4 ms·

"Before the tech explosion, let's say 1989, San Jose, and in particular, San Francisco, were dumps. The sort of looked like Fresno does today." Oh, come on. At

by timr 12y ago

"Before the tech explosion, let's say 1989, San Jose, and in particular, San Francisco, were dumps. The sort of looked like Fresno does today." Oh, come on. At least in SF, that's obvious exaggeration: San Francisco had been the west-coast center of the financial industry since before the 1980s, and most of what you see on Market street was built decades (if not a century) earlier. It looked nothing like Fresno. If you're referring to the economic status of the people living at mid-Market, it's equally wrong to use it as an example where "tech" is making things better: The Tenderloin was a blue-collar neighborhood before the war. It gradually descended into property as the rest of the city gentrified around it, leaving few places for working-class people to go. Gentrification absolutely made things worse in the Tenderloin. Mid-Market's decline came as part of the larger Tenderloin decline, but also as the result of BART construction, which killed business on the road in the 60s. SOMA was light industrial in the 1960s and 1970s, but by the late 1980s, this area was beginning to gentrify as well. For example, entire blocks of SRO housing were eliminated during the 1980s to build Moscone Center. About the only thing you can say regarding the "tech industry" is that it's the latest gentrifying wave of many, all of which have undoubtedly made things nicer for rich people, and worse for poor people. It's therefore completely unsurprising that someone in the tech industry would believe that gentrification makes things "better", but it doesn't reflect a lot of empathy.

mc32 12y ago
Yes, before the tech industry, the main source of commuters into the city was the financial industry[1]. My point is that if it were not for the tech boom, SF would be finance and tourism and that economically speaking, the city would be as depressed as Fresno is without the capital provided by tech. Blue collar jobs were moving out --the bedding industry, furniture, etc. had begun moving out a long time ago. Basically people want the economic vitality progress without the gentrifiers --but that's not how it works. Yes, some people will lose out --but overall, you have a stronger more economically stable workforce. Now, in SF we have a problem where even with a good job you can hardly afford new rents. But that's not an issue created by the tech industry, it's an issue borne from bad city planning and NIMBYs --oh, oh, don't build in front of my building, I'll lose sight of the bridge when it's not fogged over. What, no, I don't want shadows from high rises cast over my park[2]. My overarching point is that without tech, the Bay Area would not be the place people come to find good paying jobs --it would be more of a retirement destination and a tourist destination. Let's look at North Dakota, yes, there are homeless despite the boom, but if it were not the for the boom, the state would be in the dull-drums but with shale, whatever you think of it, you have a vibrant economy which attracts all people looking for a way to make a decent living -not everyone will be lucky. That's not to say we should not try to provide for those not lucky (I think we should), but to say that industry creates the "luckless" to me, is disingenuous. Look at the population trends for SF as a proxy for economic vitality in the 70's and 80's: 1970 715,674 −3.3% 1980 678,974 −5.1% 1990 723,959 +6.6% 2000 776,733 +7.3% 2010 805,235 +3.7% 2013 837,442 +4.0% People were moving out --there was no new work to be had in the city. [1]When white collar was basically finance, people used to commute _into_ the city. Whereas now, SF is a place people have a desire to live --it was not always that way. [2]http://sfist.com/2013/07/18/enemies_of_the_tall_four_seasons_re.php http://sfist.com/2013/07/18/enemies_of_the_tall_four_seasons...
avn2109 12y ago
>> "...descended into property..." Do you mean "into poverty..."? Genuine question, not being snarky.
- timr 12y ago
  Yeah. I must have made a typo, and got auto-corrected to "property"...or it was a Freudian slip!

by timr 12y ago

mc32 12y ago

Yes, before the tech industry, the main source of commuters into the city was the financial industry[1]. My point is that if it were not for the tech boom, SF would be finance and tourism and that economically speaking, the city would be as depressed as Fresno is without the capital provided by tech. Blue collar jobs were moving out --the bedding industry, furniture, etc. had begun moving out a long time ago. Basically people want the economic vitality progress without the gentrifiers --but that's not how it works. Yes, some people will lose out --but overall, you have a stronger more economically stable workforce. Now, in SF we have a problem where even with a good job you can hardly afford new rents. But that's not an issue created by the tech industry, it's an issue borne from bad city planning and NIMBYs --oh, oh, don't build in front of my building, I'll lose sight of the bridge when it's not fogged over. What, no, I don't want shadows from high rises cast over my park[2]. My overarching point is that without tech, the Bay Area would not be the place people come to find good paying jobs --it would be more of a retirement destination and a tourist destination. Let's look at North Dakota, yes, there are homeless despite the boom, but if it were not the for the boom, the state would be in the dull-drums but with shale, whatever you think of it, you have a vibrant economy which attracts all people looking for a way to make a decent living -not everyone will be lucky. That's not to say we should not try to provide for those not lucky (I think we should), but to say that industry creates the "luckless" to me, is disingenuous. Look at the population trends for SF as a proxy for economic vitality in the 70's and 80's: 1970 715,674 −3.3% 1980 678,974 −5.1% 1990 723,959 +6.6% 2000 776,733 +7.3% 2010 805,235 +3.7% 2013 837,442 +4.0% People were moving out --there was no new work to be had in the city. [1]When white collar was basically finance, people used to commute _into_ the city. Whereas now, SF is a place people have a desire to live --it was not always that way. [2]http://sfist.com/2013/07/18/enemies_of_the_tall_four_seasons_re.php http://sfist.com/2013/07/18/enemies_of_the_tall_four_seasons...

avn2109 12y ago

>> "...descended into property..." Do you mean "into poverty..."? Genuine question, not being snarky.

timr 12y ago
Yeah. I must have made a typo, and got auto-corrected to "property"...or it was a Freudian slip!