Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not everywhere is SF, LA & NYC. There are plenty of cities which are both affordable and ripe for revitalization which can certainly include the middle-class. The OP does make a good point in that it starts with public schools, because a city with terrible schools will only attract the childless and the poor.
I kind of can identify with what your throwing down up there. Being from New York, I watched my city loose its soul. After it got cleaned up and crime went down I was initially happy with the change. But with that it lost a big part of its personality. Rents went up and many who made the city so great were forced to move, and rich kids living off daddies money moved in so they could "slum it". It was like they were buying admission to disneyland. However this is a very specific type of person I am referring too, and I realize this was just small part of the overall change.Theres nothing wrong with people moving into a new city though. I think your being a bit too harsh on good, hard-working people and making too many negative generalizations about "outsiders" and "transplants". Thats a big part of what this country is all about, get real. Actually I find your comments kind of offensive, personally.
Yes, I have heard a lot from native NYers when I was living there about how different and overall better it used to be. Basically what they said was that the city got cleaned up but lost its soul in the process.
Not sure where specifically you think I am being too harsh on good, hard-working people? Anyway, what I wrote was more like a regurgitation of the consistent remarks made by natives when complaining of the changes and transplants. I don't personally have anything against transplants and I pointed out that I am one of those yuppies that have moved in myself- I am one of those outsiders who is "ruining the city" according to many natives. (Think you might have missed reading that part.) I acknowledge people moving in have probably changed the character of the place, but I can hold that idea and not have anything against transplants in particular and I am one of them. The point I was trying to make is that SF has changed, but it is not alone in this regard. I think just about every city in the US sucks now, a lot of people think their own city has changed for the worse whether it be NYC or Portland, OR and that this is due to larger changes on the national and societal level rather than something totally unique to SF.
Believe me, coming from Houston, SF is bursting with diversity of character. People here still love to live and take in the City at every opportunity. In Houston, it's about the acquisition of things. People there are very prideful, but they don't actually love their city. They are quick to boast, but slow to acknowledge the culture or unique sense of place they could have by investing personally in the city. They are drawn by jobs and cheap houses.
SF is a place of dreams--of striking it rich, of capturing history, of discovering or inventing something, of living among stimulating cultures, people and minds, of a life more interesting. It isn't particularly inspiring to dream of paying less for for a big house in a place that doesn't stir your soul. You simply need to go to Stockton for that, anyway.
I'm sure things have changed here. But something uniquely San Francisco still exists. I can see it in older residents at my office. Younger ones who've been here for a long time have it too. It's genuine love for this place. It's an emotional attachment. It's the feeling that this is where they belong...and always has been. It's infectious. It's not dead in my circle of co-workers and friends.
It's not dead with me, and I have only been here a little under two years.
dalparadise, your professed love of SF is inspiring. Well, I think SF is still the best city in the US overall. I think the standard has gone down in all cities, but SF is still tops to me even if the version I am experiencing now is worse than it was in its better days.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,137,259 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by mini_cute
Yeah, when I was younger and growing up in LA, SF was perceived as a sleepy town to the north of little significance. Maybe a nice place to get away for a short vacation once or twice, if ever. Now the young folks think it is a pretty hip. I guess that is what it is- people now think SF is actually pretty hip.
Most people with any real sense couldn't care less how "hip" SF is. Hipness is fleeting and erodes the culture of a place. SF has always had style and personality, though.
People here for the hip factor are hoping to consume the SF "brand" in some way or form and move on. Please don't confuse all of us DINK newcomers with them. Count me as someone who's looking to put "San Francisco" on my obituary, not my resume.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not actually FROM the City, ronin? Were you there in the 70's, 80's, 90's, by any chance? Your (and mini's) take on the perspective of someone not from here or the Bay Area. So whatever you guys like or not like or absolutely love about San Francisco doesn't matter to people like me and folks that that have been here a very long time. It's seriously not the San Francisco that most every Bay Arean remembers. There didn't used to be a snobbery about living in the City vs. the East Bay, for example. I think there was a collective experience amongst people from all around the region.
If anyone wants to kind of get a sense of San Francisco decades ago, I highly recommend a series based on a series of books that was played on PBS many moons ago..written by Armistead Maupin (another San Franciscan (that also moved out!).
Also, a movie (I never managed to read the booK) you may or may not have seen, "Joy Luck Club" really good sort of San Francisco back in the 80's Asian American perspective. Also, a big funny one my family really loved..."Chan is Missing" by Wayne Wang.
There are many others of course, but it's kinda interesting to get a different perspective of how things have changed from a local's view. I really don't think those kind of changes have happened to other cities as rapidly or profoundly.
I'm not trying to offend anyone...just giving an entirely different perspective from someone that may have only lived here for a little while recently.
Don't get me wrong...I still and will always LOVE San Francisco, warts and all. don't presume it to be the best place/nor the worse place on Earth
Hey, clongirl, I know that the natives have a different perspective on the city than us transplants. It is because I am listening to natives like you describe how the city used to be. Never saw what it was like back then for myself, except remnants that do still remain. I can only imagine what it must have been like. Ah, what a dream it must have been. But I also hear the same complaints about changes in every city I have lived and given all the things I hear about and statistics coming out, it seems like America overall has changed not for the better in many ways. I think the quality of life in American cities has gone down. But I am grateful for progress in other ways such as racial issues, gay rights, etc.
Well, if I want to dream about the old SF I will look into your great recommendations- a perspective that can only be provided by a true native! Thank you!
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not actually FROM the City, ronin? Were you there in the 70's, 80's, 90's, by any chance? Your (and mini's) take on the perspective of someone not from here or the Bay Area. So whatever you guys like or not like or absolutely love about San Francisco doesn't matter to people like me and folks that that have been here a very long time. It's seriously not the San Francisco that most every Bay Arean remembers.
OK, this is a bit much. If clearly matters to you what the transplants think about San Francisco. Why else would you write about it at length?
Quote:
Originally Posted by clongirl
... If anyone wants to kind of get a sense of San Francisco decades ago, I highly recommend a series based on a series of books that was played on PBS many moons ago..written by Armistead Maupin (another San Franciscan (that also moved out!).
While I appreciate the reference to the Tails of the City, your facts are a bit mixed up. Armistead Maupin grew up in North Carolina and has moved to SF only 3 years prior to the publishing of the Tails of the City. And he apparently still lives here (according to his website).
About this thread and its tone, I disagree with its title and the majority of the comments. I think that more money and economic activity has brought in a lot of good. I may not have been here long enough to understand and appreciate the way things were, but I can't imagine the progress that's been made in SoMa without a giant influx of techies. Please, natives, tell us what SoMa was like 20-30 years ago or more. Even I certainly remember the Tenderloin before the flood of the Vietnamese/Thai eateries. Has it got worse? What about all this construction and the plans for mid-Market? Was it even remotely possible a decade or two ago?
So, what specifically got so much worse? Where and how did the city "lose its soul"?
- another one of the techie transplants that ruined the city (c)
Most people with any real sense couldn't care less how "hip" SF is. Hipness is fleeting and erodes the culture of a place. SF has always had style and personality, though.
People here for the hip factor are hoping to consume the SF "brand" in some way or form and move on. Please don't confuse all of us DINK newcomers with them. Count me as someone who's looking to put "San Francisco" on my obituary, not my resume.
OK, this is a bit much. If clearly matters to you what the transplants think about San Francisco. Why else would you write about it at length?
While I appreciate the reference to the Tails of the City, your facts are a bit mixed up. Armistead Maupin grew up in North Carolina and has moved to SF only 3 years prior to the publishing of the Tails of the City. And he apparently still lives here (according to his website).
About this thread and its tone, I disagree with its title and the majority of the comments. I think that more money and economic activity has brought in a lot of good. I may not have been here long enough to understand and appreciate the way things were, but I can't imagine the progress that's been made in SoMa without a giant influx of techies. Please, natives, tell us what SoMa was like 20-30 years ago or more. Even I certainly remember the Tenderloin before the flood of the Vietnamese/Thai eateries. Has it got worse? What about all this construction and the plans for mid-Market? Was it even remotely possible a decade or two ago?
So, what specifically got so much worse? Where and how did the city "lose its soul"?
- another one of the techie transplants that ruined the city (c)
You said you disagree with the title of the thread. There are two parts to it, that SF is worse now than before and that every city, not just SF has gotten worse. My manifesto was that SF has gotten worse according to natives (I am a transplant btw) but that it is not alone in this regard. The United States as a whole is in decline in many important aspects, and this is affecting just about every city.
It's clear that you think SF is better off, an opinion I sincerely respect and I can see how one would think so. But do you agree that overall, the US has declined- as I mentioned the crumbling infrastructure, poor public schools. This pretty much impacts all cities. So when people think SF has gotten worse, they should look at the overall problem of the nation getting worse.
As for your question as to how it specifically it got worse, I'll leave it to any of the natives to tell. I don't really know except for these things, which I feel all are not entirely unique to SF:
- home prices have spun out of control and middle class families cannot afford to buy a home in SF anymore
- there is a disappearing middle class in SF, leaving only the rich and the poor
- SF has had a large influx of homeless over the past decades, now having the highest number of homeless per capita
- cheaper food establishments are slowly disappearing replaced by ultra chic upscale restaurants and establishments
- the number of blacks in SF is disappearing
But of course the city has gotten better in other ways, but I have to admit that those better ways tend to benefit the wealthy DINKS and singles or people who can afford SF more than middle class families who want to buy a home.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
