Travel Update: A Tale Of Two Latino Areas In Miami And San Francisco (San Jose: 2015)

[darkeconomist]

Travel Update: A Tale Of Two Latino Areas In Miami And San Francisco

An interesting perspective on how the Bay Area could resist (further) gentrification.

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.

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.

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.

[roadwarrior101]

What's wrong with Brickell? I stayed at the Four Seasons there, ate at a very good Argentinan restaurant across the street and loved both. A little ostentation can be good once in a while.

[cardinal2007]

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

Travel Update: A Tale Of Two Latino Areas In Miami And San Francisco

An interesting perspective on how the Bay Area could resist (further) gentrification.

I'm wondering how this relates to San Jose, it seems like most people here wouldn't want to move to an area with a lot of latinos, it seems most latinos in San Jose don't move to where they live because they want to be near other latinos, but because of cost of living in other areas. I don't think latinos want different things in housing than others, but for the most part they can't afford a better area. I'm not seeing people move to East San Jose or other latino areas causing latinos to move out. So while what you say makes sense, I'm not sure how it applies, and what city leaders could do from that?

Are there areas that we see as possible areas for big changes. It seems currently that for San Jose the target for gentrification are older industrial or empty lots in or near downtown, or similar properties in North San Jose, so I'm not sure what San Jose can do different or better.

[darkeconomist]

Cardinal, you're focusing too closely on the Latino aspect. I understood it as a vehicle to communicate a message, but that it isn't itself the message.

[bobby_guz_man]

Not sure why further gentrification is a bad thing?

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man

Not sure why further gentrification is a bad thing?

Well, I've always differentiated between an area improving--less crime and trash, better student outcomes, etc.--and gentrification--the outright replacement of one socio-economic group with one often in the next wealth quintile or higher. And gentrification tends to happen because, as the author points out, supply is constrained far tighter than demand, causing the whole regional market to price up as opposed to one area such as, assuming the author is accurate, Brickell. To me, this sharp upward pricing of a region represents an economic loss--more household funds are spent on housing or commuting to affordable housing rather than on local goods and services--and a cultural loss.