Regarding the extensive discussion below between you and flagamuffin about whether gentrification is good for the earlier inhabitants. Let me suggest that every city handles their low-income areas differently. I live in a gentrified neighbourhood of Toronto known as Cabbagetown. I have no doubt that the existence of this neighbourhood has brought political and activist attention to the people next door and nearby. This neighbourhood is squished between two low income housing developments, one, the largest high-rise community in Canada, the other Canada's largest and oldest social housing project. Both neighbourhoods benefit from the gentrified neighbourhood in between. The neighbourhood to the south is undergoing a revitalization in which people were moved out of their apartment blocks, one block at a time and then moved back in after they were rebuilt. An athletic centre has been added to the middle of the community. You can argue that from my point of view, I would assume gentrification is good for everyone. But what do the ones affected think? The redevelopment was done in consultation with the community in an effort to give them cleaner, safer, better homes. The violence and death in the community has a long history.The original housing, boxy and undifferentiated, is being replaced by glass-and-steel buildings, low- to high-rise, that address human needs rather than some imagined set of priorities. And by mixing market-priced units with subsidized apartments, Regent Park’s ghetto-like aura has finally started to lift.
Toronto Star
but oky, you seem to be arguing for gentrification in your last line.others do not have that freedom or ability to choose their residence as easily.
this is so true. There is not enough low-income housing. Toronto Housing Wait List Passes 90,000 Households, 165,723 People - In San Francisco, it seems they've closed the wait list because it was too long.
When I think of gentrification, I think of old run-down neighbourhoods. Housing is cheap so artists move in and turn warehouses into studios and storefronts into galleries and coffee shops. Gradually the neighbourhood becomes hip and prices start to go up. I see now that I am somewhat naive. Gentrification includes my neighbourhood, but is usually more destructive. I just found this article about my a neighbourhood just south and west of mine: Gentrification. It’s the process by which wealthy people take over a poor or working class area, driving up costs.. thx oky. Interesting to learn more.
True that. I just stick to the old 'hidden camera in the backpack' and send it to NSA when I get home.
Exactly. This is the part where the "anti-gentrification" crowd can go fuck themselves. Betrays a complete lack of understanding of social history. This is (kinda) happening in Austin as well. There's a huge backlash against basically everything that's making Austin one of the richest and most progressive cities in the US right now. I swear half the people who have been living here for 20+ years would like the city to go back to its divey roots even if we all suffer for it. Totally clueless.never mind the irony in choosing to assault someone based on their appearance as a way to preserve San Francisco's culture.
When an area becomes rich it typically doesn't happen by enriching the people already there, but by pushing them out and replacing them. Of course longtime inhabitants want to "go back to its divey roots", they're directly threatened by the move away from those roots, and a return would provide relief. The gentrifiers are the only ones who would see it as a negative. Keep in mind you're still an outsider and gentrifier in the context of Austin. You're a well-educated white man originating from a rich neighborhood of Dallas. You're exactly the kind of person they're afraid of, and not without reason. Things that are good for you are not necessarily good for Austin as it was or the people who live(d) there.There's a huge backlash against basically everything that's making Austin one of the richest and most progressive cities in the US right now. I swear half the people who have been living here for 20+ years would like the city to go back to its divey roots even if we all suffer for it. Totally clueless.
No they aren't. I mean, some are, a small few -- but the rest are vastly benefiting from living in a City with a capital C. I could list a dozen ways. And Austin has handled the transition smoothly. ?!?When an area becomes rich it typically doesn't happen by enriching the people already there, but by pushing them out and replacing them. Of course longtime inhabitants want to "go back to its divey roots", they're directly threatened by the move away from those roots, and a return would provide relief.
Keep in mind you're still an outsider and gentrifier in the context of Austin. You're a well-educated white man originating from a rich neighborhood of Dallas. You're exactly the kind of person they're afraid of, and not without reason. Things that are good for you are not necessarily good for Austin as it was or the people who live(d) there.
Low-rent areas don't become high-rent areas without displacement. The very existence of an anti-gentrification movement proves that many people have been harmed in some way, enough to make them angry and organized. It's not as bad in Austin as SF, but it's happening. I was pretty sure that was you? I seem to remember something like that. Anyway, the point is, someone acting as a gentrifier even if they don't intend to isn't going to directly experience the problems associated with gentrification, because they are on the positive end. What a gentrifier perceives as good for them and good for the area is pretty well aligned with what the previous residents see as problematic things that force them out.No they aren't. I mean, some are, a small few -- but the rest are vastly benefiting from living in a City with a capital C. I could list a dozen ways. And Austin has handled the transition smoothly.
?!?
Yeah, but you're taking the Luddite view. Displacement is inevitable and also necessary. It's dwarfed by the benefits. San Francisco is different from Austin, both in scale and speed of gentrification -- and I do think it's a shame that such a cool city is changing so quickly. But San Francisco has changed drastically before and that's part of what makes it interesting. I'm in the middle. Family's been in Austin for about 65 years, and I've grown up watching Austin institutions that I loved disappear because they can't compete. But I also appreciate, say, having an international airport. I appreciate everything UT has done for Austin. We're a major cultural center and so on.I was pretty sure that was you? I seem to remember something like that. Anyway, the point is, someone acting as a gentrifier even if they don't intend to isn't going to directly experience the problems associated with gentrification, because they are on the positive end. What a gentrifier perceives as good for them and good for the area is pretty well aligned with what the previous residents see as problematic things that force them out.
Perhaps more of the neoluddism of Peter Frase & al. Displacement is neither inevitable nor necessary, and the benefits of displacement are received by the displacers, not the displaced. There exist alternatives, but they often aren't feasible within capitalism. The Luddites were right about their own situation: they did experience hardship as a direct result of new technologies. Yes, society eventually moved on and labor requirements were reduced in that specific sector, but a lot of people suffered in the meantime. In the case of the Luddites whose labor was displaced by machines, it may have been better to reduce working hours first instead of abruptly employing fewer people. In the case of gentrified neighborhoods, it's probably better to increase the available housing, wages, and social services, rather than hike rents and evict.Yeah, but you're taking the Luddite view. Displacement is inevitable and also necessary. It's dwarfed by the benefits.
I don't know about that. If you take displacement as an inevitable side effect of migration (empirically) and migration as a necessary human function... Not always, not by any means. Short term/long term, also. Gradual changes are mostly better than instant ones. But we don't always get a choice. I have a lot of big thoughts about the changing nature of structural unemployment (and structural displacement, as is the case here) which can be summarized thus: in the 21st century, it's not going away; in fact it will intensify, and that intensification is caused by factors that in the long run will be very, very good for us. In the short term, people get hurt, because that's what structural changes do. The locals in San Francisco are getting hurt. One solution is careful government intervention to mitigate (but not stop!) the effects of the changing structure. In this case, that's zoning laws, housing controls, wages and so on in San Francisco. I'm not against that by any means, as long as it seeks rather to smooth the trend, not reverse it.Displacement is neither inevitable nor necessary
and the benefits of displacement are received by the displacers, not the displaced.
The Luddites were right about their own situation: they did experience hardship as a direct result of new technologies. Yes, society eventually moved on and labor requirements were reduced in that specific sector, but a lot of people suffered in the meantime. In the case of the Luddites whose labor was displaced by machines, it may have been better to reduce working hours first instead of abruptly employing fewer people.
I was with your first post, but there's no way it can be said that Austin "has handled the transition smoothly". They've done worse than handle it badly, in fact: they haven't handled it at all, choosing instead to just keep on keeping on and ignore the drastic population change entirely, letting the chips fall where they may. One example out of many: they are just beginning to expand MoPac -- this has needed doing since it became over capacity 10, 15 years ago -- and they're doing it in a way that will price even more old Austinites out of the city. I can see this, and I'm of the class that would probably be considered a gentrifying force, even though -- like most good Austin hipsters -- I was here before that really became a thing. ;-)
Relative to SF it's been smooth. MoPac's kinda an enigma and I'm not sure there's a good solution there. Either exercise eminent domain or watch the traffic take control of the city. What I meant is that Austin has become a City rather than a city, all while keeping an amazing cultural scene, a few "ethnic neighborhoods" (sorry but it gets the point across), international influences, etc. In my opinion it's been a smashing success so far. One thing we have in common with SF is people getting priced out of downtown. I don't know why anyone's surprised, honestly. That's kinda what happens everywhere. SF has its Google transports and $8 coffee shops; we have our condominiums all along the lake. But minimum_wage's (and everyone else's according to the votes) refusal to acknowledge that these things are linked to very specific and obvious economic benefits is baffling to me.
I don't think they're refusing to acknowledge that there are economic benefits helping the city. What they're doing is pointing out who those benefits are helping (newcomers from elsewhere), and who they're hurting (people who've grown up here and possibly have to leave). You're right, and they're right, because neither set of points runs at cross purposes. But minimum_wage's (and everyone else's according to the votes) refusal to acknowledge that these things are linked to very specific and obvious economic benefits is baffling to me.
No but I completely disagree with that. First of all, not everyone leaves. A lot of local "anti-gentrifiers" simply adapt. And they sure as shit benefit from the city's growth, whether they're farsighted enough to see it or not. If you're forced to leave -- absolutely forced -- then maybe you don't benefit at all. (Although if this process is inevitable then I'm not at all sure about that.) To be fair many more people have been forced to leave SF from the sound of it than Austin.
I'm with you. I suppose it's because I am (for another short while, anyway) a gentrifier. I moved into an abandoned space a few years ago, and I like to think that my outrageous tax bill that I've been paying to the city of Detroit since then (both income and property) has been marginally good for the city (as well as the taxes paid by all the businesses that I support). The city needs money to survive, and the only people who can pay are the people who have a positive income. I'm not sure where else it comes from. Cities can't print their own script. I always have a good laugh at the people in my city who scorn gentrifiers and then complain that city services are so shitty. I love irony.
As is putting people who choose to do this behind bars where they belong. ...and no, I do not have a Glass. I just think the minute one takes a violent approach because of something they don't like, then one is infinitely worse than whoever it is doing what they don't like. I agree that punching someone for wearing Glass is totally appropriate
I disagree I would be thrown out of a country club with threats of police and violence if I dressed inappropriately/violated norms I don't see how it becomes problematic when the roles are reversed.
This article confuses direct causes of problems to make the story pull in more traffic. If the goal was to have a wrapper story around the battle for the soul of San Francisco, then the lead-in should have been shorter. The root event was author getting robbed, chasing his attacker, and getting back the stolen item though it has been destroyed. If he'd lost anything other than a Google Glass, almost none of the other topics in the article would be relevant. He even suggests something close to that, but there are thousands of words to be published. A lot of childish and bitter people replied to his tweet. It takes a special sort of immaturity to respond to "I got robbed of $1500" with "I'm going to shove your pathetic nerd body into a locker." Gee, I guess ninth grade hasn't ended for some people. However the author is almost giving into his attackers by letting his story get tied into the other stories he covered that day. You got robbed, but you did the right thing by giving chase. You lost some expensive equipment, but you learned how to avoid that in the future. No one died, no one got assaulted. Does San Francisco have problems? Oh man, does it! At this point, the only solution would be a major advance in rapid transit, such as a flying streetcar or a matter transporter. San Francisco is only 47 square miles yet it has lots of middle and low-density housing. However you only enable bullying when you hint that you deserved the mugging, dressing all geeky like that. We don't accept that kind of thinking from rapists, so we shouldn't accept it from muggers.