5 ms·

It is becoming quite homogenous here. There's just a ton of really wealthy, well-paid business/engineer types. I've heard varied reports on dating. Some friend

by debt 13y ago

It is becoming quite homogenous here. There's just a ton of really wealthy, well-paid business/engineer types. I've heard varied reports on dating. Some friends are very successful, others no so much. This seems to be more a personal situation then dependent on the culture of the city as a whole. You just gotta get on that tinders or cupes or grindr if that's your thing and play the game just like any other city. It's a fun city, but it's increasingly become a fantasy for rich white people. Like parent says lots of "lifestyle" shops; I'm going to arrange a store so it looks like my home but everything is for sale. It's all bullshit though because the rent for these lifestyle shops must far outweigh what they're bringing in. It's hobby businesses for the wives of rich white C-level execs. I don't know I just made that last part up, but you get the picture.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- erikpukinskis 13y ago
  What you're missing is that when people say an area is "becoming increasingly Black" they usually are talking about it going from 0% to 5%, or from 5% to 10%. Parts of San Francisco (at least certain businesses) are moving towards 100% white. It's a fundamentally different phenomenon.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
      Detroit isn't like that because all the black people moved in, it's like that because all the white people moved out once black people started moving in.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - shiven 13y ago
        Then why don't non-white people move in to SF, just like in Detroit? Alright, enough with the wisecracks. The people moving in during gentrification are rich or rather richer than the current residents. Just because the overwhelming majority happen to be white is a mere coincidence arising of multiple factors. These people are not really white/black/brown, their only true color is Green, like the dollar bills in their banks and pockets. The color of their skin is secondary. With all the song and dance about loss of diversity, in any city or context, I see it as a green-ification, not a white-wash or any other racially motivated term. This is a class issue that is always conflated as a race issue, with the the same lame excuse: because, history.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        erikpukinskis 13y ago
        > This is a class issue that is always conflated as a race issue, with the the same lame excuse: because, history. Do you think using class differences to cover up racism is only a historical thing?
        shiven 13y ago
        It is so not a historical thing. But racism is not the only thing that is causing the class differences in this specific context, is it now?
  - NoPiece 13y ago
    If you look at real numbers, the white population of San Francisco has been declining for at least for the last 22 years (up until 2012). It is possible that in the last 2 years it has stopped, or even grown a little but it was 41.7% in 2012, and it is likely still under 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco#Demographics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco#Demographics edit: just looked at the census data, and in 1960, SF was 81% white. I think that adds some context to the "white tech nerds took over the city" idea. http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty50.htm http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty5...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- debt 13y ago
  While I agree that race should have nothing to do with it, culturally it's much more acceptable to talk about white gentrification then gentrification by any other race. Also, in this case I'm not interesting removing the white designator because it really is predominantly white males. Also the gentrification happening in the Mission is very much a race thing. "Keep the Mission brown" is a slogan used by many in this neighborhood. I'm assuming it's not new and it's also racist. So I don't really know where to draw the line. I am a white "techie" male gentrifying a "brown" neighborhood; at least that's how those who live in the Mission see me. And, to be honest, that's what is going on all over San Francisco so I can't really disagree with their assessment. It's a fascinating and complicated and very sad situation for everyone involved.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - 001sky 13y ago
      wouldn't mention a thing about race SF Mission is/was an ethnic neighborhood that happen(ed) to be working class, more than than the other way around. There were many poor-er areas in sf, but you went to the mission for colour, sun, ethnic food, and the fact that nobody was snobby or annoying. It used to be a great place to throw house parties...as long as you weren't violent or setting shit on fire...nobody would ever blink/complain...etc.
  - walshemj 13y ago
    Then how come all the pics I have seen of the buss/gentrification >90% protesters have been young whites?
    - a3n 13y ago
      Probably because they are predominately young whites, but always remember that the picture you see is the photographer's choice (by taking it or not) and the editor's choice by running the one he did and not the ones he didn't. Every picture tells a story, but not necessarily the only one.
- busterarm 13y ago
  Monoculture is bad no matter what group it is. I think there's just a different perception of language. Those of us who post often about class struggle issues (clearly the group I'm in) aren't always blaming white people (at least I'm not) but just trying to identify that it's a problem. If there's anyone in SF who deserves blame for the current situation, it's stakeholders (people with land who don't want zoning changed to preserve their "views") and NIMBY types, who are often the same. None of this would be a problem if responsible zoning and development could be done. ...but I see things from the perspective of a poor white person rather than a rich one.

by debt 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

erikpukinskis 13y ago
What you're missing is that when people say an area is "becoming increasingly Black" they usually are talking about it going from 0% to 5%, or from 5% to 10%. Parts of San Francisco (at least certain businesses) are moving towards 100% white. It's a fundamentally different phenomenon.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
    Detroit isn't like that because all the black people moved in, it's like that because all the white people moved out once black people started moving in.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - shiven 13y ago
      Then why don't non-white people move in to SF, just like in Detroit? Alright, enough with the wisecracks. The people moving in during gentrification are rich or rather richer than the current residents. Just because the overwhelming majority happen to be white is a mere coincidence arising of multiple factors. These people are not really white/black/brown, their only true color is Green, like the dollar bills in their banks and pockets. The color of their skin is secondary. With all the song and dance about loss of diversity, in any city or context, I see it as a green-ification, not a white-wash or any other racially motivated term. This is a class issue that is always conflated as a race issue, with the the same lame excuse: because, history.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - erikpukinskis 13y ago
        > This is a class issue that is always conflated as a race issue, with the the same lame excuse: because, history. Do you think using class differences to cover up racism is only a historical thing?
        shiven 13y ago
        It is so not a historical thing. But racism is not the only thing that is causing the class differences in this specific context, is it now?
- NoPiece 13y ago
  If you look at real numbers, the white population of San Francisco has been declining for at least for the last 22 years (up until 2012). It is possible that in the last 2 years it has stopped, or even grown a little but it was 41.7% in 2012, and it is likely still under 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco#Demographics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco#Demographics edit: just looked at the census data, and in 1960, SF was 81% white. I think that adds some context to the "white tech nerds took over the city" idea. http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty50.htm http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty5...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
debt 13y ago
While I agree that race should have nothing to do with it, culturally it's much more acceptable to talk about white gentrification then gentrification by any other race. Also, in this case I'm not interesting removing the white designator because it really is predominantly white males. Also the gentrification happening in the Mission is very much a race thing. "Keep the Mission brown" is a slogan used by many in this neighborhood. I'm assuming it's not new and it's also racist. So I don't really know where to draw the line. I am a white "techie" male gentrifying a "brown" neighborhood; at least that's how those who live in the Mission see me. And, to be honest, that's what is going on all over San Francisco so I can't really disagree with their assessment. It's a fascinating and complicated and very sad situation for everyone involved.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - 001sky 13y ago
    wouldn't mention a thing about race SF Mission is/was an ethnic neighborhood that happen(ed) to be working class, more than than the other way around. There were many poor-er areas in sf, but you went to the mission for colour, sun, ethnic food, and the fact that nobody was snobby or annoying. It used to be a great place to throw house parties...as long as you weren't violent or setting shit on fire...nobody would ever blink/complain...etc.
- walshemj 13y ago
  Then how come all the pics I have seen of the buss/gentrification >90% protesters have been young whites?
  - a3n 13y ago
    Probably because they are predominately young whites, but always remember that the picture you see is the photographer's choice (by taking it or not) and the editor's choice by running the one he did and not the ones he didn't. Every picture tells a story, but not necessarily the only one.
busterarm 13y ago
Monoculture is bad no matter what group it is. I think there's just a different perception of language. Those of us who post often about class struggle issues (clearly the group I'm in) aren't always blaming white people (at least I'm not) but just trying to identify that it's a problem. If there's anyone in SF who deserves blame for the current situation, it's stakeholders (people with land who don't want zoning changed to preserve their "views") and NIMBY types, who are often the same. None of this would be a problem if responsible zoning and development could be done. ...but I see things from the perspective of a poor white person rather than a rich one.