SF has changed for the worse... but so has everywhere else (Los Angeles: to rent, crime rates)

[peninsular]

Originally Posted by mini_cute

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.

Yes, of course I agree that overall the US has declined in the last few years. We had a giant economic debacle bordering on a catastrophe. It is at best naïve to expect life overall to get better when something like this happens.

Originally Posted by mini_cute

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.

We've been through some of these before on this forum. Why do middle class families need to by a home in SF? Especially now. If they have lived here long enough, they are enjoying a windfall that most likely will benefit even their kids and beyond. If they don't own, there is a fair chance they live in rent-controlled apartments, which again puts them at a significant financial advantage compared to some of us who are forced to pay market rates for our housing.
I'm not sure that the middle class in SF is disappearing. I'd like to see a study or some numbers on this. I see a lot of middle class people around me in the western parts of the city.
Regarding the influx of homeless, again I'm not so sure. In fact, I just saw it in the Chron that at least within the last year, the number of homeless in the city stayed about the same.
Regarding the number of blacks, this is a tough one. The only black acquaintances I have live in Oakland. I would be curious to find some statistical data on the reasons black people are leaving San Francisco. I'm not entirely convinced that it is because their situation is deteriorating.

[FabianS]

No doubt America has sucked since the late '90s when the Boomer-hippie-yuppies from hell fully took charge of everything. The polls don't lie... Institutional trust has plummeted since the '60s longhair 'tards too over.

I miss having Silent and Greatest Generation grown ups in charge.

"Maybe it was better in some ways... but it was a racist horrible time!"

Really, the '80s were racist and horrible? I can't think of a more genuinly optimistic, vibrant decade.

Sadly most people under 35 don't even remember what sanity looks like at this point.

[Tex?Il?]

Oh my how history repeats itself.



Grateful Dead Jerry Garcia Hippie Interview - YouTube

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by mini_cute

But I am wondering how much of these changes are not just a phenomenon of SF but rather an across the board societal change in America. You hear it all the time about how the middle class in America is disappearing, how the 50s was the best time in America, how NYC also lost its soul to trust fund kids and yuppies (Madonna has been quoted as saying that NYC is no longer the same city), how even Portland, OR has changed.

While it is true that the secular decline of middle incomes is happening nation-wide, the problem is far worse in the coastal conurbations. And among those, the Bay Area is particularly notable regarding income disparity. This shows up in obvious fashion on the many different thematic maps which depict metrics such as income disparity, fecundity, etc.

[the_citrus]

Originally Posted by mini_cute

You hear it all the time about how the middle class in America is disappearing, how the 50s was the best time in America...

I mostly agree with your post, but: wasn't the 50's the specific decade when the middle class decided to leave US center cities en masse?

[jade408]

Originally Posted by the_citrus

I mostly agree with your post, but: wasn't the 50's the specific decade when the middle class decided to leave US center cities en masse?

Yes. This is when white flight happened via the affordable housing programs. The 50s were great if you were white.

At the same time if you were black and any other minority group, your housing options were limited,either officially by neighborhood or city policy. Or unofficially via redlining or limited access to mortgages or exclusionary HOAs.


On an autocorrecting iDevice.

[sliverbox]

I've enjoyed reading this thread because its a general observation of the way things seem to be going in the US or how we perceive them to be.

I'd have to say that in my opinion, its not just a SF thing. Its national. I grew up in the rural South, then moved to the East Coast, and then here to the Bay Area about 13 years ago. Back when I was younger it seemed like you hardly ever heard of stories where schools were running out of money, teachers were being let go, the freeways were full of potholes, or that the state(s) were going broke. Things at least from my perspective seemed stable, if not somewhat boring. You went to college. Got a degree. Got a job that paid maybe 30-50k a year and bought a house. Done. Most people led very ordinary middle class lives and thought nothing of it. Their parents lived like that and so too did their Grandparents. So it was a big shock when slowly over time a lot of those things we probably took for granted began to disappear.

My experience having moved from a rural Southern area to two large coastal metros was that the differences in income and costs in living was at a HUGE delta in comparison to back home. It became abundantly clear that it would take a lot more effort to live in those places. The rich in the two metros I moved too were enormously rich. And there were a LOT of them too. They say that the coasts generally set the national precedent 10 years in advance. I think this is true because now when I visit my family who still live in the South, I see some of this same sort of disparity coming through. Schools in California have had problems and funding issues for years. Now that same issue is starting to show up back home too. Likewise California has had state financial problems for a long time. Again- when I left home the state was relatively healthy. Now it too is having financial problems.

What's interesting too is that cities in general regardless of location have sort of become these havens for hipsters and yuppies. Even the small Southern city I grew up outside of- a city of perhaps 200,000 people- now has its own farmer's market, foodie trucks, microbreweries, art galleries, wine bars, and so on. 10 years ago it was a hole. As in nothing was happening downtown. So in a way its been a good thing. But then also this transformation has created the atmosphere the OP I believe was alluding to: That with the transformation comes a change which makes the city feel "fake" and plasticy. Good example: The large bank building, a 1920's Hotel, and even a food processing plant- all of which were in full operation when I left home- have been turned into luxury lofts. SF is like this but its simply about 10 years further up the progression.

But to present a contrary view in regards to the Bay Area, well its not been cheap here for a very, very long time. A few good examples from my former neighbors when I rented in a East Bay city: One neighbor told me- almost bragging, that they had bought their small, 2 BR house in the 60's for 30k. In the 60's the average American home was about $10,000. So its not like they paid a pittance. 30k for a small house in the 60's was a LOT of money. Same with another set of neighbors who owned a large Victorian. They bought it in poor falling-down condition in 1979 for 90k. Again- in that era the average American home cost a fraction of that for a NEW house. It was just as bad 30-40+ years ago as it is today. Its just that people like to wax nostalgic about an era that in many ways wasn't totally different from how things are now.

I'd say the whole country is now experiencing the results of a changing socio-economic strata, where the wealth of the country has shifted from the middle to the top. Where less spending power in the middle means less for the infrastructure, services, and overall standards that were once had by this at one time dominant economic class. This in turn has many of us yearning for what was not too long ago almost mundane and expected.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Next there will be fiefs, serfs, barons, lords, etc.

[clongirl]

Originally Posted by peninsular

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)

I think you've entirely misinterpreted and have misunderstood what I've been saying. I don't have a problem with "transplants/techies". The main issue is that the demographic has changed so rapidly in an incredibly short time. There's a lot of new money now...young DINKS and singles now, few blacks. Boutiques, and fancy shmancy restaurants and places geared specifically for the dinks, gourmet this, high end that...

And of course I know that Armistead Maupin wasn't from the City. He'd been living in the City since the 70's... He moved out with his husband last year...My facts aren't mixed up.

As for Soma...well it was where all of us used to go clubbing and to see bands. The Oasis, Slims, Kit Kat club, 20 tank Brewery.. There was definitely grit, but it didn't bother me. Not saying that there shouldn't be change. I just think that every new business that opens seems entirely geared for the young folks with money.

Anyway, you don't need to get bent out of shape or defensive about anything I've written! Why I'd write a long post like that? Well, let's just say I'm a native Northern Californian and we're known for some things

[peninsular]

Originally Posted by clongirl

I think you've entirely misinterpreted and have misunderstood what I've been saying. I don't have a problem with "transplants/techies". The main issue is that the demographic has changed so rapidly in an incredibly short time. There's a lot of new money now...young DINKS and singles now, few blacks. Boutiques, and fancy shmancy restaurants and places geared specifically for the dinks, gourmet this, high end that...

Actually, I think I do get your point. There is definitely a mix of arrogance and self-righteousness that I come across fairly regularly. I often wonder, though, whether it's mostly my own insecurities. But I don't think it can be largely attributed to the influx of transplants and especially the techies. Fortunately, I don't find myself all that often in the neighborhoods that are well-known for that. Bottom line, I think there is still plenty of room in SF for people who value simple things. Moreover, for the city as a whole, I'm sure it's much better to be facing these kind of problems rather than the opposite, such as surviving an economic decline.