2 ms·

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I think one issue is actually Silicon Valley's model of "disruption" — ie new solutions replace old ones. For example,

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I think one issue is actually Silicon Valley's model of "disruption" — ie new solutions replace old ones. For example, instead of fixing public transit in San Francisco (or SF -> SV) we now have all of these new private infrastructures for transit within SF (Uber, Lyft, Cabulous, etc) and SF -> SV (all those shuttles, see: http://stamen.com/zero1/ http://stamen.com/zero1/). What happens then is that the people with apps, the people with jobs at Google, Apple, Facebook, live in a completely different urban landscape than ones who aren't in the ecosystem. When we can't see the problems of MUNI we don't feel them, and when they aren't problems for us we won't feel like fixing them. I'd love for us to have more of a civic sense as well, vs this complicated and classed (but faster to build!) layering of private infrastructures.

cbracy 14y ago
Completely 100% agree with you, and have been mildly obsessed with Uber and other ride-sharing apps since I moved here because of their conflict with city government and the implications they have for public transportation. One of the most jarring San Francisco experiences I had when I first got here was getting off Mission/16th BART and then walking a block to Valencia street. The difference that block makes is a good metaphor for what I'm trying to describe in this article, but I'm not creative or articulate enough to describe it in this context and have it make sense.
- jfb 14y ago
  Of course, that sort of extreme income gradient exists in a lot of cities, and predates any one particular industry -- try walking south from the University of Chicago buildings to 63rd street to see a non-SF example.