Are tech workers ruining San Francisco?
video description
Date: 2019-09-12
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Quartknee K
I've lived in SF for over thirty years. You got a few things wrong about the Mission District. Its history is built on generations of displacement that goes back hundreds of years. Sure, techies displaced Mexicans who displaced Central Americans who displaced the Irish and on and on all the way back to the Spanish who displaced the Native tribes. SF has always been a city of boom and bust cycles. Poor planning and a fear of Manhattanization in the 60s and 70s exacerbated problems in the 80s and 90s. The political climate is a huge factor as to why things keep getting worse. From Willy Brown giving sweetheart deals to the developers who got him elected to the Supervisors who curried favor with him failing to enforce laws that required all the live-work loft dwellers to be taxed as businesses. Without enforcement, all those units, many built in the Mission in the 90s that were supposed to be for artists, craftspeople and small businesses went to Silicon Valley commuters who wanted a fun place to party on the weekends. When the city switched to a focus on condos only DINKs and Yuppies could afford, they moved into mixed-use areas in neighborhoods like the Mission and then complained to the city and used the political system to shut down autobody shops, dance studios, restaurants, bars, and other locally owned businesses thereby changing the fabric of the community forever. The Inner Mission (Where you filmed the bustling street life, Outer Mission (Past 24th or Cesar Chavez Street, and Inter-Mission (Where DoLo Park is before you get to the Castro) are three areas with their own subcultures, political representation, and histories. You're right that it's complicated but I think the nuances of history and conflicts between traditionalists and modernists run deeper than you've made it seem.
reply
I've lived in SF for over thirty years. You got a few things wrong about the Mission District. Its history is built on generations of displacement that goes back hundreds of years. Sure, techies displaced Mexicans who displaced Central Americans who displaced the Irish and on and on all the way back to the Spanish who displaced the Native tribes. SF has always been a city of boom and bust cycles. Poor planning and a fear of Manhattanization in the 60s and 70s exacerbated problems in the 80s and 90s. The political climate is a huge factor as to why things keep getting worse. From Willy Brown giving sweetheart deals to the developers who got him elected to the Supervisors who curried favor with him failing to enforce laws that required all the live-work loft dwellers to be taxed as businesses. Without enforcement, all those units, many built in the Mission in the 90s that were supposed to be for artists, craftspeople and small businesses went to Silicon Valley commuters who wanted a fun place to party on the weekends. When the city switched to a focus on condos only DINKs and Yuppies could afford, they moved into mixed-use areas in neighborhoods like the Mission and then complained to the city and used the political system to shut down autobody shops, dance studios, restaurants, bars, and other locally owned businesses thereby changing the fabric of the community forever. The Inner Mission (Where you filmed the bustling street life, Outer Mission (Past 24th or Cesar Chavez Street, and Inter-Mission (Where DoLo Park is before you get to the Castro) are three areas with their own subcultures, political representation, and histories. You're right that it's complicated but I think the nuances of history and conflicts between traditionalists and modernists run deeper than you've made it seem.
reply
yacetube
There are highways and the BART rail to the suburbs, so newcomers don't have to cause the redevelopment of old SF city center. The City of San Francisco is old and beautiful and unique in the world and visited and admired by the whole worldSo, it's not just NIMBY. Would you call Nimby the people who claim we shouldn't destroy the old Paris replacing it with concrete and glass blocks? Its some of the most valuable thing a city can have, a quaint or beautiful center or neighbourhoods, and distinctively unique, and worldwide unique. Basic economics tells you that if there is only 1 of a valuable thing, it's priceless. Don't destroy San Francisco (with new housing. But. .There are many places that could be densified, redeveloped, accomodating new housing towers, and helping the Transit oriented development in the same time. Maybe other suburban places don't have that same Historic and cultural value as the main City Center has, so there could be new development there, tower apartments to acomodate new SF inhabitants, especially those who work in silicon valley south. Guys, wana enjoy San Francisco center cause it's a nice place? Well don't wreck it by flocking to it, live in a suburban apartment, not far from work, convenient, and ride the BART to SF at for a night out. (it's the city's job to preserve itself. I know the US isn't europe, and you tend to destroy pretty much everything with brand new, but SF is not the average city, so don't vancouver it.
reply
There are highways and the BART rail to the suburbs, so newcomers don't have to cause the redevelopment of old SF city center. The City of San Francisco is old and beautiful and unique in the world and visited and admired by the whole worldSo, it's not just NIMBY. Would you call Nimby the people who claim we shouldn't destroy the old Paris replacing it with concrete and glass blocks? Its some of the most valuable thing a city can have, a quaint or beautiful center or neighbourhoods, and distinctively unique, and worldwide unique. Basic economics tells you that if there is only 1 of a valuable thing, it's priceless. Don't destroy San Francisco (with new housing. But. .There are many places that could be densified, redeveloped, accomodating new housing towers, and helping the Transit oriented development in the same time. Maybe other suburban places don't have that same Historic and cultural value as the main City Center has, so there could be new development there, tower apartments to acomodate new SF inhabitants, especially those who work in silicon valley south. Guys, wana enjoy San Francisco center cause it's a nice place? Well don't wreck it by flocking to it, live in a suburban apartment, not far from work, convenient, and ride the BART to SF at for a night out. (it's the city's job to preserve itself. I know the US isn't europe, and you tend to destroy pretty much everything with brand new, but SF is not the average city, so don't vancouver it.
reply
Anthony Delfino
Oh hey I just saw my old apartmentYou're right that the problem is very multifaceted and so it's not going to be an easy fix. But I do think the first part of that solution is getting more supply into the market place, even if all of it is market rate. I say this because every new market rate apartment being built is someone not trying to outprice an existing unit. Building for low-middle income is nice, but for now just maintaining as much as possible what we do have is important. Alongside that the NIMBYs really need to be reigned in. We've lost the opportunity to build nessicary projects in neighborhoods they're well suited for because of it. For example a few years back when people wanted to build some high-end units near the waterfront, but wealthy people who already had a view of the Bay launched a massive PR project to turn the city against the development so they could retain their views, or the laundromat owner in the Mission who wanted to retire and sell his plot to have a mixed usage of low income and market rate hosuing build where the laundromat is which was blocked by groups in the Mission who simply didn't want any new housing. End of the day, more people will be moving into the area, and not building housing isn't going to deterr them. All the cities in the Bay Area (San Francisco included) need to be building up to support the higher population.
reply
Oh hey I just saw my old apartmentYou're right that the problem is very multifaceted and so it's not going to be an easy fix. But I do think the first part of that solution is getting more supply into the market place, even if all of it is market rate. I say this because every new market rate apartment being built is someone not trying to outprice an existing unit. Building for low-middle income is nice, but for now just maintaining as much as possible what we do have is important. Alongside that the NIMBYs really need to be reigned in. We've lost the opportunity to build nessicary projects in neighborhoods they're well suited for because of it. For example a few years back when people wanted to build some high-end units near the waterfront, but wealthy people who already had a view of the Bay launched a massive PR project to turn the city against the development so they could retain their views, or the laundromat owner in the Mission who wanted to retire and sell his plot to have a mixed usage of low income and market rate hosuing build where the laundromat is which was blocked by groups in the Mission who simply didn't want any new housing. End of the day, more people will be moving into the area, and not building housing isn't going to deterr them. All the cities in the Bay Area (San Francisco included) need to be building up to support the higher population.
reply
Pyar Squared
Too many people want to live there, so you either cram people in like sardines with new high rises, or, you will have very high demand for existing structures which includes people buying for investment. If you cram them in, you will overload the existing facilities such as roads, parking, sewers, public transit, and so on and the flavor of the city will definitely have to change and adapt. On the other side, even if foreign purchasing for investment is blocked (and it can be somewhat, there will still be enough Americans vying to get into and live in the area that the demand for existing type housing will still far exceed the supply and high and rising exorbitant housing prices will still happen. Either way, the area will change, and for the worse. Killing paradise and blame it on demand. As for legislation, the local government has to block any BNBs in the area, plus, have an additional tax to owners applied to vacant apartments, and/or an additional tax for owners who do not live in their buildings or apartments they purchased. This does make it far less attractive for foreign investments. In Toronto, for example, if you buy an apartment condo in the area and don't live there and leave it vacant, you as the owner could pay up to 6, 000 per month additional tax.
reply
Too many people want to live there, so you either cram people in like sardines with new high rises, or, you will have very high demand for existing structures which includes people buying for investment. If you cram them in, you will overload the existing facilities such as roads, parking, sewers, public transit, and so on and the flavor of the city will definitely have to change and adapt. On the other side, even if foreign purchasing for investment is blocked (and it can be somewhat, there will still be enough Americans vying to get into and live in the area that the demand for existing type housing will still far exceed the supply and high and rising exorbitant housing prices will still happen. Either way, the area will change, and for the worse. Killing paradise and blame it on demand. As for legislation, the local government has to block any BNBs in the area, plus, have an additional tax to owners applied to vacant apartments, and/or an additional tax for owners who do not live in their buildings or apartments they purchased. This does make it far less attractive for foreign investments. In Toronto, for example, if you buy an apartment condo in the area and don't live there and leave it vacant, you as the owner could pay up to 6, 000 per month additional tax.
reply
Narciso Duran
There is lots of open and potential land in the Bay Area. Sadly, in the 1960s, a massive amount of San Mateo and southern Marin counties were locked up in parks, land banks, conservation districts, and needlessly large Peninsula watershed property. Also, the East Bay Park District aggressively buys up land for parks that could be better used for housing. Even worse, the entire centers of Napa and Sonoma counties are devoted to vineyards that benefit only a few people, some of it protected by the outdated Williamson Act. Finally, filling in the Bay and creating land for homes and was essentially outlawed in the '60s and is highly regulated -- much of the Reber Plan showed great foresight in many ways. It's not right to deny people with money from living here nor turn away the millions of poorer folks with plans to arrive from other countries. Most environmentalism is misguided. We need to fill the Bay sensibly; eliminate all underused parks and open it for housing; shrink the GGNA north of the GG Bridge; shift all viticulture out of the North Bay; build skyscraper villages in every city over 65, 000. Environmental fetishism is anti-human.
reply
There is lots of open and potential land in the Bay Area. Sadly, in the 1960s, a massive amount of San Mateo and southern Marin counties were locked up in parks, land banks, conservation districts, and needlessly large Peninsula watershed property. Also, the East Bay Park District aggressively buys up land for parks that could be better used for housing. Even worse, the entire centers of Napa and Sonoma counties are devoted to vineyards that benefit only a few people, some of it protected by the outdated Williamson Act. Finally, filling in the Bay and creating land for homes and was essentially outlawed in the '60s and is highly regulated -- much of the Reber Plan showed great foresight in many ways. It's not right to deny people with money from living here nor turn away the millions of poorer folks with plans to arrive from other countries. Most environmentalism is misguided. We need to fill the Bay sensibly; eliminate all underused parks and open it for housing; shrink the GGNA north of the GG Bridge; shift all viticulture out of the North Bay; build skyscraper villages in every city over 65, 000. Environmental fetishism is anti-human.
reply
Marco Meza
1. The demand for housing is higher than supply in all growing major cities. 2. If the Bay Area doesnt significantly increase housing supply within 5 years, San Francisco will have displaced enough poor residents to completely and permanently change its character. 3. Poor NIMBYists will eventually be displaced (or die, they tend to be old) so their desire to preserve their neighborhood only facilitates gentrification. Since 2016, Ive learned that stubborn people will act against their best interest if they firmly believe they will be hurt less than those they view as enemies (in this case poor San Franciscans vs Tech Bros as opposed to Trumpists vs Liberals)4. Many cities far away from California are seeing tech job growth because of restrictive zoning in San Francisco. The Seattle area always had Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon so it is natural that many tech companies built offices here. The Rust Belt, which only ever had manufacturing is being revived by the tech industry; Ive read articles about trendy restaurants and other venues attractive to tech workers in the Midwest/Great Lakes region.
reply
1. The demand for housing is higher than supply in all growing major cities. 2. If the Bay Area doesnt significantly increase housing supply within 5 years, San Francisco will have displaced enough poor residents to completely and permanently change its character. 3. Poor NIMBYists will eventually be displaced (or die, they tend to be old) so their desire to preserve their neighborhood only facilitates gentrification. Since 2016, Ive learned that stubborn people will act against their best interest if they firmly believe they will be hurt less than those they view as enemies (in this case poor San Franciscans vs Tech Bros as opposed to Trumpists vs Liberals)4. Many cities far away from California are seeing tech job growth because of restrictive zoning in San Francisco. The Seattle area always had Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon so it is natural that many tech companies built offices here. The Rust Belt, which only ever had manufacturing is being revived by the tech industry; Ive read articles about trendy restaurants and other venues attractive to tech workers in the Midwest/Great Lakes region.
reply
jbarkerhill92
Seems like building more housing won't necessarily solve gentrification. in Portland, most of the new buildings seem to be McMansions and luxury apartments, for rich people. So all the new housing is for more rich people to move to the city. I think there are laws about building more affordable housing, and now a statewide rent control law in Oregon. Still, the fact is that if an area's desirable, well-off people are going to move there and displace the poorer existing residents, and in a geographically constrained area there's not much you can do to prevent that. It seems that in a capitalist society, big cities inherently drift towards social stratification, gentrification, and income inequality, with a wealthy class and then the less wealthy class that's serving them. That probably is an oversimplification, but just is interesting that most major cities have big issues with income inequality.
reply
Seems like building more housing won't necessarily solve gentrification. in Portland, most of the new buildings seem to be McMansions and luxury apartments, for rich people. So all the new housing is for more rich people to move to the city. I think there are laws about building more affordable housing, and now a statewide rent control law in Oregon. Still, the fact is that if an area's desirable, well-off people are going to move there and displace the poorer existing residents, and in a geographically constrained area there's not much you can do to prevent that. It seems that in a capitalist society, big cities inherently drift towards social stratification, gentrification, and income inequality, with a wealthy class and then the less wealthy class that's serving them. That probably is an oversimplification, but just is interesting that most major cities have big issues with income inequality.
reply
Mark W-S
Before Latinos the Mission was long an Italian and Irish neighborhood. That history is all but gone but existed longer and probably had even more of a distinctive character than the later Latino one. They even had their own accent. The Mission is an inner neighborhood that has been long undervalued due to low incomes, social ills and strong community resistance. Gentrification is a problem in that it changes the character of a neighborhood and because its based on income, rather than ethnicity or culture it creates a more boring urban environment. Another example is the straightening of the Castro. In San Franciscos case its worst because its being driven by one industry- full of left-brain, young and over-paid Midwestern wannabes. Ironically Sacramento is becoming hip whilst San Francisco is becoming a Iowa club country punctuated with pockets of dystopian nightmares.
reply
Before Latinos the Mission was long an Italian and Irish neighborhood. That history is all but gone but existed longer and probably had even more of a distinctive character than the later Latino one. They even had their own accent. The Mission is an inner neighborhood that has been long undervalued due to low incomes, social ills and strong community resistance. Gentrification is a problem in that it changes the character of a neighborhood and because its based on income, rather than ethnicity or culture it creates a more boring urban environment. Another example is the straightening of the Castro. In San Franciscos case its worst because its being driven by one industry- full of left-brain, young and over-paid Midwestern wannabes. Ironically Sacramento is becoming hip whilst San Francisco is becoming a Iowa club country punctuated with pockets of dystopian nightmares.
reply
Kuson2
I love the attempt to leave out information and sugar coat this to this degree. Nobody can even comment on this shit until it has actually happened to them. This is completely destroying lives. The Bay Area is getting completely taken over by the Rich and Rich Foreigners. My entire community was ripped apart. A lot of these outsiders do not respect the land or the people. Its pretty messed up for new people to look at you in your homeland like you don't belong there. Not to mention so much of this is fueled by corruption and crooked politicians. They literally bought up all the land that the cheap discount stores that lower income families use to get by were located and demolished them so people financially got choked out. They are indirectly forcing this to happen via strategy. It is a passive hostile takeover.
reply
I love the attempt to leave out information and sugar coat this to this degree. Nobody can even comment on this shit until it has actually happened to them. This is completely destroying lives. The Bay Area is getting completely taken over by the Rich and Rich Foreigners. My entire community was ripped apart. A lot of these outsiders do not respect the land or the people. Its pretty messed up for new people to look at you in your homeland like you don't belong there. Not to mention so much of this is fueled by corruption and crooked politicians. They literally bought up all the land that the cheap discount stores that lower income families use to get by were located and demolished them so people financially got choked out. They are indirectly forcing this to happen via strategy. It is a passive hostile takeover.
reply
Linuxman777
The solution is really harsh, and people wont like it, but we should be sterilizing and killing people off to make housing more affordable. Also blocking immigration helps. I was in Tokyo last month and was shocked at how affordable it was compared to big American cities, and how much better everything was compared to New York or San Francisco or LA. They have alot of things helping their cause though, Low Immigration, Declining Birthrate, Better Zoning Laws, a Better Political System etc. As a Suburbanite I used to not think city life was healthy for people as all I had exposure to was the degeneracy and filth of American Cities, but when I went to Tokyo for vacation everything was so much better. It may sound harsh but I hope some day we can make our cities as good and as affordable as Japanese Cities.
reply
The solution is really harsh, and people wont like it, but we should be sterilizing and killing people off to make housing more affordable. Also blocking immigration helps. I was in Tokyo last month and was shocked at how affordable it was compared to big American cities, and how much better everything was compared to New York or San Francisco or LA. They have alot of things helping their cause though, Low Immigration, Declining Birthrate, Better Zoning Laws, a Better Political System etc. As a Suburbanite I used to not think city life was healthy for people as all I had exposure to was the degeneracy and filth of American Cities, but when I went to Tokyo for vacation everything was so much better. It may sound harsh but I hope some day we can make our cities as good and as affordable as Japanese Cities.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
