How has SF changed? What is the future of SF?

[LittleDolphin]

I do not care much about the art but do care about the people who provide me cheap services!--andyadhi01

Interesting. No comment, really hard to say something that's either pleasant or illuminating, so I'll desist.

I sure do miss the 'good old days' when SF was a delightfully bubbling kettle of bonhomie. Gone, gone, gone--but never forgotten. My love to all my favorite Dharma Bums. Somewhere in a dark cellar, a cool trumpet wails, but alas, it wails not for me.

[clongirl]

Originally Posted by slowbill

The area is too expensive and has high taxes.

profound. Would you care to discuss the OP "How has SF changed?"

My guess is that you don't have a clue.

[NorCal77]

Like many of the people have already pointed out, the price of living has been the downfall. In the short time I've been down here in the bay area (13 years) I noticed how all the .com'ers came in and jacked the prices up. The SOMA and Mission I think changed the most(in my eyes) both in a good and bad way. The areas cleaned up and are perhaps more safe, but along with a cleaner 'hood came bigger rent. It's sad that many artists cannot afford to live in SF since it was arguably one the most thriving scenes on the west coast. I witnessed the same exact thing happen in Seattle around the lower ave's during this time period. Many musicians and artists had to pack up and leave,small clubs/bars were bought up and developed, new high rise condo's and stadiums were built. Like all things "better" is a subjective term, but you cannot argue that the city has lost some flavor! Hopefully with the current economy and commercial property sitting vacant (has anyone seen Market St!?) things will become more affordable again, however I think my optimism is just that!

[bellalunatic]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

Gentrification is driven by capitalism and it will exclude lower income people and that's just the reality. My impression is the so called 'creative class' in SF is not as poor as they appear and most I guess like to appear poor as a fashion statement. I would even suggest that many make those career choices because they can count on the support from their wealthy families. Even more ironically, its the super expensive live-work style artist lofts that are displacing the working poor! So, I would be more concerned about the working class i.e. low wage service workers than so called 'artists'. I do not care much about the art but do care about the people who provide me cheap services!

The above statement is so incredibly off base in regards to SF recent past history and is a perfect example to the OP and anyone else reading that you have zero understanding of this topic.

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

I am already sick of being around too many hostile, unfriendly folks with a chip on their shoulder.

Looking in the mirror again obviously.

Originally Posted by slowbill

The area is too expensive and has high taxes.

....writes the aptly named "slow" bill.

Originally Posted by NorCal77

Like many of the people have already pointed out, the price of living has been the downfall. In the short time I've been down here in the bay area (13 years) I noticed how all the .com'ers came in and jacked the prices up. The SOMA and Mission I think changed the most(in my eyes) both in a good and bad way. The areas cleaned up and are perhaps more safe, but along with a cleaner 'hood came bigger rent. It's sad that many artists cannot afford to live in SF since it was arguably one the most thriving scenes on the west coast. I witnessed the same exact thing happen in Seattle around the lower ave's during this time period. Many musicians and artists had to pack up and leave,small clubs/bars were bought up and developed, new high rise condo's and stadiums were built. Like all things "better" is a subjective term, but you cannot argue that the city has lost some flavor! Hopefully with the current economy and commercial property sitting vacant (has anyone seen Market St!?) things will become more affordable again, however I think my optimism is just that!

Your assessment of the situation in pretty spot on. Hayes Valley has changed the most I think along with the Mission and SOMA. It's better to be optimistic than not. Just think of all the liquefaction hazard zones....Mission Bay anyone?! hahaaahhhaaahhhaaaa

[Chrysopylae]

Others have described how the feel of the city has changed. I think several signature events were part of that change, whether propelled by the times or the genesis of them.

The dotcom era was definitely a dividing line, but it wasn't the only thing and I would even venture to say not the main thing that changed the way the city felt, at least for me. I'd lived here for twenty years before moving to the Pacific Northwest, and returned at the inception of that era. A tectonic shift already changed SF, both literally and figuratively, and is one of four things that come to mind when I think of changes in SF.

Loma Prieta: That earthquake shook the nerves of a lot of people. It was the most significant quake in San Francisco most people had ever felt, and these were people who had been told many times a big quake was inevitable. A lot of people left the city, but a lot more moved in, attracted by the rents that had suddenly dropped in places like the Marina. I don't have statistics to back me up, but I think there was a lot of churn in the renting population of San Francisco. Home prices dropped too. Each of the two units in my Upper Market condo had three BRs, two baths, functioning wood-burning fireplaces, gas stoves and a garage. The entire building was put out for sale at $550K and the price was lowered twice - with no takers. Unfortunately, I couldn't afford it. The city was also nearly paralyzed by the realization that a lot of work had to be done to fix the damage and shore up the infrastructure. From the long bitter battle over what to do with the Central and Embarcadero Freeways (remember Rose Pak?) to the braces propping up buildings in South of Market, the city felt a little like East Berlin before the Wall fell, with reminders of bomb damage everywhere, and it persisted for years.

The opening of the Presidio: I grew up an Army brat. An uncle was stationed at the Presidio. I knew it was a rare "open base" where the public could come and go as long as they abided by the rules posted at every entrance. But it seemed most people tried to give the base a wide berth, except maybe those who lived along the Presidio Wall. When the majority of the base was turned over to the National Park Service, it was as if a hidden part of San Francisco had suddenly been opened up. The terms of the turnover ensured construction and change would have to follow, and quickly to avoid going to big developers. People began to flood into Crissy Field, hikers and bicycle traffic blossomed in the Red Hill area, and we suddenly had an outdoor playground to complement Golden Gate Park. I went to the first big Earth Day celebration out there, and it was so overrun I barely saw anything but people. I think the possibilities of what could happen in the Presidio was a boost to the City's psyche, and it laid the foundations for what was coming next.

Da Mayor and the at-large Board of Supervisors: Willie Brown took hold of the city like no one had since Sunny Jim - and I wasn't around then. For better or for worse, he forced a lot of change down people's throats. He pushed for improvements all over the City and got the supervisors to go along with it. The Embarcadero Freeway came down. The Ferry Building started renovations. City Hall was renovated. Moscone West was built and the area around the original convention center was renovated. Most significantly, the long-stalled Yerba Buena Project was dusted off and brought to fruition. A cruise ship terminal was rebuilt and he wangled regular visits from the Princess Line, kicked off by a lavish party under the refurbished City Hall rotunda. Willie managed to hold a Conference of Mayors summit here, and enlisted a volunteer organization that provided free walking tours to show the visiting mayors around town, with a lot of help (bling, buses and bar tabs) from local corporations. And it was probably that cozy relationship with big business that caused the backlash resulting in the reinstatement of district elections by voters, and the end to the glitz that had transformed the City's image. Yet that transformation laid the seeds for the dotcom invasion, and the seed package was…

PacBell Park: The backlash would have badly affected the vote to build the stadium, but this time it had two big things going for it. One was that a lot of the new Bay Area citizens were working for it on a volunteer basis, underscoring the fact that it was pitched as a privately-financed ballpark. The other was that it was going into another long-dormant redevelopment area: Mission Bay. The Giants were pretty much the anchor tenant in a vast swath of land that promised nothing. The district squabblers resented even the streetcar tracks that ran to the park. For the first couple of seasons, finding parking on Opening Day was not a problem. Empty lots stretched for blocks in almost every direction. Now - well, you can see the difference.

I like to think the opening of the Presidio coincided with the explosion of dog parks in the city, and Yerba Buena Gardens (along with the adjacent museums) made it cool to live in the city with young children. The sweep of the waterfront from Mission Bay to Land's End is populated with tourists and locals every day. The old Downtown Plan limiting high-rises in SoMa has been swept away, and the area boasts some of the tallest buildings we have.

What do I think is in San Francisco's future? I know what I'd like to see. If high-speed rail, or any long-haul rail line, comes into the new Transbay Terminal, the city will achieve a significant step towards parity with European and some Asian cities in terms of accessibility. I think the addition of residential towers will continue. I think SF will achieve critical population mass, which I arbitrarily call one million residents, by 2025. By then I hope we have tunneled a streetcar line under Geary to a Sutro Station, and that Bart has built the long needed loop from Montgomery Station under Mission Bay out along 101 to industrial South San Francisco. I hope the City has a subsidy program in place to retrofit existing homes so families in less affluent residential areas of the city can keep up with the Lennars. I'd like to see all the overhead wires underground. It would be great to have a social program that offered subsistence-wage employment on city work crews for homeless and indigent, and banned begging.

And a new cool nightclub district wouldn't hurt, either. If the Giants get their arena in Lot A, we might have have a new Barbary Coast to rival the French Quarter.

[Gatorgrad2004]

The best and most informative post yet!!! +1

[gone down south]

It strikes me that some of you guys aren't bemoaning the changes to San Francisco, you're pining for your lost youth

Let's be honest, the 60s and the 90s were both very good to San Francisco, but those were unique times in the national zeitgeist - there's NOWHERE in the country right now that you can find that kind of energy and creative growth. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that all the people moving into SF these days are loving life and having a great time despite the grousing of the old-timers about how much better things were in the "old days". In fact, all you guys looking back so fondly to the 90s probably had to put up with the exact same complaints from the old heads then too.