The more things change the more they say the same.<p>If there's one thing I've learned in life, is to never listen to people moaning about the "good old days" and how [insert group] has "ruined" [insert place], not like those [other group] that were great. The good old days were never actually that good, and [insert group] is neither worse nor better than [other group].<p>We're all way too young to be curmudgeons yet, so stop acting like it.<p>It's also amusing to see one wave of gentrifiers shake their fists angrily at the next wave of gentrifiers. I heard about the Yuppie Eradication Project - where people who invaded a traditionally Latino stronghold vowed to key the cars of people who later invaded <i>that</i>.<p>FWIW, they can fight for the Mission all they want. No matter how many rose-tinted pairs of glasses you put on, it's <i>still</i> the piss-filled, shit-littered, gun-happy, knife-stabby, gangbanger-filled shitpot we know and love.
There's a sort of ugly urban cycle. First, you get an interesting place. Then interesting people move in. These interesting people do interesting things. Wages go up. Money moves in. Then you have real-estate hyperinflation, and the place becomes unaffordable to anyone who isn't already rich or grandfathered in.<p>Trouble is: the next wave of interesting people usually start out as starving artists/hackers/entrepreneurs just like the previous wave did.<p>It's almost as if regional success beyond a certain point accomplishes nothing but inflating real estate, which redirects further success into keeping that real estate bubble inflated. This primarily benefits banks.<p>Imagine what would happen if this didn't happen... imagine living in a place as inexpensive as a medium-sized Midwestern city, but with Silicon Valley salaries. Imagine how many <i>other</i> places that wealth could go: more startups, more gadgets, better infrastructure, world-class everything, better health care, even generosity. But nope, real estate just soaks up wealth beyond a certain point and redirects it back into the financial pyramid.<p>Sometimes a place is so unbelievably interesting, like New York, that people are willing to live in a catbox in order to be there. But even then people have a tendency to get sick of this after a while, and anyone contemplating reproducing or wanting to do anything that requires space is out of luck and has to leave.
The problem is lack of supply of real estate. The proper response here is to build higher density real estate, or to build transit systems that effectively expand the amount of land that can be reached quickly enough to be "in" the city, or both.<p>San Francisco has failed miserably at both. Development is a four letter word due to the attitudes of many of the existing residents and the legal process that allows anyone to stall and delay anything. BART meets the threshold for tolerable transit, but there's not enough of it, and even if there were fast rapid transit to the peninsula or Marin the residents there are even more opposed to density than San Franciscans. Most of the new development is happening in parts of the East Bay near BART because that's where people are willing to allow it and where transit can get you downtown quickly. If the city were to permit and construct 10 story buildings in the Sunset tomorrow that wouldn't do much to alleviate real estate prices because it takes longer to cross the city on transit than it does to BART in from the good parts of Oakland.
David Talbot, founder and CEO of Salon.com recently participated in KQED Forum talking about 'How much tech can one city take?'. Somewhat similar to the above article but a 2012 view.<p>For those of you who are interested you can hear it here: <a href="http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201209250900" rel="nofollow">http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201209250900</a>
I find it curious that the same people that complain about evictions complain about high rises getting built.
This sort of article gets written year after year.
People have to live somewhere, any if there continues to be resistance to higher density housing, rents will keep skyrocketing.
I moved to The Mission in 1996 So I'm likely included in the internet crowd that ruined the city. I loved living there, but I when I visit now its not the lack of artists that I notice, its the (relative) lack of crack addicts. Lets not let the glasses get too rose colored. It might be more difficult for people just starting out or on limited income to make it there, but if they do there is a base line improvement to their quality of life that comes with living in a safer and cleaner environment. I took my son to play at the newly renovated park at Valencia and 19th the other month and I couldn't believe that there was an outdoor water park in SF, much less The Mission, that I felt OK with him playing in. The locals looked pretty excited about it too.<p>Besides the young and hip are doing what they always do, find new areas to make hip. I've been living in the East Bay for a decade now and I can't believe that Oakland is the new hip spot in the Bay Area. Hope it does something for my property values.
Anyone can die at any moment and everything is gone doesn't that suck. You can't control death and you can't control change! Life always moves on no matter what you do. Thats why you have to enjoy the moments as they pass and stop trying to keep them from passing, forcing them to stand still! Life would be boring without new things happening. I know some people get stuck in their ways and can't stand change, but I can't imagine that life is very fun or enjoyable at all!
This seems like a timely article:
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-micro-apartments-20120924,0,5210788.story" rel="nofollow">http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-micro-apartments-201...</a>
There's always at least one person whining about certain cosmetic characteristics as though they are cultural treasures. Characteristics of neighborhoods are always changing. In the past they changed over a generation, now technology and a rapidly transforming economy create changes in decades and half-decades. This isn't a bad thing.<p>All the little things the author opines romantically about are relatively recent developments that were decried by earlier generations no doubt. OH THESE FILTHY BUTCHERS HAVE DISPLACED THE PICTURESQUE HUNTSMAN AND HIS MEAT CARRIAGE WHICH USED TO PLY THE STREETS OF MINE YOUTH. You see what I'm saying?<p>This woman has no idea. She's all shriveled up and unstuck in time. She can't see things with a long lens. All she knows is that things she is comfortable with are changing, and she doesn't want to learn to see something beautiful in what is still to come. She wants everything to be frozen in crystal for all time.<p>These people are spacewankers of the worst sort. Don't let the fact that they are good at writing English seduce you to this stupid hipster way of thinking.