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.
So how has Miami resisted gentrification? The answer lies in its downtown housing policies.
Rather than acting like they had no clue what to do with all these incoming rich people, Miami officials allowed them a place to go: Brickell.
Quote:
San Francisco, meanwhile, doesn’t have a Brickell-like area, and thus not a decisive place for its techies to live. The reason is politics. For one, Brickell’s ostentatious wealth displays conform with Miami’s culture, but would send San Francisco’s class warriors into spasms of outrage. Brickell also wouldn’t get built because San Francisco’s NIMBYs wouldn’t just allow a high-rise neighborhood to go up overnight—or at all.
Quote:
All this, of course, suggests an ironic aspect of urban housing markets that is misunderstood by most government officials and NIMBYs: “if a city wants to preserve, it must build.” In other words, if a city is being flooded with rich people, then allow the market to build to their specifications, namely in under-utilized areas, and watch them concentrate there. That way, they won’t overwhelm the old-school ethnic areas, keeping prices down, and enabling those areas to function as they long have.
Anyone familiar with Miami who could comment on this? I know from experience that it nails SF's policies dead-on.
San Francisco, meanwhile, doesn’t have a Brickell-like area, and thus not a decisive place for its techies to live. The reason is politics. For one, Brickell’s ostentatious wealth displays conform with Miami’s culture, but would send San Francisco’s class warriors into spasms of outrage. Brickell also wouldn’t get built because San Francisco’s NIMBYs wouldn’t just allow a high-rise neighborhood to go up overnight—or at all.
Quote:
Anyone familiar with Miami who could comment on this? I know from experience that it nails SF's policies dead-on.
But it really doesn't nail SF . . . because the Brickell-like area is being built in SF all along the Bay from Transbay down to 4th & King and well down 3rd St.
I think maybe a reality check is in order here.
The boom in Miami happened before the GFC and then this happened Boom of condo crash loudest in Miami - tribunedigital-orlandosentinel
and after a few very painful years in Miami the market came back because prices were rock bottom and cash buyers from overseas don't have to worry about financing for a $400k condo.
The tech invasion of SF both in the form of new firms moving downtown and in workers commuting to jobs in the Valley has mostly happened post-2006. While the "got rich quick" guys might be paying cash for multi-million dollar townhomes in SF the majority of the shuttle bus drones are making hourly wages on contracts just hoping to land something permanent before they have to suck it up and move to Austin or Denver or Seattle. They were never in the position to buy something in SF's real estate market. Not even 10 years ago.
SF is a lot more dense than Miami with far fewer places to sprawl and since land is already pricier in the Bay Area the prospect of tearing down to build denser becomes a much more expensive proposition than in Miami. Where you do see it happening is in the old docks/warehouse districts and, considering the lending/building environment of the last 8 years and that the tech sector was one of the few growth sectors throughout that period it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the area has been behind the curve in building housing. Couple that with a stricter regulatory environment (a longer entitlement process) in CA and there's most of your answer.
As for the authenticity of the Mission vs. Little Havana, well, I hate to break it you and that author but Little Havana, while 96% hispanic is only 48% cuban and it's been in decline for awhile. The Mission, while 48% hispanic, is only 28% mexican. The #2 group in both places is Central Americans (Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Nicaraguans).
The mexican community in SF is a lot more mature than the cuban community in Miami. The last big wave of Cuban immigration happened in the early 80s and while it's slowed a lot it's never really stopped. The mexican-american community in SF and CA for that matter are as old as the state and mexican immigrants have long been bypassing big cities for the suburbs, for smaller towns and rural areas. And just as Cuban-Americans have been moving out of Little Havana to the suburbs so to have the Mexican-Americans of the Mission been moving to San Mateo, San Jose, the East Bay, and beyond.
But it really doesn't nail SF . . . because the Brickell-like area is being built in SF all along the Bay from Transbay down to 4th & King and well down 3rd St.
I'm not familiar with Miami or Brickell, not even slightly. But, as the author described it, there is nothing of the sort in SF. The problem the author seemed to be describing was that gentrification happens when roadblocks to development limit where newcomers can go. SF is the posterboy for development roadblocks, and that is exactly why (a) it is insanely expensive, (b) it is quickly gentrifying. Of course there is construction, but, because of said roadblocks, it is not nearly equivalent to current, much less also pent up, demand.
It's a bit deceptive because what's happening is Little Havana is shrinking and Brickell is expanding westward. Brickell used to just be the business district along US1, then there were the luxury skyscrapers of the first condo boom which didn't really expand it. But with this current boom old apartments are being demolished and high rise condos (with less amenities than the first wave) are being built all the way to I-96 and being marketed as "Brickell." Those neighbourhoods used to be part of Little Havana. But Little Havana is such a large, spread out area and is not nearly as dense as, say, Chinatown in SF, so there is still plenty of Little Havana in tact (even if most of the actual Cubans have been replaced by Puerto Ricans and Central American latins). Also, I-95 serves as a prominent barrier that helps to concentrate new development to the east, and also the Metrorail and Metromover do not pass through the heart of Little Havana, so it's a "stones throw" away...but only if you drive, which means yuppies and hipsters don't necessarily want to live there as much.
anyone who has been over the Bay Bridge in the last year knows that most of what you see these days as you enter or leave the city is cranes or new buildings.
In SF it might be weighted more towards mid-rise buildings as opposed to the high rises of Brickell and downtown but to suggest that SF isn't building is just patently untrue.
Quote:
The problem the author seemed to be describing was that gentrification happens when roadblocks to development limit where newcomers can go. SF is the posterboy for development roadblocks, and that is exactly why (a) it is insanely expensive, (b) it is quickly gentrifying. Of course there is construction, but, because of said roadblocks, it is not nearly equivalent to current, much less also pent up, demand.
The problem isn't with SF and its 49 square miles - it's with the other 6,000 square miles of the region. It's preposterous to think that such a tiny city which is already pretty dense by American standards would be able to densify quickly enough to satisfy the pent-up demand of the entire Bay Area. The anti-development streak is solidly in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties and unless you want to add Marin then the finger shouldn't be pointed anywhere else.
SF isn't that much different from NYC or Boston or Philly when it comes to building by-right developments. If there's a problem it's with CEQA - not with SF.
SF has always been expensive. Job growth outpacing housing starts for 6 years doesn't help things but when I want to get annoyed at someone I get annoyed at the people in Alameda who just elected a new mayor who actively campaigned on opposing 1,800 new units here - https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...501367f076adff
It's a bit deceptive because what's happening is Little Havana is shrinking and Brickell is expanding westward. Brickell used to just be the business district along US1, then there were the luxury skyscrapers of the first condo boom which didn't really expand it. But with this current boom old apartments are being demolished and high rise condos (with less amenities than the first wave) are being built all the way to I-96 and being marketed as "Brickell." Those neighbourhoods used to be part of Little Havana. But Little Havana is such a large, spread out area and is not nearly as dense as, say, Chinatown in SF, so there is still plenty of Little Havana in tact (even if most of the actual Cubans have been replaced by Puerto Ricans and Central American latins). Also, I-95 serves as a prominent barrier that helps to concentrate new development to the east, and also the Metrorail and Metromover do not pass through the heart of Little Havana, so it's a "stones throw" away...but only if you drive, which means yuppies and hipsters don't necessarily want to live there as much.
Surely you must mean I-95. It's a looong way from Miami to I-96.
The problem isn't with SF and its 49 square miles - it's with the other 6,000 square miles of the region. It's preposterous to think that such a tiny city which is already pretty dense by American standards would be able to densify quickly enough to satisfy the pent-up demand of the entire Bay Area. The anti-development streak is solidly in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties and unless you want to add Marin then the finger shouldn't be pointed anywhere else.
SF isn't that much different from NYC or Boston or Philly when it comes to building by-right developments. If there's a problem it's with CEQA - not with SF.
No it's also San Francisco's fault. What San Francisco needs (the same way my city of Los Angeles needs) is more affordable housing. Not super-subsidized housing, just the kind of housing you need for middle earners. They are being forced out of the city and into the East Bay or less-desirable peninsula locations.
San Francisco is a unique central city in that it is difficult and expensive to reach whether you drive or take transit. It needs to accommodate middle earners within the city because commuting into the city from the East Bay and Peninsula eats up valuable wages (even more valuable in the hyper-inflated Bay Area).
No doubt the CEQA is messing things up big time. It is also a big issue down south. I believe both metro areas are working on getting it fixed - it is preposterous that things like parks and sidewalk widenings would have to go under environmental evaluations and be halted by so-called environmental advocates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly
SF has always been expensive. Job growth outpacing housing starts for 6 years doesn't help things but when I want to get annoyed at someone I get annoyed at the people in Alameda who just elected a new mayor who actively campaigned on opposing 1,800 new units here - https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...501367f076adff
First satellite view seems like a horrible place for high density. Far from jobs and transit, in the middle of a SFH neighborhood. There is a reason why SF needs to be building high density, and that is because it is the big city in the region.
Regarding Bay Fair, I am pretty sure the mall precedes BART by 20 years. Obviously not city planning but regional planning. But there was an existing ROW and they built BART on the cheap by using existing ROWs in the suburbs.
No it's also San Francisco's fault. What San Francisco needs (the same way my city of Los Angeles needs) is more affordable housing. Not super-subsidized housing, just the kind of housing you need for middle earners. They are being forced out of the city and into the East Bay or less-desirable peninsula locations.
SF doesn't need any more housing than what it already has in the pipeline. Silicon Valley needs more housing. I also don't quite understand where you think affordable housing will come from if it's not subsidized.
Quote:
First satellite view seems like a horrible place for high density. Far from jobs and transit, in the middle of a SFH neighborhood. There is a reason why SF needs to be building high density, and that is because it is the big city in the region.
I don't even know where to begin with this . . . and maybe your "understanding" is emblematic of the larger housing problems here:
1. It's not far from jobs. It's 3 miles from downtown Oakland and it's 6 miles from the Ferry Building. Yeah, it's a 10 minute ferry ride from downtown SF. In case you didn't notice the giant, deep water harbor and old seaplane lagoon right next to (with old navy ships still docked there) it it's one of the few deep water harbors along the East Bay. Bay Ferry already has plans for a ferry refueling station there and when this area gets developed it will be home to a new terminal.
2. It's not in the middle of a SFH neighborhood. It's on a former Navy base that takes up the entire western 1/4 of the island and where, at present, no one lives. It is being used for a few, scattered and mostly temporary, light industrial/office activities. For the most part the existing buildings and infrastructure are just rotting away.
3. SF is not a big city. It's 47 square miles. It's 1/2 the size of Brooklyn. 1/3 the size of Philadelphia, and 1/10 the size of LA. It's even 20% smaller than DC. It's less than 1% of the land area of the region.
Quote:
Regarding Bay Fair, I am pretty sure the mall precedes BART by 20 years. Obviously not city planning but regional planning. But there was an existing ROW and they built BART on the cheap by using existing ROWs in the suburbs.
Even before you get to the massive parking lots surrounding Bayfair you have to get through the massive parking lots surrounding the BART station. More importantly though, if you're claiming that SF needs to tear down to build even more density then surely it would be cheaper and easier to do it here where, for the most part, there's not much to tear down at all.
This is probably a much better analysis of the problems and potential solutions than I could write here. Note the housing targets for SF or well above what's been suggested here by others - http://www.planbayarea.org/pdf/JHCS/...ain_Report.pdf
Regardless, because you and I are at an impasse, we're eating up space in the UP forum talking about the specifics of San Francisco's current development environment--what demand is, if it is being satisfied, what barriers may be in the way, etc.
Getting back on point, the problem that leads to gentrification of a neighborhood, as identified by the author, is that potential gentrifiers have scarce other options in proximity to the city environment they're in the market for, so they move in to the available stock at the cost of current lower- and middle-income residents. So, the author's main point was that the solution to gentrification, regardless of where it shows up, is to allow more development to satisfy market demand. If a city government doesn't want to do this city-wide, then, as the author highlighted with Brickell, the city can and should allow extensive development of a specific district. In the same way a city will shove waste water facilities in a corner of the city, the city can shove (rather, allow for) high density in one portion of the city without changing policy for the remainder of the city.
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.
