I like to see well-groomed men and women. Far too many men, of a certain age, let themselves go. If you're at a wedding or a funeral and look as if you've set out to mow the yard, you may want to consider a wardrobe update.
The problem is not that too many men and women care too much about appearance, it is that too many people in the U.S. just plain look sloppy. It probably all started when the corporate world allowed casual Fridays.
Linda Benzinger, Minneapolis
BUILDING PRESERVATION
New stuff gets approved. That's the betting line in Minneapolis.
I am not a gambler, but I'd win this bet: The Heritage Preservation Committee in Minneapolis will approve the most recently proposed buildings in the North Loop that are in a designated historic district ("Vail group eyes 2nd Loop project," Aug. 16). Apparently, "visual cues" in new buildings like these most recent ones are sufficient to gain approval, even though they essentially ignore the central features that the guidelines require, such as height, mass, type of materials and relative complementary quality of the buildings. Instead we will get "clean lines" and "simple rectangles." The irony here is that the desirability and vitality of these types of districts rely upon the opposite of what the committee nearly always approves these days. In Minneapolis, we've been here before. Just look at the consequences of "urban renewal" in the 1960s in downtown Minneapolis.
Jeffrey Brown, Minneapolis
MINNEAPOLIS 2040 PLAN
A new vision can be sold, but it requires candor and precision
We have read with interest the recent letters and articles in the Star Tribune concerning the Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Our house, in the middle of a block in the middle of the Longfellow neighborhood, is a 1,200-square-foot bungalow. It is both a modest building and a major investment. It represents what financial security is possible for a middle-class couple in a country undergoing rapid change during turbulent economic times. And, like many of our neighbors, we are no longer young.
We do understand the logic of increased population density. We also understand the reality that a new fourplex next to us would reduce our property value. And so we are uneasy about the future. The recent letters and articles make it clear that many residents of Minneapolis share our concern.