3 ms·

The state of SF is sad to see. I remember as a child when it was so much nicer. Today it’s just depressing to see how bad it’s gotten. We’re not used to seeing

by JCM9 3y ago

The state of SF is sad to see. I remember as a child when it was so much nicer. Today it’s just depressing to see how bad it’s gotten. We’re not used to seeing nice cities become not nice cities. In my lifetime in other parts of the country the norm has been seeing not nice areas becoming nice areas.

pcarolan 3y ago
I grew up in Michigan during the rust belt era. Nice cities don't always get better, they can get far worse. What turns them around is 1) a commitment from the community to do something about it 2) artists and grass roots efforts transforming blighted assets 3) Financial resources 4) Frankly, the incumbents who put strangleholds on development moving out or dying and 5) visionary business leaders following the artists and seeing opportunity where others see blight. SF has all of the right ingredients, but as someone who visits often, I think the missing piece is community "roots". The people walking through the tenderloin and shaking their heads in disgust just leave. They don't live and work in these communities and so it becomes a constant gripe rather than a problem. SF will get better when people who don't want to invest in it anymore move out and people who are building for generations to come move in. I'd look to immigrants as a class of people who would kill to have a place in the tenderloin they can develop and build wealth on top of. The mental health piece is a big part of it, the "housing first" approach makes the most sense to me but is not without significant challenges. For a city that is filled with people good at building systems, it feels like inward focus and community involvement from our brightest minds outside of government would be a big step in the right direction.
- steveBK123 3y ago
  My observation from NY is that a lot of people who only lived in rich coastal cities on the long upward trajectory from the 70s~90s bottom think it's an automatic force of nature. There is also an attitude from people who moved in at the early end of this trend saying "well it was worse when I moved here". Sure, but you got to buy your condo at 1/10th to 1/4th todays prices, and everything around you got better for the last ~25 years, which is probably why you've stayed. No one deserves to be a victim of a crime. When the value proposition you offer to new residents is "your apartment will cost you $3M, but you still won't feel comfortable in your own neighborhood" then those people with money will make other choices. My observation is that only now are we starting to see some the loud "theres no problem" voices die down so maybe we are on the way to rationally tackling some of the challenges. Ironically 2023 was the year that the 2020->2022 crime wave at least in NY started to die down, so sentiment really is lagging.
DudeOpotomus 3y ago
That area has always been a slum. Always. For as long as SF has been a city. Not sure what memories you're conflating, but mid/lower Market St and the Tenderloin were a ghetto well before you were born. SoMarket was an industrial mess full of crime. SF is so much cleaner and safer than at any point in your life. No one would be caught down there after dark 30,50,75 years ago.
- nkozyra 3y ago
  I agree that people have invented some version of SF that probably hasn't existed for a very long time, if ever. At least not in my lifetime. But I can't deny there have been periods where it's been palpably worse than normal.
- scarmig 3y ago
  I can't speak to 30 years ago, but from 20 years ago to 4 years ago, SoMa and Market were definitely much better than they are today. I've been physically attacked twice since 2020 in SoMa.
pavlov 3y ago
New York City was widely considered to be a lost case in the early 1970s. (The era of the famous headline “Ford to City: Drop Dead”) For famous cities, urban decline is often an ebb and flow. If SF loses the tech crowd, it will attract new kinds of people who previously couldn’t afford to live there.
- steveBK123 3y ago
  It is not automatic though. You need to have political will (and voter support) for policies that will get you there.

by JCM9 3y ago

pcarolan 3y ago

I grew up in Michigan during the rust belt era. Nice cities don't always get better, they can get far worse. What turns them around is 1) a commitment from the community to do something about it 2) artists and grass roots efforts transforming blighted assets 3) Financial resources 4) Frankly, the incumbents who put strangleholds on development moving out or dying and 5) visionary business leaders following the artists and seeing opportunity where others see blight. SF has all of the right ingredients, but as someone who visits often, I think the missing piece is community "roots". The people walking through the tenderloin and shaking their heads in disgust just leave. They don't live and work in these communities and so it becomes a constant gripe rather than a problem. SF will get better when people who don't want to invest in it anymore move out and people who are building for generations to come move in. I'd look to immigrants as a class of people who would kill to have a place in the tenderloin they can develop and build wealth on top of. The mental health piece is a big part of it, the "housing first" approach makes the most sense to me but is not without significant challenges. For a city that is filled with people good at building systems, it feels like inward focus and community involvement from our brightest minds outside of government would be a big step in the right direction.

steveBK123 3y ago
My observation from NY is that a lot of people who only lived in rich coastal cities on the long upward trajectory from the 70s~90s bottom think it's an automatic force of nature. There is also an attitude from people who moved in at the early end of this trend saying "well it was worse when I moved here". Sure, but you got to buy your condo at 1/10th to 1/4th todays prices, and everything around you got better for the last ~25 years, which is probably why you've stayed. No one deserves to be a victim of a crime. When the value proposition you offer to new residents is "your apartment will cost you $3M, but you still won't feel comfortable in your own neighborhood" then those people with money will make other choices. My observation is that only now are we starting to see some the loud "theres no problem" voices die down so maybe we are on the way to rationally tackling some of the challenges. Ironically 2023 was the year that the 2020->2022 crime wave at least in NY started to die down, so sentiment really is lagging.

DudeOpotomus 3y ago

That area has always been a slum. Always. For as long as SF has been a city. Not sure what memories you're conflating, but mid/lower Market St and the Tenderloin were a ghetto well before you were born. SoMarket was an industrial mess full of crime. SF is so much cleaner and safer than at any point in your life. No one would be caught down there after dark 30,50,75 years ago.

nkozyra 3y ago
I agree that people have invented some version of SF that probably hasn't existed for a very long time, if ever. At least not in my lifetime. But I can't deny there have been periods where it's been palpably worse than normal.
scarmig 3y ago
I can't speak to 30 years ago, but from 20 years ago to 4 years ago, SoMa and Market were definitely much better than they are today. I've been physically attacked twice since 2020 in SoMa.

pavlov 3y ago

New York City was widely considered to be a lost case in the early 1970s. (The era of the famous headline “Ford to City: Drop Dead”) For famous cities, urban decline is often an ebb and flow. If SF loses the tech crowd, it will attract new kinds of people who previously couldn’t afford to live there.

steveBK123 3y ago
It is not automatic though. You need to have political will (and voter support) for policies that will get you there.