U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Unread 01-18-2009, 09:10 PM
 
1,077 posts, read 956,723 times
Reputation: 899
Boo hoo...the city is getting "gentrified".....

Chas and Buffy, Greg and Nancy are just toooo white to be kewl.....Waaaaa!

SF get's everything it deserves.... and much much more....Smoke weed, smoke pipe...and loose your mind....
Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 01-19-2009, 12:29 AM
 
7 posts, read 12,910 times
Reputation: 18
The people are vanilla like the midwest? Obviously you've never been to the midwest, which is fine, but why make that comparison then? I've been to a lot of cities in the U.S., SF is close to the top as far as overall diversity of people, neighborhoods, etc. Especially when you consider that it isn't a giant city population-wise. I didn't grow up out here so I don't claim to have seen the change, but I will agree with the OP that SF is a lot more yuppy-fied than I would have guessed/hoped for before I moved out here.
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-19-2009, 05:11 AM
 
2 posts, read 1,560 times
Reputation: 10
The problem with san francisco is that it has just a small amount of square footage, the whole 7x7 mi thing. Many large cities are facing similar problems where previously cheap rent is now not possible so you have only certain affluence moving into certain neighborhoods. I wouldn't have a problem with this at all, however what makes san francisco a different situation is that there is a bridge that separates those that it displaces. In other cities, people would still be a part of that city and would be able to have their culture be a part of it, even if they lived in the outer limits of the city. However, here people are pushed out of the city where you need to pay 4 dollars driving busing or barting just to be able to get back and forth. No walking allowed, This is a form of segregation unfortunately..
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-19-2009, 07:16 AM
 
1,550 posts, read 2,169,287 times
Reputation: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomDot View Post
Anyone can live anywhere they want in this country.
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-19-2009, 07:33 AM
 
1,550 posts, read 2,169,287 times
Reputation: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by DITC View Post
West of the Mississippi River, San Francisco is probably the most interesting city to live in. Its like any other interesting city - a bunch of uninteresting people with nothing to offer come as transients to soak up the culture and tell people they lived in SF, yet they dont contribute anything back to the city. It is a cultural vacuum. This is why all cities in America and even the world are converging together and becoming the same exact place.
First settlers came to SF because of gold. They were only interested in making money and in nothing else. This is San Francisco's history and also its "culture". I know, it's a little bit harsh what I'm saying, but my point is those who came and coming after them are not worse than people who came before them, the so-called "natives". SF has been a transient city from the beginning. Why complain? This is a free country and everybody is moving with the wind. You can go a step further and put it in a national level and say, why, new immigrants destroy US! They change and steal our culture! What culture? The culture made by immigrants? New people bring something new. Places change, and they change very fast. This is all this country is about. I know, a little uncomfortable. But this is how things are.
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-19-2009, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Dorchester
2,602 posts, read 2,708,330 times
Reputation: 1048
I have a question for the SF natives who have been there a long time:
What was SF like before the "yuppification"? It seems that the chief complaints are the costs of living have been inflated and the new residents are disconnected from the fabric of the city.
I have heard that SF used to be a salt of the earth, conservative, blue collar Dirty Harry type of a city.
What say you?
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-19-2009, 08:37 AM
 
19 posts, read 49,847 times
Reputation: 25
Just cuz you said, "what say you?", I feel like I'm talking to Bill OReilly.
There was a post a page or two back about the stronger knit communities in neighborhoods thriving in middle class working neighborhoods that were abudant not that long ago. We also had a higher blak and chicano population and rent wasnt ridiclious.

And your right, SF used to be a family, union town, families stayed in the trades, or the police department or whatever. There were more mom and pop shop and family businesses.
Anyone should be welcome to move here, the problem is now, the breed of person is so linear because the abillity to come out here revolves around how deep your pockets are.

I think people in this thread have made great points about the new age reasons people move to SF.

I see the City being pimped out basically.
Remove and change all neighborhoods to make them a yuppie utopia. the liqour store i use to buy up from in HS is now a nutrition store. The faces of the neighborhood have completely changed, and although this helps in someways to reduce the violence around Mission HS, it shows how more and more, people of color and those of lesser income that are white, are gonna be forced into dense pockets of the city, and its not hard to figure out what happens when you condense lots of poor people together binded by neighboring projects and a awful school system
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-19-2009, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Bay Area
2,983 posts, read 3,911,942 times
Reputation: 2612
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomDot View Post
I have a question for the SF natives who have been there a long time:
What was SF like before the "yuppification"? It seems that the chief complaints are the costs of living have been inflated and the new residents are disconnected from the fabric of the city.
I have heard that SF used to be a salt of the earth, conservative, blue collar Dirty Harry type of a city.
What say you?
San Francisco used to have its wealthy area (Pacific Heights and Nob Hill, basically anything north of California Street) and the rest of the City was working class. Families, locally owned neighborhood stores, people knew their neighbors, diners, neighborhood bars etc.

The whole city is pretty much like a Disneyland for transient, young, and wealthy. Boutiques and fancy organic restaurants and wine/sake bars are everywhere now- it's just a big hip fashion show where everyone seems to be on display. It's not just Pacific Heights anymore..now its every neighborhood. My husband and I call it..Tir na nog..which is translates from Irish (the Land of Youth).

Now days the City seems very hostile to children, families, seniors (but not exclusively because of the cost). It's become so ridiculously ultra "PC" that having children is frowned upon, getting married is a no no (unless you're gay), and growing old is not cool. SF used to always be on the "liberal" side, but now it's downright hostile to the extreme. Now, most the native folk have pretty much left their City in search of a more real, down to earth place to live.
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-19-2009, 10:56 AM
 
256 posts, read 578,004 times
Reputation: 73
clongirl,

I agree--SF has really lost a lot of its class
Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-19-2009, 11:05 AM
 
516 posts, read 838,058 times
Reputation: 114
But again, this transformation is happening to some extent everywhere. Natives that I know who have left SF (my whole family) are now living in Marin and Sonoma...certainly a paradise of gentrification if there ever was one. The funny thing is that the people who complain about it there are usually the ones who would be first in line at the new Organic Eco-lifestyle Boutique.

I think that people support their community in different ways than in the past. When my grandfather was young he was a member of lots of SF good-ol-boys clubs. Everyone sat around and drank and had a good time but still saw themselves as supporting their local (but only if it was white, irish) community. Now people try to buy local and join a CSA. More diverse groups are active in local politics. I see this as progress.

As far as a child-unfriendly climate...well why do people with children keep letting this prejudice drive them out of the city? We need some critical mass here! Honestly I never noticed this when I lived in SF, but I was in the Outer Richmond...which is extreamly child-friendly. Our neighbors had five or six kids...but I never really spoke with them about the challenges. Now I wish I had.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top