Where is gentrification in this country eventually leading to? (San Diego: rentals, new home)

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

I posted this in the General US board but it fits on this board as well...

While I think it is great that you care and want to analyze this issue, I think you are a bit guilty of romanticizing the past.

While many historically black districts across the country (as you know, it isn't just a California issue at all) have a rich cultural heritage, most also have a larger heritage that they'd just as soon forget. If it was so great in the day...the Civil Rights Act never would have been such as major issue.

National integration and inclusion was and is the national goal, and for many sound and valid reasons. With it, you have economic change, much for the better. While discussing the music culture, you should have taken a look at the education, crime and income stats too. It wasn't anything most of those residents wouldn't have minded leaving behind.

Gentrification is generally a good thing, and when the economics can't support the income level needed to live in those areas the prices and lifestyle alternatives will accommodate this economic reality. In fact, you even see it in many areas across the country today.

[Oakland Uptown]

See San Francisco SOMA in the early 90's. It was run down and full of crack dealers, users and prostitutes, yet more affordable than other parts of the city. See it now, much nicer, and one of the more desirable area's of the city for yuppies, however unaffordable to most people. That is what happens and is a good example of gentrification. Soon Hunters Point will be the same way, SF will be left with a 1% black population. It was around 18% in the 60's and 70's.

[jbunniii]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

Who's getting pushed out by gentrification? Tends to be minorities, and blacks in particular... the black community in the bay has been hit a lot harder by gentrification than any other group.

There are plenty of whites and every other race being pushed out, too. It takes a pretty big income/assets to live comfortably here. People with modest incomes can have much better lives (financially speaking) almost anywhere else in the US. I don't like it much either, but it comes down to supply and demand.

[BayDude]

Originally Posted by Oakland Uptown

See San Francisco SOMA in the early 90's. It was run down and full of crack dealers, users and prostitutes, yet more affordable than other parts of the city. See it now, much nicer, and one of the more desirable area's of the city for yuppies, however unaffordable to most people. That is what happens and is a good example of gentrification. Soon Hunters Point will be the same way, SF will be left with a 1% black population. It was around 18% in the 60's and 70's.

True. Something I actually agree with you on. I think the problem is the poor level of education most blacks get in the bay area in particular (combined with maybe the proliferation single parent households, something affecting blacks nationwide) and low expectations of blacks overall, especially men, which can hurt academic achievement.

Black people can and should be able to participate in the modern tech and knowledge centered economy (i.e. silicon valley), where most of the high-paying jobs are. I was one of the only a handful blacks taking CS college courses. We are really underrepresented among the upper middle class and overrepresented among the poorer classes in the Bay Area not as much of a black middle class and upper class as other areas such as Baltimore or Atlanta or even LA.

BTW Its not a racial issue per se but the effect is racial due to city demographics and culture.

[lmk1707]

I think this is a really interesting question. How do you improve an area without pushing out the poorer residents? It's not as simple as developers catering to a certain customer, like white hipsters, at the expense of other residents - in West Oakland, for example, improvements to parks and reduction in crime are two major improvements for current residents, however as a result the area has been made more appealing for those in a higher income bracket and they are starting to gravitate to the area. One major change that is benefiting West Oakland residents is increased air quality regulations - bamboo trees are being planted to block pollution from the Port of Oakland, and anti-pollution measures are being enacted on trucks entering the Port. While the solution is incomplete and imperfect, it is doing much to improve things for long-term residents over time, without the cost of gentrification.

Then you have places like Brown Sugar Kitchen opening in West Oakland with higher prices that do not currently cater to the poor, but better-off people. When it opened and gained some notoriety, efforts were made in the neighborhood to improve and clean up the area, which certainly benefits residents. However, the addition of great restaurants and an art scene will also appeal to typically above-poverty level people, and proximity to SF makes it even more appealing.

I wonder if the only way to combat the ill effects of gentrification would be legislation - laws prohibiting the expulsion of residents while the neighborhood improves. We already have tenant law and rent control, but as people may move from building to building in their neighborhood, this will become negated. Also, hobbling developers and landlords may deter larger projects that would benefit the area.

It's definitely a tight-rope walk - and I think one responsibility of the people is to live in a neighborhood you can comfortably afford rather than one that is typically meant for poorer residents in order to save a buck. Another big step would be to help improve education in the area, so the current residents have more opportunities and the possibility to "gentify" their own neighborhood, with their own sweat and toil. There are several great charities run by locals in West Oakland, where an educated person can volunteer to tutor or offer their business acumen.

Keep asking these questions though - they're definitely thought-provoking!

[Oakland Uptown]

Originally Posted by BayDude

True. Something I actually agree with you on. I think the problem is the poor level of education most blacks get in the bay area in particular (combined with maybe the proliferation single parent households, something affecting blacks nationwide) and low expectations of blacks overall, especially men, which can hurt academic achievement.

Black people can and should be able to participate in the modern tech and knowledge centered economy (i.e. silicon valley), where most of the high-paying jobs are. I was one of the only a handful blacks taking CS college courses. We are really underrepresented among the upper middle class and overrepresented among the poorer classes in the Bay Area not as much of a black middle class and upper class as other areas such as Baltimore or Atlanta or even LA.

BTW Its not a racial issue per se but the effect is racial due to city demographics and culture.

You're right on target with this.

[Oakland Uptown]

Originally Posted by lmk1707

I think this is a really interesting question. How do you improve an area without pushing out the poorer residents? It's not as simple as developers catering to a certain customer, like white hipsters, at the expense of other residents - in West Oakland, for example, improvements to parks and reduction in crime are two major improvements for current residents, however as a result the area has been made more appealing for those in a higher income bracket and they are starting to gravitate to the area. One major change that is benefiting West Oakland residents is increased air quality regulations - bamboo trees are being planted to block pollution from the Port of Oakland, and anti-pollution measures are being enacted on trucks entering the Port. While the solution is incomplete and imperfect, it is doing much to improve things for long-term residents over time, without the cost of gentrification.

Then you have places like Brown Sugar Kitchen opening in West Oakland with higher prices that do not currently cater to the poor, but better-off people. When it opened and gained some notoriety, efforts were made in the neighborhood to improve and clean up the area, which certainly benefits residents. However, the addition of great restaurants and an art scene will also appeal to typically above-poverty level people, and proximity to SF makes it even more appealing.

I wonder if the only way to combat the ill effects of gentrification would be legislation - laws prohibiting the expulsion of residents while the neighborhood improves. We already have tenant law and rent control, but as people may move from building to building in their neighborhood, this will become negated. Also, hobbling developers and landlords may deter larger projects that would benefit the area.

It's definitely a tight-rope walk - and I think one responsibility of the people is to live in a neighborhood you can comfortably afford rather than one that is typically meant for poorer residents in order to save a buck. Another big step would be to help improve education in the area, so the current residents have more opportunities and the possibility to "gentify" their own neighborhood, with their own sweat and toil. There are several great charities run by locals in West Oakland, where an educated person can volunteer to tutor or offer their business acumen.

Keep asking these questions though - they're definitely thought-provoking!

West Oakland in 10-20 years will just be an extension of Uptown. I"m actually being priced out of Uptown because costs are starting to go back up here. This is not a good thing at all, brown sugar kitchen I can't even go try because the line goes out the door like just like Bakesale Betty. These are not locals eating there either.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Once all the criminals are pushed out, Oakland may be a respectable place to live finally.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

I wish that developers of high-density housing projects didnt solely think of wealthy hipsters and empty-nesters.

I would love nothing more than moderately priced 3-4 bd units that whole families(with kids) could live in comfortably--oh at for less than $300,000.

That would be awesome.

But the demand for such properties is such that they can ask for $600K and have no problems..

[BRinSM]

i'm not too familiar with SF, but i do understand the nature of gentrification. it's a win/lose situation. places where gentrification has taken place generally were rundown and infested with crime and over time were able to attract enough investment to remove this neagtive element to make room for wealthier residents. the issue of old time residents being pushed out is an unfortunate consequence of this, but it also unfortunate that a neighborhood's soul had to be ruined by poverty and criminal activity.

one must also remember that gentrification took place after "reverse gentrification" took place some time before. neighborhoods that have become gentrified were usually decent middle classes place to live at one point in history (most likely inhabited by a majority white population). i won't go into the politics of the downfall of inner city neighborhoods, but the dynamics of a city cannot be stopped. population shifts are very common in US cities. even places that felt immune to this are now experiencing it with the influx of latin immigration.

i think the best way to get past the negativity of gentrification is to remember a neighborhood's history, but not to impede progress. sure there should be measures put in place so average people are not abused by land developers, but keeping a neighborhood *****ty for the sake of a bygone time seems pretty stupid to me.