15 ms·

A Tale Of Two Latino Areas In Miami And San Francisco

151 points by yummyfajitas 12y ago

gphil 12y ago
Development (and lack thereof) is all about how much power the NIMBYs have to stop it. In SF that power seems to be almost absolute in many areas.
lexiconmagic 12y ago
Francisco
exelius 12y ago
It's all about money -- if San Francisco suddenly started allowing a lot of new high-rise residential developments to go up, it would cause existing property values to decline (because there would be more options). This would cause a lot of people who own property to lose money, so even the new, wealthy owners in gentrifying areas have an interest in preventing new development from happening. I'm not saying that this is the right thing to do -- only that there is a reason people resist new development when pricing is based on a limited supply of housing in desirable areas.
- vasilipupkin 12y ago
  It's a bit more complicated. If they allowed building more, property values wouldn't necessarily go down because more people would simply move to the city from other parts of the country, keeping both demand and property values high. One thing that would definitely happen is the character of SF would change a lot, more so than it already is. Perhaps, that's the right thing to do, but I can understand people who live there and are not looking forward to their city looking like Singapore/Chicago/Generic Skyscraper filled city
  - _delirium 12y ago
    Yes, a big problem with predicting what effects large building projects will have on a specific area within a metropolitan area is that they impact both supply and demand, not only supply. At the level of a whole metro area, demand is impacted more by the general economy, but whether people choose to live in Manhattan vs. Brooklyn vs. New Jersey (or SF vs. Oakland vs. San Jose) is intertwined with type of housing available, perceived neighborhood features, etc. You can model the net effects of an intervention, but the models are somewhat sensitive to assumptions.
    - exelius 12y ago
      I don't think that SF has a problem attracting demand. Neither do Manhattan or Brooklyn for that matter -- both are prohibitively expensive at this point unless you're a millionaire. Manhattan demand is a bit different in that it's driven globally: a Manhattan apartment (and one in London, and one in Hong Kong) is seen as a must-have among the newly-wealthy Chinese upper class. You know how there are now more millionaires in China than in the US? They all have a Manhattan apartment that they rarely use. SF doesn't quite have that issue yet -- but IMO housing prices are a big reason why startups are looking outside the bay area more seriously these days.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - dasil003 12y ago
        > I don't think that SF has a problem attracting demand. It's not a binary proposition though. There's always an equilibrium, and it's difficult to determine how any given change might affect it.
        exelius 12y ago
        You're right, but given the prices in the SF market, there are only so many people able to buy a $1 million+ home. It wouldn't be hard to increase the supply to the point where prices start to decrease significantly, especially if you start to build a decent inventory of non-luxury units (not everyone needs or can afford a doorman).
  - exelius 12y ago
    But that's the thing; the character of the city is going to change no matter what because people with money are going to come in and buy out existing residents anyway. So it's already going to be a bunch of rich yuppies and there's nothing anyone can do about that -- but what's happening is the lack of housing in SF causes prices to rise in surrounding areas as well, which prices lower-income folks out of the market and forces them to move further and further from the city. If you want to preserve the character of the neighborhoods, you need dense residential areas that allow high-rise condos - it prevents the rich techies from going out and buying a row home for $1.3 million because they can get a sweet, brand-new condo for the same price in a better area. This keeps long-time residents in their homes, thus helping to preserve the culture of the neighborhoods. The entire NIMBY movement can be boiled down to "Yes, we all agree these things need to be built. But I don't want them being built near me because they would cause my property value to decrease." It's a textbook case of the tragedy of the commons.
    - mtviewdave 12y ago
      >The entire NIMBY movement can be boiled down to "Yes, we all agree these things need to be built. But I don't want them being built near me because they would cause my property value to decrease." What evidence can you offer in support of this claim with respect to San Francisco specifically? Because I can certainly see situations in which citizen objections to building projects would be perfectly warranted even without regard to property values: if a builder wanted to raze a block at the corner of 19th and Dolores and build a 50-story residential tower in its place, for example.
      - YokoZar 12y ago
        As evidence I present the highest housing prices in the country, the relatively low population density of San Francisco, and the city's notorious reputation for particularly onerous approval requirements before construction can go forward.
  - kansface 12y ago
    The city can keep its buildings and force its citizens to move, or it can keep its citizens and change the buildings. Both can not remain unchanged. I for one would choose the people.
- BurningFrog 12y ago
  Right. Which means the problem is that existing property owners ("voters") are allowed to veto competing properties to be built.
- thwest 12y ago
  Another piece of the formula is the state constitution forbidding increases in property taxes. If these real estate holding corporations faced profit pressure in the form of property tax, they would be more inclined to reinvest.
- mtviewdave 12y ago
  >if San Francisco suddenly started allowing a lot of new high-rise residential developments to go up San Francisco is allowing a lot of new high-rise residential developments to go up. Here's a list of 26 (albeit from 18 months ago): http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/10/24/26_highrise_projects_changing_san_franciscos_skyline.php http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/10/24/26_highrise_project...
  - exelius 12y ago
    That's a start, but all of those buildings are in a largely commercial area that's pretty inconvenient to get to for anyone not working downtown. There's also not a lot of NIMBY resistance because few people live there right now - once you move into established residential neighborhoods, large projects are next to impossible.
    - mtviewdave 12y ago
      Increased supply is increased supply, and what are desirable and undesirable neighborhoods change. If property owners feel their investment is threatened by increased supply, they aren't going to be mollified just because the new supply is a couple of miles down the road rather than a couple of blocks.
      - exelius 12y ago
        I don't think that's the issue -- it's just people specifically not wanting those types of developments to "ruin their neighborhood". I bet if you asked them, they would say "Oh, yeah, those new towers are great for the city! But I don't want them here because this is a quiet, walkable area and I don't want that to change." Problem is, each area says that, so it's hard to find areas where the homeowners actually want this kind of development. Developments end up in commercial areas, but you can only convert so many commercial areas to residential and still have room for you economy to grow.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
- padmanabhan01 12y ago
  I wonder how they are able to legally prevent new development just because it will decrease their land value.. Can such an argument hold up in courts? If it was because of safety or congestion issues, it makes sense. But how is maintaining existing land prices a valid reason for preventing new developments..
  - jemfinch 12y ago
    No one argues "You can't build here because I would lose money." That would be dumb. Instead, they argue "You can't build here because reason $x", because they would lose money.
at-fates-hands 12y ago
It would probably benefit the author to actually do some research on what they're talking about. While I realize he's going on his own personal experiences, all of the areas around Miami have been undergoing gentrification since at least 2005: http://www.floridatrend.com/article/11504/gentrification-fears http://www.floridatrend.com/article/11504/gentrification-fea... "But nowhere is the change being felt more than in Overtown. At one time the economic and cultural capital of black Miami, it is now among the nation's poorest neighborhoods. Average income is about $12,000 a year. Crime is rampant in the community of 9,000 that sits in the late-morning shadow of Miami's glittering downtown skyline." "In the last few months, two major mixed-used developments have been approved in Overtown, the first in decades: Lyric Promenade, a $93-million project that will include a 150-room Hilton Hotel, a blues club, market-rate condominiums and apartments; and Crosswinds, a 1,000-unit condo and apartment project that will include office and retail space. Crosswinds, a for-profit venture on city-owned land, was conceived by the non-profit Collins Center for Public Policy, which asked developers to submit plans that would help revitalize the area." and "Much of the new housing will be priced well beyond the reach of most residents of Overtown, where homeownership is barely 10%. In June, tempers boiled over when tenants of a low-income apartment building in Overtown were sent eviction notices shortly after an upscale high-rise developer acquired the property." http://miamitruthandlies.blogspot.com/2011/05/situation-in-overtown.html http://miamitruthandlies.blogspot.com/2011/05/situation-in-o... "Overtown is located right in the heart of downtown Miami. Given its deserved reputation as a dangerous, crime-ridden area, Overtown creates a unique situation for the city of Miami. While growing in popularity over the last decade, it cannot be argued that unless Overtown cleans up its act, it will hold back the city in terms of economic development and potential" "While it does not seem as though this was project was ever meant to actually benefit residents of Overtown, it is important to step back and view the facts without bias. Unfortunately, at this point, with the information available, the future of Overtown looks like one of major disappointment and resentment. Overtown will become home to wealthier residents as new infrastructure continues to be built with little consideration given to the current population."
- brudgers 12y ago
  It's been going on since well before 2005. In the 1980's Miami Beach was a cheap place to live.
jinushaun 12y ago
While I generally agree with the overarching argument, it also ignores the fact that a SF "tech ghetto" would not be the same as a Miami "banker ghetto". Tech is compromised of mostly liberals, and many of those liberals wants neighborhoods with a sense of culture. They are not people who want to be siloed away in their ivory towers and gated communities. They might want new construction, but they also want new construction next to Duboce or Mission Dolores. New construction don't tend to build those kinds of community amenities. Mission Bay is experiencing a construction boom, but if given a choice, almost everyone I know would rather live in the older areas because Mission Bay is sterile.
lkrubner 12y ago
To be clear, there are hundreds of towns in the USA that are doing the opposite of gentrifying. Go visit Rocky Mount, North Carolina. Go visit Danville, Virginia. Go visit Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Go visit Harrison, Arkansas. Go visit Atlanta, Georgia. * There are hundreds of towns that have lost all the industrial and agricultural jobs they once had, and the people have sunk into deep poverty. Many of these areas now face an epidemic of meth, which seems to be how people in these regions deal with the hopelessness they feel, now that the jobs are gone. *I mention, Atlanta, which is a large region. There are, of course, many areas of Atlanta that are gentrifying, but if you travel around the city at all, you also find huge neighborhoods that have sunk deeper into desperation. I am old enough that I can remember how affluent Atlanta was in the 90s, and I can remember how crime-ridden New York City used to be. The reversal of fortune is really remarkable. Nowadays I feel safe on New York subways, even late at night, whereas I no longer feel safe on Atlanta rail lines, even during the day (depending on the line).
- jmccree 12y ago
  Do you have any stats to backup your feelings? I feel safe riding MARTA at all hours. (I live a block from Five Points and do not own a car.)
  - tbyehl 12y ago
    I've never felt unsafe on MARTA rail. But Five Points? When I worked at 101 Marietta, every one of my MARTA-ing co-workers had a story of working late and getting mugged on the way to the train.
  - epmatsw 12y ago
    It seems like the stats contradict his feelings (at least at a city-wide level). http://www.decaturish.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1375-Report_2013_Final_Print_File_reduced_file.pdf http://www.decaturish.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1375-Re...
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
michaelfeathers 12y ago
I'm a native of Miami and I think the article is right. The joke here is that Calle Ocho will be part of Brickell in 20 years - Brickell is creeping south. Personally, as much as I like San Francisco I prefer Miami's slow road to gentrification. It seems accidental, but it's a model other cities could use. Create your Brickell and leave the rest alone.
Dirlewanger 12y ago
On the east coast here so not at all really familiar with SF's makeup: who exactly are the NIMBYs? What's their demographic makeup? Are they lifelong residents who have 100% dedicated themselves to SF and everything about it (and it's showing due to their municipal political power)?
mariodiana 12y ago
The author's point is that if cities aren't careful about planning, then they will lose having chickens running through people's backyards? Does it make me some kind of Downton Abbey snob to question just what kind of "loss" that is?
CatDevURandom 12y ago
> Miami officials allowed them a place to go: Brickell. But in the 1970s, it began attracting small banks, and in the decades since has boomed into the “Wall Street of Miami." The reason why Miami has "avoided gentrification" is multifaceted and complex. But it wasn't due to some top-down city planning, I can assure you. Painting the "history of Brickell" as some sort of strategy to avoid gentrification is comically false. Brickell and those small banks therein were largely built with laundered drug money. The -- mostly commercial & real estate focused -- banking sector in Miami is not what the author would have you picture. While the cocaine cowboy days are long over, Miami feels less like a mini-wall street and more like a sofa to shove money under if you happen to live in a less stable nation; and the investment capital flow in this city represents that.
- brudgers 12y ago
  To the degree Miami has avoided gentrification [and what was the demolition of the Orange Bowl but that?], it is because there are so many attractive alternatives for the gentry. Unlike San Francisco, most of Miami's border is just lines on a map. But for a roadsign there's nothing to alert the driver like a bridge over the bay. Also unlike San Francisco, Miami grew around the automobile as primary transportation. Houses come with parking. Finally, the primary attraction of Miami is water, and to the degree urban life is attractive it tends toward the velvet rope variety rather than slumming in shared public space.
- kenrikm 12y ago
  Indeed, Miami Native here. (Live in Bay Area Now) This article comes to the conclusion it was looking for that is in fact false and not rooted in reality. Brownsville/Overtown/Liberty city were not intentionally left as rundown ganglands there have been attempts to clean them up but all have failed. Also Little Hati is downright dangerous to enter. [1] And of course Little Havana is still Cuban, it's well maintained generally safe and all that the Cubans who had to leave their country have left (Besides Hialeah). Also Lets not forget that ~70% of Miami is Cuban and they really value their heritage (my wife is Cuban) [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqdObNwHyFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqdObNwHyFI
brianbreslin 12y ago
Ok I'll bite. I live in Miami, go to San FranCisco often. Many of the historically ethnic neighborhoods in Miami are gentrifying. Wynwood the arts district was a historically Puerto Rican neighborhood. Design District which is filled with Prada stores was a historically poor black neighborhood. Overtown is quickly getting encroached by high rise developers because of its proximity to downtown (which is now also getting revitalized). Little havana is actually getting new construction, but slowly. Little Havana has trailed mostly because the existing housing stock there is all older low slung multi unit housing, and the core of it lacks public transportation. Many of the core Little Havana buildings are technically historically protected, so that limits developers building there. We are seeing mid-rises go up in the area though. San Francisco is seeing gentrification faster because of market forces dictating that if the money can't go vertical it has to go horizontal and displace the lower-income areas historical residents. SF will need to do something about affordable housing stock soon. Though that gives oakland a huge opportunity to seize that opportunity if they want it. Last comment: San Francisco "warm" ??? really? maybe Millbrae, but not SF proper.
- batbomb 12y ago
  Millbrae is often colder than SF, especially compared to select neighborhoods in SF. You need to hit at least Burlingame or San Mateo to get away from the seeping fog of Pacifica/San Bruno/Colma.
  - brianbreslin 12y ago
    I think I was thinking of Milipitas. Which is much closer to San Jose right? I remember last summer going from wearing a sweatshirt in SOMA to it being 90+ in Milipitas the same day.
    - eloisant 12y ago
      Yes, Milpitas is close to San Jose. But you don't have to go that far, Burlingame is already pretty warm and sunny. The Bay Area is just microclimates everywhere.
    - 12y ago
patio11 12y ago
Maybe it's just the Chicagoan in me but when I hear "The wrong kind of people were going to move into the neighborhood but we put a stop to that!" I do not think "Sweet! Let us eat traditional food and play traditional music to celebrate this victory for justice."
- amyjess 12y ago
  Yes, I've noticed there's a distinct racist element to the anti-gentrification movement. Hell, look at how the article treats ethnic segregation as something that should be celebrated. Disgusting.
  - judk 12y ago
    Yes minority cultures have no place in America. Cheesecake Factory and McDonalds is our Melting Pot
    - roneesh 12y ago
      There's a chain restaurant called The Melting Pot, so I'd say that's our melting pot.
    - kzhahou 12y ago
      They serve a delicious false dichotomy pie at the cheesecake factory.
    - thwest 12y ago
      I agree, and imagine your downvoters are praising themselves for identifying some fallacy in your sarcasm. Enforcing a uniform profitable culture where all real estate is available for developers' whims is not a "neutral" act.
    - oldmanjay 12y ago
      I bet you think you can solve racism by being racist. Am I right? You can tell me. I'm very accepting.
    - klipt 12y ago
dcre 12y ago
I'm a Miami native living in Chicago. I wonder whether the author only thinks gentrification isn't happening because he doesn't see too many non-Cubans. My understanding is that in the areas he talks about, old buildings are in fact being replaced with high-rise condos left and right. If almost everyone in Miami is Cuban, then the gentrifiers will also be Cuban.
brudgers 12y ago
Miami has an abundance of affordable housing alternatives outside the urban core. These are attractive in the same way that Silicon Valley's bedroom communities are except that their affordability makes them even more so. San Francisco is gentrifying because it is the least expensive desirable location.
- malchow 12y ago
  This. The more desirable suburbs of SF (Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton) have housing stock that sells for 10-20% more per square foot than housing in prime San Francisco itself. Is there any other major city where this is true?
  - BashiBazouk 12y ago
    That would depend on your definition of "prime San Francisco". North Beach, Russian Hill, and Telegraph Hill are the most expensive per sq foot in the bay area. Pacific Heights and Presidio Heights are equivalent to any of the more expensive parts of the peninsula and valley...
brudgers 12y ago
The title of the article has been heavily editorialized. The correct title is: Travel Update: A Tale Of Two Latino Areas In Miami And San Francisco.
bluedino 12y ago
The article points out that Miami and San Francisco both have Latino populations, as if it were some reason why they should remain similar cities. But in fact, Miami's Latinos are not similar at all to San Francisco's. San Francisco is made up of about 15% Mexicans, where Miami has a majority of Cubans along with other Central Americans, and about half of the population is Hispanic. All of Miami is Hispanic, and really only the Mission is in San Francisco. Miami is also missing the large Asian population. Don't forget that San Francisco is 550 miles away from the USA/Mexico border. Miami is on the coast and is a much easier destination for new immigrants. SF's population is also about double that of Miami.
- mc32 12y ago
  The mission isn't even historically Hispanic. So it doesn't have the flavor as might the Mexican neighborhoods in san jose. The mission has been one of the historical destination neighborhoods for new immigrants who settle in SF. So the mission does not have a stereotypical ethnic look and feel. The one thing can be said about the mission is that along with old Chinatown and excelsior they are the immigrant neighborhoods, but the characteristics of the immigrants to these neighborhoods have changed over time and only old Chinatown has held on to its ethnic look and feel, but looking at it through that lens is unhelpful. If we look at Beijing of today, it has not retained the look of the hutongs. Cities change. That said, The new immigrants to these neighborhoods are now not foreign but urban domestic.
istvan__ 12y ago
Well if you are going for the obvious reasons, I guess the insane amount of tech related investment and subsequently generated wealth plays significant role in this but what people quite often forget is the local government. I would recommend everybody to talk to a builder here in SF and get their stories. It is quite eye opening. The local government puts roadblocks to new developments claiming that it would destroy the original look of the city, yet there are areas where this is not an issue. Look around in the business district. On the top of that it plays the different sides against each other, tells to people that the gentrification is purely caused by tech workers. I need to look into Miami more but I guess there is less tech investment and there are no roadblocks against housing projects. More here: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/
pjc50 12y ago
Isn't Miami "sinking", or at least under long-term threat from sea level rise, hurricanes, etc?
- yardie 12y ago
  Both. It's sinking because the water table has dropped. And the sea levels are rising, ever so slightly. But mostly it's going thirsty. The Biscayne aquifer can't keep up with demand. They've paved over it, diverted the rainwater that does fall into the Atlantic and saltwater is contaminating the remaining aquifer. And the government, rather than plan on fixing it, just keeps putting it off for later generations. They keep referencing the Dutch land reclamations efforts in the past without actually noticing how much work and time (centuries) the Dutch put into blocking out the sea.
jimbobimbo 12y ago
I'm an immigrant myself and not very familiar with the problem: if gentrification good or bad? The reason I'm asking is that, to the best of my knowledge, there was a period of "white flight", when urban core was basically left to poor people (or at least that's how I interpret this). My understanding is that at the time that was bad. Now rich people "move back in" and I get a vibe from similar articles that this is also bad. So, which is it?
- Nursie 12y ago
  Any action taken by a member of a class of people that can be thought of as privileged is necessarily bad, to some journalistic mindsets. Depending on how far you want to follow this you may even decide that gentrification is racist because it drives up property prices as richer, usually whiter, people move in and the original poorer (and therefore usually disproportionately non-white) demographic is priced out of the area. I tend to think this is bullshit and that places becoming less sketchy/shabby/crime-ridden is good...
  - erikpukinskis 12y ago
    "Privilege" is neither good nor bad. It just is. Some people like living in cities that have a mixture of incomes, cultures, and lifestyles. Furthermore, some people see the various architectures and institutions of some neighborhoods as a kind of historical treasure. They think, in a sense, that the whole neighborhood, in some form of intactness, belongs on the National Register of Historic Places, or some equivalent. Some people might also decry a person's smug dismissing of such concerns as a kind of ignorance propped up by privilege. Such a person wouldn't have the liberty of such smugness if they weren't so privileged. But the harm (if there is any) is not the privilege itself, it is the loss of (supposed) cultural treasures.
    - wmil 12y ago
      The problem with supporting a "mixture of incomes" is that some people end up paying a small fraction of the price for equivalent real estate. That doesn't square well with some people's values.
fiatmoney 12y ago
Here's a concise explanation: SF is close (enough) to East Asia and is a convenient sink for the money laundering / "investment" you can do through real estate. Similarly, Miami in the 80s was close enough to South America to be an easy sink for the money laundering / "investment" you can do through real estate. When ~1/3 of new construction is unoccupied & held as investment it sure seems like the driving force at the margin. http://www.48hills.org/2015/01/27/sf-planners-yawn-vacant-units/ http://www.48hills.org/2015/01/27/sf-planners-yawn-vacant-un...
DanBlake 12y ago
I moved from SF to Miami. Its definitely gentrifying, you only need to look at the Wynwood district to see that. Areas where you could have bought a warehouse for next to nothing in the past are now selling for insane amounts, almost like rodeo drive. The reason why its not gentrifying faster is a combination of two things, demand and sprawl. Unlike SF, we can build up and out. In SF you cant do either, so you are forced to push people out.
madaxe_again 12y ago
There's a very, very simple answer to this. Miami, with an average elevation of 6 feet above sea level, will be underwater in the next several decades. Storm surges already threaten the keys and the coastal lagoon, and this pattern is only worsening as drainage on the mainland is impacted by industry and global climate patterns cause more energetic storms, and average sea level rise. SF, with an average of ~90ft will be much safer from this particular threat - although California will at the current rate, without serious intervention, be desert, on similar timescales. Long term investment does not make sense when you are faced with a risk of it all ending up in the sea.
- DanBlake 12y ago
  I agree that Miami will be underwater eventually. As for it being a reason for anything, I completely disagree. On your logic, nobody would be in SF because the next "big one" is coming. People generally dont give a shit.
  - madaxe_again 12y ago
    There's a difference between earthquake risk, which is more of the "one large, recoverable, event" ilk, and the sea eating the land, which is pretty hard to come back from, particularly when you've built everything on porous limestone and sand. Dig a hole pretty much anywhere in Florida and you can watch the tide in it. "People" generally don't, but property developers do. It's also not "eventually", it's "imminently". You don't need the entire city to be underwater for it to be uninhabitable - you just need the sewer system to be below sea level, and you are quite literally up shit creek.
    - s73v3r 12y ago
      I have warning that a hurricane is coming, and can easily get my ass out of town when it gets there. I have no warning whatsoever (maybe 10 seconds if the early warning system bulks up) that "the big one" is coming, and my chances of dying in that are far greater.
    - DanBlake 12y ago
dilap 12y ago
The primary thesis — that if you just put up a bunch of luxury high-rise apartments in mission bay, gentrification of the mission would stop — strikes me as absurd. Way overly simplistic. Lots and lots of people with $ in SF still like the not-rich feel of neighborhood like the mission. SF culture doesn't turn into Miami culture just because you put up a bunch of tall buildings. Other points: Japantown is nothing more than a mall and a name on a map -- there is no neighborhood there. Conversely, Chinatown really isn't changing much; it resists gentrification. The explanation I have heard, which seems likely, is that most of the buildings and restaurants have been owned by the same families going way back, and they are reluctant to sell or lease to outsiders.
- fragmede 12y ago
  > Chinatown really isn't changing much; it resists gentrification. That's debatable. The Empress of China, a landmark restaurant of Chinatown since the 60's, closed at the end of last year to make way for offices. A six-floor building with some 62,000 square feet of space inside Chinatown's scant 24 square blocks is no small matter.
  - dilap 12y ago
    Aw man, that's going to be offices? That's a bummer :(
- pjlegato 12y ago
  On the contrary, Chinatown is changing rapidly, and the Chinatown we know today will likely be gone very soon. It will soon transform into a Disneyland caricature of itself aimed at tourists, as North Beach has. The remaining population is increasingly composed of elderly people. Younger people tend to move to outer neighborhoods in SF, or to Daly City or the other peninsula suburbs, as Chinatown is actually a ghetto despite also being a romanticized tourist attraction. More recent middle class Chinese immigrants avoid Chinatown for the same reason and go directly to the suburbs. E.g. http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/sf-chinatown-restaurants-losing-elderly-customers/Content?oid=2925013 http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/sf-chinatown-restaura... -- the Imperial Palace restaurant estimates that 75-80% of its customers are elderly. The restaurant is empty most of the time and on the brink of financial failure as the customers' fixed incomes do not allow them to eat out very often. Many other restaurants report a similar situation. Places like the R&G Lounge have already remodeled, raised prices, and transformed in character from neighborhood restaurants to very expensive high end restaurants for yuppie tourists. Those that do not do this will perish.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
wmil 12y ago
Lumping both cities together as "warm-weather" seems lazy. Miami is hotter in January than San Fran ever is.
peterwwillis 12y ago
tl;dr from a former Miamian: 1. There are virtually no tech jobs to bring people into the city. 2. Public transit is terrible. 3. Lack of white-friendly english-speaking small businesses. 4. Crime. 5. Cost of living is not low enough to negate the above points. There are other things to consider, like the climate of Miami is not even remotely as mild as SF, the people are fairly horrible, there are no large tech employers, there's nothing attractive to average people about the area (South Florida is kind of a shit hole in general). Basically, any place in Miami a tech hipster would move is simply too expensive without giving them anything they would enjoy in return. Even Wynwood quickly gets tiring for non-artist non-musician hipsters.
baldfat 12y ago
Gentrification is a Mytyh - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_gentrification_myth_it_s_rare_and_not_as_bad_for_the_poor_as_people.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201... My city Allentown, PA has a very late white flight that occurred in the 80s and 90s. We had a donut economy where the suburbs had all the money and shopping and downtown was a rust belt city that had mostly mutli-family converted homes with low-income. We now have over $1,000,000,000 invested into Downtown Allentown. http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/american-futures/allentown-bets-big-shed-its-former-image http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/american-futures/a... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/breathing-life-into-allentown-pennsylvania-comes-to-the-rescue/379742/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/breathin... Protesters claim of gentrification is happening. My stance is center city Allentown is not where we dump low income people and for people to have a "better life" they must move to the suburbs. You can have a "better life" and live in our cities. Our schools have an almost 50% transfer rate for children. This means that 50% of the children that started in September will finish their school year at a different school. I will take diversity over homogeneous non-gentrification. This word is to ambiguous and and not clear in telling anything.
ChuckMcM 12y ago
That left me wondering if the author, Scott Beyer, works for some developer PR firm. All leading up to this call to action: All this, of course, suggests an ironic aspect of urban housing markets that is misunderstood by most government officials and NIMBYs: “if a city wants to preserve, it must build.” Which I heard as "Hey San Francisco, let Simon Property Group develop this area into a techie zone, we'll make money and it will take pressure off the other neighborhoods because we'll be the cool place to be!"
- mturmon 12y ago
  Follow Scott Beyer's byline to his blog to his about page: "My book will argue that cities should instead embrace “Market Urbanism.” This phrase was invented in 2007 by Adam Hengels, a development consultant who founded the Market Urbanism blog [where the OP appeared]. He defines it as the intersection between capitalists and urbanists, and his contributors describe how municipal governments repeatedly harm economic productivity. My book will package his ideology into a series of proposals..." So it seems like he's taken a development consultant as his role model and is fitting his observations into an already-decided ideology and action plan. That's why the article seems so one-dimensional and ignores obvious facts.
  - ChuckMcM 12y ago
    Yes, that pretty much puts the article in perspective.
  - woah 12y ago
    Want somewhere to live? Let people build housing. Pretty simple.
    - mturmon 12y ago
      I don't disagree with all of his conclusions. But I think that his piece was so glib as to be meaningless. He essentially promises that, by lifting building restrictions, you can preserve ethnic neighborhoods from gentrification (for what that's worth), because development will be channeled elsewhere, e.g. into high-rises that the professional class (in his reading) favors. Just writing it down exposes how facile this is. And that doesn't even get into other problems, like the unguarded analogies between San Francisco and Miami ("warm-weather cities"). Here's an article that I enjoyed, which also reached a pro-development conclusion, but with a lot more nuance: http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2014/06/living-in-a-fools-paradise/ http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2014/06/living-in-a-fools-para.... This appeared in a special issue devoted to the SF housing situation.
georgeglue1 12y ago
The article claims that SF needs an outlet for condo and high rise growth. Isn't SOMA/Mission Bay taking this up? There are almost certainly larger cultural differences.
mathattack 12y ago
I think the author misses the point. Miami can fit the rich people all in one neighborhood because there aren't so many of them. San Francisco is sitting on an enormous bed of prosperity, and has little cheap land around it. There's not enough room for all the rich people, let alone everyone else. You can't just say, "Toss them in the Marina." (Of as some might prefer, "Toss them off...") I wish there was an easy answer, because none of the surrounding areas wants to locally address low income housing. My hunch is this needs to be handled on a State level to avoid the NIMBY syndrome. I don't think rent control or shaking down new developers to include a few below-market rooms solves much in the face of such an overwhelming supply and demand imbalance.
- autoreleasepool 12y ago
  I love in Miami; there are A LOT of rich people here. These people are actually rich too, as in 6 figure salaries are what they consider just well off. The majority of them are ultra wealthy Latin Americans or Europeans who live here part of the time and maybe have their kids go to high school here where they basically live on their own in huge apartments. The sad thing is there is actually shortage in housing and the rents are getting extremely high while wages are absolute shit. It doesn't help that every new apartment complex that gets built are marketed as "luxury" apartments for the ultra rich. There are two separate markets for renters here. When you can build ultra luxury appartments and rent them for $5000 - $10000 a month, there is no reason to construct more lower to middle class housing.
  - mathattack 12y ago
    The foreign money was a problem in NYC too. Lots of new buildings with empty apartments owned by international buyers. I like to view myself as a capitalist, but this seems like a break-down of the system. I'm not sure if the problem is regulatory overhead making low-cost housing impossible to build, or what, but it does cause resentment.
cameroncf 12y ago
Many (most?) west coast cities are land locked against ocean, mountains, bays, military posts (San Diego), and other land features. This restricts growth and magnifies shortages of real estate. Miami has some confinements along it's borders but it's nowhere near as confined as San Fransisco and other west coast cities. This fluff piece is anecdotal and offers no real support of it's conclusions other than the author's loosely defended personal opinion.
shenaor 12y ago
I've been living in Miami for about 8 years. I love Miami :) but, Miami is great but the city overall still depends on the car culture. Population Density + Car Culture is never good. The moment people are too lazy that they have to drive one block to get groceries; now thats a problem. Yea, the Brickell is great and all but I would never live there unless I worked there. The area has allowed other areas to stay "ethnic" with the expense of poor planning, for me getting in and out of Brickell is a odyssey and I only live 2 miles away. I can't image what it is for someone who commutes there every day. Miami lacks the public transportation other cities have developed. Unless the public transportations keeps up, Miami will just be a vacation home for the rich not the "hub of the Americas" as it is always dubbed.
mlmonkey 12y ago
The writer has no clue about SF, and yet pontificates as if he knows something. Mission (in SF) was not historically a Latino neighborhood; it was originally Irish. He picks 1 example (8 Washington) and proceeds to paint the entire city with it. Did he not bother to look a little south at SoMa, with its tall buildings? I stopped reading at this point.
- caseyf7 12y ago
  Very true. Also, the area around the ballpark was empty piers and parking lots in the 90s and has already been built up incredibly.
ScottBurson 12y ago
Dang, can you fix the spelling in the title please? (FranCisco)
jklinger410 12y ago
In the future we will recognize the concept of gentrification as a white-guilt fueled racist sentiment and people will stop using it. I'm so excited for that day.
makeitsuckless 12y ago
I don't think the writer understands what gentrification is, or what the "creative class" looks for in their environment. Brickell's high rises are neither. The kind of people that gentrify places like SF, or Brooklyn, or a thousand other places around the world apparently aren't there in Miami. Because they would never want to be found dead in a place like Brickell.
davidf18 12y ago
Harvard economist Edward Glaeser; author of the book Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier; has written about this as well as many others such as Economics Nobelist Paul Krugman who cites Glaeser). The problems with the high rents in today's cities is through the use of politics to artificially increase the value of land through zoning density restrictions and overuse of historic landmark status. These laws that increase the cost of land serve as a hidden tax on the poorer segments of society to subsidize the wealthy. See: NYPost Build Big Bill (de Blasio -- Mayor of NYC) http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1.1913739 http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1....
bcheung 12y ago
Miami and San Francisco are both warm-weather cities. That's hilarious.

151 points by yummyfajitas 12y ago

gphil 12y ago

Development (and lack thereof) is all about how much power the NIMBYs have to stop it. In SF that power seems to be almost absolute in many areas.

lexiconmagic 12y ago

Francisco

exelius 12y ago

It's all about money -- if San Francisco suddenly started allowing a lot of new high-rise residential developments to go up, it would cause existing property values to decline (because there would be more options). This would cause a lot of people who own property to lose money, so even the new, wealthy owners in gentrifying areas have an interest in preventing new development from happening. I'm not saying that this is the right thing to do -- only that there is a reason people resist new development when pricing is based on a limited supply of housing in desirable areas.

vasilipupkin 12y ago
It's a bit more complicated. If they allowed building more, property values wouldn't necessarily go down because more people would simply move to the city from other parts of the country, keeping both demand and property values high. One thing that would definitely happen is the character of SF would change a lot, more so than it already is. Perhaps, that's the right thing to do, but I can understand people who live there and are not looking forward to their city looking like Singapore/Chicago/Generic Skyscraper filled city
- _delirium 12y ago
  Yes, a big problem with predicting what effects large building projects will have on a specific area within a metropolitan area is that they impact both supply and demand, not only supply. At the level of a whole metro area, demand is impacted more by the general economy, but whether people choose to live in Manhattan vs. Brooklyn vs. New Jersey (or SF vs. Oakland vs. San Jose) is intertwined with type of housing available, perceived neighborhood features, etc. You can model the net effects of an intervention, but the models are somewhat sensitive to assumptions.
  - exelius 12y ago
    I don't think that SF has a problem attracting demand. Neither do Manhattan or Brooklyn for that matter -- both are prohibitively expensive at this point unless you're a millionaire. Manhattan demand is a bit different in that it's driven globally: a Manhattan apartment (and one in London, and one in Hong Kong) is seen as a must-have among the newly-wealthy Chinese upper class. You know how there are now more millionaires in China than in the US? They all have a Manhattan apartment that they rarely use. SF doesn't quite have that issue yet -- but IMO housing prices are a big reason why startups are looking outside the bay area more seriously these days.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - dasil003 12y ago
      > I don't think that SF has a problem attracting demand. It's not a binary proposition though. There's always an equilibrium, and it's difficult to determine how any given change might affect it.
      - exelius 12y ago
        You're right, but given the prices in the SF market, there are only so many people able to buy a $1 million+ home. It wouldn't be hard to increase the supply to the point where prices start to decrease significantly, especially if you start to build a decent inventory of non-luxury units (not everyone needs or can afford a doorman).
- exelius 12y ago
  But that's the thing; the character of the city is going to change no matter what because people with money are going to come in and buy out existing residents anyway. So it's already going to be a bunch of rich yuppies and there's nothing anyone can do about that -- but what's happening is the lack of housing in SF causes prices to rise in surrounding areas as well, which prices lower-income folks out of the market and forces them to move further and further from the city. If you want to preserve the character of the neighborhoods, you need dense residential areas that allow high-rise condos - it prevents the rich techies from going out and buying a row home for $1.3 million because they can get a sweet, brand-new condo for the same price in a better area. This keeps long-time residents in their homes, thus helping to preserve the culture of the neighborhoods. The entire NIMBY movement can be boiled down to "Yes, we all agree these things need to be built. But I don't want them being built near me because they would cause my property value to decrease." It's a textbook case of the tragedy of the commons.
  - mtviewdave 12y ago
    >The entire NIMBY movement can be boiled down to "Yes, we all agree these things need to be built. But I don't want them being built near me because they would cause my property value to decrease." What evidence can you offer in support of this claim with respect to San Francisco specifically? Because I can certainly see situations in which citizen objections to building projects would be perfectly warranted even without regard to property values: if a builder wanted to raze a block at the corner of 19th and Dolores and build a 50-story residential tower in its place, for example.
    - YokoZar 12y ago
      As evidence I present the highest housing prices in the country, the relatively low population density of San Francisco, and the city's notorious reputation for particularly onerous approval requirements before construction can go forward.
- kansface 12y ago
  The city can keep its buildings and force its citizens to move, or it can keep its citizens and change the buildings. Both can not remain unchanged. I for one would choose the people.
BurningFrog 12y ago
Right. Which means the problem is that existing property owners ("voters") are allowed to veto competing properties to be built.
thwest 12y ago
Another piece of the formula is the state constitution forbidding increases in property taxes. If these real estate holding corporations faced profit pressure in the form of property tax, they would be more inclined to reinvest.
mtviewdave 12y ago
>if San Francisco suddenly started allowing a lot of new high-rise residential developments to go up San Francisco is allowing a lot of new high-rise residential developments to go up. Here's a list of 26 (albeit from 18 months ago): http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/10/24/26_highrise_projects_changing_san_franciscos_skyline.php http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/10/24/26_highrise_project...
- exelius 12y ago
  That's a start, but all of those buildings are in a largely commercial area that's pretty inconvenient to get to for anyone not working downtown. There's also not a lot of NIMBY resistance because few people live there right now - once you move into established residential neighborhoods, large projects are next to impossible.
  - mtviewdave 12y ago
    Increased supply is increased supply, and what are desirable and undesirable neighborhoods change. If property owners feel their investment is threatened by increased supply, they aren't going to be mollified just because the new supply is a couple of miles down the road rather than a couple of blocks.
    - exelius 12y ago
      I don't think that's the issue -- it's just people specifically not wanting those types of developments to "ruin their neighborhood". I bet if you asked them, they would say "Oh, yeah, those new towers are great for the city! But I don't want them here because this is a quiet, walkable area and I don't want that to change." Problem is, each area says that, so it's hard to find areas where the homeowners actually want this kind of development. Developments end up in commercial areas, but you can only convert so many commercial areas to residential and still have room for you economy to grow.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
padmanabhan01 12y ago
I wonder how they are able to legally prevent new development just because it will decrease their land value.. Can such an argument hold up in courts? If it was because of safety or congestion issues, it makes sense. But how is maintaining existing land prices a valid reason for preventing new developments..
- jemfinch 12y ago
  No one argues "You can't build here because I would lose money." That would be dumb. Instead, they argue "You can't build here because reason $x", because they would lose money.

at-fates-hands 12y ago

It would probably benefit the author to actually do some research on what they're talking about. While I realize he's going on his own personal experiences, all of the areas around Miami have been undergoing gentrification since at least 2005: http://www.floridatrend.com/article/11504/gentrification-fears http://www.floridatrend.com/article/11504/gentrification-fea... "But nowhere is the change being felt more than in Overtown. At one time the economic and cultural capital of black Miami, it is now among the nation's poorest neighborhoods. Average income is about $12,000 a year. Crime is rampant in the community of 9,000 that sits in the late-morning shadow of Miami's glittering downtown skyline." "In the last few months, two major mixed-used developments have been approved in Overtown, the first in decades: Lyric Promenade, a $93-million project that will include a 150-room Hilton Hotel, a blues club, market-rate condominiums and apartments; and Crosswinds, a 1,000-unit condo and apartment project that will include office and retail space. Crosswinds, a for-profit venture on city-owned land, was conceived by the non-profit Collins Center for Public Policy, which asked developers to submit plans that would help revitalize the area." and "Much of the new housing will be priced well beyond the reach of most residents of Overtown, where homeownership is barely 10%. In June, tempers boiled over when tenants of a low-income apartment building in Overtown were sent eviction notices shortly after an upscale high-rise developer acquired the property." http://miamitruthandlies.blogspot.com/2011/05/situation-in-overtown.html http://miamitruthandlies.blogspot.com/2011/05/situation-in-o... "Overtown is located right in the heart of downtown Miami. Given its deserved reputation as a dangerous, crime-ridden area, Overtown creates a unique situation for the city of Miami. While growing in popularity over the last decade, it cannot be argued that unless Overtown cleans up its act, it will hold back the city in terms of economic development and potential" "While it does not seem as though this was project was ever meant to actually benefit residents of Overtown, it is important to step back and view the facts without bias. Unfortunately, at this point, with the information available, the future of Overtown looks like one of major disappointment and resentment. Overtown will become home to wealthier residents as new infrastructure continues to be built with little consideration given to the current population."

brudgers 12y ago
It's been going on since well before 2005. In the 1980's Miami Beach was a cheap place to live.

jinushaun 12y ago

While I generally agree with the overarching argument, it also ignores the fact that a SF "tech ghetto" would not be the same as a Miami "banker ghetto". Tech is compromised of mostly liberals, and many of those liberals wants neighborhoods with a sense of culture. They are not people who want to be siloed away in their ivory towers and gated communities. They might want new construction, but they also want new construction next to Duboce or Mission Dolores. New construction don't tend to build those kinds of community amenities. Mission Bay is experiencing a construction boom, but if given a choice, almost everyone I know would rather live in the older areas because Mission Bay is sterile.

lkrubner 12y ago

To be clear, there are hundreds of towns in the USA that are doing the opposite of gentrifying. Go visit Rocky Mount, North Carolina. Go visit Danville, Virginia. Go visit Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Go visit Harrison, Arkansas. Go visit Atlanta, Georgia. * There are hundreds of towns that have lost all the industrial and agricultural jobs they once had, and the people have sunk into deep poverty. Many of these areas now face an epidemic of meth, which seems to be how people in these regions deal with the hopelessness they feel, now that the jobs are gone. *I mention, Atlanta, which is a large region. There are, of course, many areas of Atlanta that are gentrifying, but if you travel around the city at all, you also find huge neighborhoods that have sunk deeper into desperation. I am old enough that I can remember how affluent Atlanta was in the 90s, and I can remember how crime-ridden New York City used to be. The reversal of fortune is really remarkable. Nowadays I feel safe on New York subways, even late at night, whereas I no longer feel safe on Atlanta rail lines, even during the day (depending on the line).

jmccree 12y ago
Do you have any stats to backup your feelings? I feel safe riding MARTA at all hours. (I live a block from Five Points and do not own a car.)
- tbyehl 12y ago
  I've never felt unsafe on MARTA rail. But Five Points? When I worked at 101 Marietta, every one of my MARTA-ing co-workers had a story of working late and getting mugged on the way to the train.
- epmatsw 12y ago
  It seems like the stats contradict his feelings (at least at a city-wide level). http://www.decaturish.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1375-Report_2013_Final_Print_File_reduced_file.pdf http://www.decaturish.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1375-Re...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

michaelfeathers 12y ago

I'm a native of Miami and I think the article is right. The joke here is that Calle Ocho will be part of Brickell in 20 years - Brickell is creeping south. Personally, as much as I like San Francisco I prefer Miami's slow road to gentrification. It seems accidental, but it's a model other cities could use. Create your Brickell and leave the rest alone.

Dirlewanger 12y ago

On the east coast here so not at all really familiar with SF's makeup: who exactly are the NIMBYs? What's their demographic makeup? Are they lifelong residents who have 100% dedicated themselves to SF and everything about it (and it's showing due to their municipal political power)?

mariodiana 12y ago

The author's point is that if cities aren't careful about planning, then they will lose having chickens running through people's backyards? Does it make me some kind of Downton Abbey snob to question just what kind of "loss" that is?

CatDevURandom 12y ago

> Miami officials allowed them a place to go: Brickell. But in the 1970s, it began attracting small banks, and in the decades since has boomed into the “Wall Street of Miami." The reason why Miami has "avoided gentrification" is multifaceted and complex. But it wasn't due to some top-down city planning, I can assure you. Painting the "history of Brickell" as some sort of strategy to avoid gentrification is comically false. Brickell and those small banks therein were largely built with laundered drug money. The -- mostly commercial & real estate focused -- banking sector in Miami is not what the author would have you picture. While the cocaine cowboy days are long over, Miami feels less like a mini-wall street and more like a sofa to shove money under if you happen to live in a less stable nation; and the investment capital flow in this city represents that.

brudgers 12y ago
To the degree Miami has avoided gentrification [and what was the demolition of the Orange Bowl but that?], it is because there are so many attractive alternatives for the gentry. Unlike San Francisco, most of Miami's border is just lines on a map. But for a roadsign there's nothing to alert the driver like a bridge over the bay. Also unlike San Francisco, Miami grew around the automobile as primary transportation. Houses come with parking. Finally, the primary attraction of Miami is water, and to the degree urban life is attractive it tends toward the velvet rope variety rather than slumming in shared public space.
kenrikm 12y ago
Indeed, Miami Native here. (Live in Bay Area Now) This article comes to the conclusion it was looking for that is in fact false and not rooted in reality. Brownsville/Overtown/Liberty city were not intentionally left as rundown ganglands there have been attempts to clean them up but all have failed. Also Little Hati is downright dangerous to enter. [1] And of course Little Havana is still Cuban, it's well maintained generally safe and all that the Cubans who had to leave their country have left (Besides Hialeah). Also Lets not forget that ~70% of Miami is Cuban and they really value their heritage (my wife is Cuban) [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqdObNwHyFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqdObNwHyFI

brianbreslin 12y ago

Ok I'll bite. I live in Miami, go to San FranCisco often. Many of the historically ethnic neighborhoods in Miami are gentrifying. Wynwood the arts district was a historically Puerto Rican neighborhood. Design District which is filled with Prada stores was a historically poor black neighborhood. Overtown is quickly getting encroached by high rise developers because of its proximity to downtown (which is now also getting revitalized). Little havana is actually getting new construction, but slowly. Little Havana has trailed mostly because the existing housing stock there is all older low slung multi unit housing, and the core of it lacks public transportation. Many of the core Little Havana buildings are technically historically protected, so that limits developers building there. We are seeing mid-rises go up in the area though. San Francisco is seeing gentrification faster because of market forces dictating that if the money can't go vertical it has to go horizontal and displace the lower-income areas historical residents. SF will need to do something about affordable housing stock soon. Though that gives oakland a huge opportunity to seize that opportunity if they want it. Last comment: San Francisco "warm" ??? really? maybe Millbrae, but not SF proper.

batbomb 12y ago
Millbrae is often colder than SF, especially compared to select neighborhoods in SF. You need to hit at least Burlingame or San Mateo to get away from the seeping fog of Pacifica/San Bruno/Colma.
- brianbreslin 12y ago
  I think I was thinking of Milipitas. Which is much closer to San Jose right? I remember last summer going from wearing a sweatshirt in SOMA to it being 90+ in Milipitas the same day.
  - eloisant 12y ago
    Yes, Milpitas is close to San Jose. But you don't have to go that far, Burlingame is already pretty warm and sunny. The Bay Area is just microclimates everywhere.
  - 12y ago

patio11 12y ago

Maybe it's just the Chicagoan in me but when I hear "The wrong kind of people were going to move into the neighborhood but we put a stop to that!" I do not think "Sweet! Let us eat traditional food and play traditional music to celebrate this victory for justice."

amyjess 12y ago
Yes, I've noticed there's a distinct racist element to the anti-gentrification movement. Hell, look at how the article treats ethnic segregation as something that should be celebrated. Disgusting.
- judk 12y ago
  Yes minority cultures have no place in America. Cheesecake Factory and McDonalds is our Melting Pot
  - roneesh 12y ago
    There's a chain restaurant called The Melting Pot, so I'd say that's our melting pot.
  - kzhahou 12y ago
    They serve a delicious false dichotomy pie at the cheesecake factory.
  - thwest 12y ago
    I agree, and imagine your downvoters are praising themselves for identifying some fallacy in your sarcasm. Enforcing a uniform profitable culture where all real estate is available for developers' whims is not a "neutral" act.
  - oldmanjay 12y ago
    I bet you think you can solve racism by being racist. Am I right? You can tell me. I'm very accepting.
  - klipt 12y ago

dcre 12y ago

I'm a Miami native living in Chicago. I wonder whether the author only thinks gentrification isn't happening because he doesn't see too many non-Cubans. My understanding is that in the areas he talks about, old buildings are in fact being replaced with high-rise condos left and right. If almost everyone in Miami is Cuban, then the gentrifiers will also be Cuban.

brudgers 12y ago

Miami has an abundance of affordable housing alternatives outside the urban core. These are attractive in the same way that Silicon Valley's bedroom communities are except that their affordability makes them even more so. San Francisco is gentrifying because it is the least expensive desirable location.

malchow 12y ago
This. The more desirable suburbs of SF (Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton) have housing stock that sells for 10-20% more per square foot than housing in prime San Francisco itself. Is there any other major city where this is true?
- BashiBazouk 12y ago
  That would depend on your definition of "prime San Francisco". North Beach, Russian Hill, and Telegraph Hill are the most expensive per sq foot in the bay area. Pacific Heights and Presidio Heights are equivalent to any of the more expensive parts of the peninsula and valley...

brudgers 12y ago

The title of the article has been heavily editorialized. The correct title is: Travel Update: A Tale Of Two Latino Areas In Miami And San Francisco.

bluedino 12y ago

The article points out that Miami and San Francisco both have Latino populations, as if it were some reason why they should remain similar cities. But in fact, Miami's Latinos are not similar at all to San Francisco's. San Francisco is made up of about 15% Mexicans, where Miami has a majority of Cubans along with other Central Americans, and about half of the population is Hispanic. All of Miami is Hispanic, and really only the Mission is in San Francisco. Miami is also missing the large Asian population. Don't forget that San Francisco is 550 miles away from the USA/Mexico border. Miami is on the coast and is a much easier destination for new immigrants. SF's population is also about double that of Miami.

mc32 12y ago
The mission isn't even historically Hispanic. So it doesn't have the flavor as might the Mexican neighborhoods in san jose. The mission has been one of the historical destination neighborhoods for new immigrants who settle in SF. So the mission does not have a stereotypical ethnic look and feel. The one thing can be said about the mission is that along with old Chinatown and excelsior they are the immigrant neighborhoods, but the characteristics of the immigrants to these neighborhoods have changed over time and only old Chinatown has held on to its ethnic look and feel, but looking at it through that lens is unhelpful. If we look at Beijing of today, it has not retained the look of the hutongs. Cities change. That said, The new immigrants to these neighborhoods are now not foreign but urban domestic.

istvan__ 12y ago

Well if you are going for the obvious reasons, I guess the insane amount of tech related investment and subsequently generated wealth plays significant role in this but what people quite often forget is the local government. I would recommend everybody to talk to a builder here in SF and get their stories. It is quite eye opening. The local government puts roadblocks to new developments claiming that it would destroy the original look of the city, yet there are areas where this is not an issue. Look around in the business district. On the top of that it plays the different sides against each other, tells to people that the gentrification is purely caused by tech workers. I need to look into Miami more but I guess there is less tech investment and there are no roadblocks against housing projects. More here: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/

pjc50 12y ago

Isn't Miami "sinking", or at least under long-term threat from sea level rise, hurricanes, etc?

yardie 12y ago
Both. It's sinking because the water table has dropped. And the sea levels are rising, ever so slightly. But mostly it's going thirsty. The Biscayne aquifer can't keep up with demand. They've paved over it, diverted the rainwater that does fall into the Atlantic and saltwater is contaminating the remaining aquifer. And the government, rather than plan on fixing it, just keeps putting it off for later generations. They keep referencing the Dutch land reclamations efforts in the past without actually noticing how much work and time (centuries) the Dutch put into blocking out the sea.

jimbobimbo 12y ago

I'm an immigrant myself and not very familiar with the problem: if gentrification good or bad? The reason I'm asking is that, to the best of my knowledge, there was a period of "white flight", when urban core was basically left to poor people (or at least that's how I interpret this). My understanding is that at the time that was bad. Now rich people "move back in" and I get a vibe from similar articles that this is also bad. So, which is it?

Nursie 12y ago
Any action taken by a member of a class of people that can be thought of as privileged is necessarily bad, to some journalistic mindsets. Depending on how far you want to follow this you may even decide that gentrification is racist because it drives up property prices as richer, usually whiter, people move in and the original poorer (and therefore usually disproportionately non-white) demographic is priced out of the area. I tend to think this is bullshit and that places becoming less sketchy/shabby/crime-ridden is good...
- erikpukinskis 12y ago
  "Privilege" is neither good nor bad. It just is. Some people like living in cities that have a mixture of incomes, cultures, and lifestyles. Furthermore, some people see the various architectures and institutions of some neighborhoods as a kind of historical treasure. They think, in a sense, that the whole neighborhood, in some form of intactness, belongs on the National Register of Historic Places, or some equivalent. Some people might also decry a person's smug dismissing of such concerns as a kind of ignorance propped up by privilege. Such a person wouldn't have the liberty of such smugness if they weren't so privileged. But the harm (if there is any) is not the privilege itself, it is the loss of (supposed) cultural treasures.
  - wmil 12y ago
    The problem with supporting a "mixture of incomes" is that some people end up paying a small fraction of the price for equivalent real estate. That doesn't square well with some people's values.

fiatmoney 12y ago

Here's a concise explanation: SF is close (enough) to East Asia and is a convenient sink for the money laundering / "investment" you can do through real estate. Similarly, Miami in the 80s was close enough to South America to be an easy sink for the money laundering / "investment" you can do through real estate. When ~1/3 of new construction is unoccupied & held as investment it sure seems like the driving force at the margin. http://www.48hills.org/2015/01/27/sf-planners-yawn-vacant-units/ http://www.48hills.org/2015/01/27/sf-planners-yawn-vacant-un...

DanBlake 12y ago

I moved from SF to Miami. Its definitely gentrifying, you only need to look at the Wynwood district to see that. Areas where you could have bought a warehouse for next to nothing in the past are now selling for insane amounts, almost like rodeo drive. The reason why its not gentrifying faster is a combination of two things, demand and sprawl. Unlike SF, we can build up and out. In SF you cant do either, so you are forced to push people out.

madaxe_again 12y ago

There's a very, very simple answer to this. Miami, with an average elevation of 6 feet above sea level, will be underwater in the next several decades. Storm surges already threaten the keys and the coastal lagoon, and this pattern is only worsening as drainage on the mainland is impacted by industry and global climate patterns cause more energetic storms, and average sea level rise. SF, with an average of ~90ft will be much safer from this particular threat - although California will at the current rate, without serious intervention, be desert, on similar timescales. Long term investment does not make sense when you are faced with a risk of it all ending up in the sea.

DanBlake 12y ago
I agree that Miami will be underwater eventually. As for it being a reason for anything, I completely disagree. On your logic, nobody would be in SF because the next "big one" is coming. People generally dont give a shit.
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  There's a difference between earthquake risk, which is more of the "one large, recoverable, event" ilk, and the sea eating the land, which is pretty hard to come back from, particularly when you've built everything on porous limestone and sand. Dig a hole pretty much anywhere in Florida and you can watch the tide in it. "People" generally don't, but property developers do. It's also not "eventually", it's "imminently". You don't need the entire city to be underwater for it to be uninhabitable - you just need the sewer system to be below sea level, and you are quite literally up shit creek.
  - s73v3r 12y ago
    I have warning that a hurricane is coming, and can easily get my ass out of town when it gets there. I have no warning whatsoever (maybe 10 seconds if the early warning system bulks up) that "the big one" is coming, and my chances of dying in that are far greater.
  - DanBlake 12y ago

dilap 12y ago

The primary thesis — that if you just put up a bunch of luxury high-rise apartments in mission bay, gentrification of the mission would stop — strikes me as absurd. Way overly simplistic. Lots and lots of people with $ in SF still like the not-rich feel of neighborhood like the mission. SF culture doesn't turn into Miami culture just because you put up a bunch of tall buildings. Other points: Japantown is nothing more than a mall and a name on a map -- there is no neighborhood there. Conversely, Chinatown really isn't changing much; it resists gentrification. The explanation I have heard, which seems likely, is that most of the buildings and restaurants have been owned by the same families going way back, and they are reluctant to sell or lease to outsiders.

fragmede 12y ago
> Chinatown really isn't changing much; it resists gentrification. That's debatable. The Empress of China, a landmark restaurant of Chinatown since the 60's, closed at the end of last year to make way for offices. A six-floor building with some 62,000 square feet of space inside Chinatown's scant 24 square blocks is no small matter.
- dilap 12y ago
  Aw man, that's going to be offices? That's a bummer :(
pjlegato 12y ago
On the contrary, Chinatown is changing rapidly, and the Chinatown we know today will likely be gone very soon. It will soon transform into a Disneyland caricature of itself aimed at tourists, as North Beach has. The remaining population is increasingly composed of elderly people. Younger people tend to move to outer neighborhoods in SF, or to Daly City or the other peninsula suburbs, as Chinatown is actually a ghetto despite also being a romanticized tourist attraction. More recent middle class Chinese immigrants avoid Chinatown for the same reason and go directly to the suburbs. E.g. http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/sf-chinatown-restaurants-losing-elderly-customers/Content?oid=2925013 http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/sf-chinatown-restaura... -- the Imperial Palace restaurant estimates that 75-80% of its customers are elderly. The restaurant is empty most of the time and on the brink of financial failure as the customers' fixed incomes do not allow them to eat out very often. Many other restaurants report a similar situation. Places like the R&G Lounge have already remodeled, raised prices, and transformed in character from neighborhood restaurants to very expensive high end restaurants for yuppie tourists. Those that do not do this will perish.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

wmil 12y ago

Lumping both cities together as "warm-weather" seems lazy. Miami is hotter in January than San Fran ever is.

peterwwillis 12y ago

tl;dr from a former Miamian: 1. There are virtually no tech jobs to bring people into the city. 2. Public transit is terrible. 3. Lack of white-friendly english-speaking small businesses. 4. Crime. 5. Cost of living is not low enough to negate the above points. There are other things to consider, like the climate of Miami is not even remotely as mild as SF, the people are fairly horrible, there are no large tech employers, there's nothing attractive to average people about the area (South Florida is kind of a shit hole in general). Basically, any place in Miami a tech hipster would move is simply too expensive without giving them anything they would enjoy in return. Even Wynwood quickly gets tiring for non-artist non-musician hipsters.

baldfat 12y ago

Gentrification is a Mytyh - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_gentrification_myth_it_s_rare_and_not_as_bad_for_the_poor_as_people.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201... My city Allentown, PA has a very late white flight that occurred in the 80s and 90s. We had a donut economy where the suburbs had all the money and shopping and downtown was a rust belt city that had mostly mutli-family converted homes with low-income. We now have over $1,000,000,000 invested into Downtown Allentown. http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/american-futures/allentown-bets-big-shed-its-former-image http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/american-futures/a... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/breathing-life-into-allentown-pennsylvania-comes-to-the-rescue/379742/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/breathin... Protesters claim of gentrification is happening. My stance is center city Allentown is not where we dump low income people and for people to have a "better life" they must move to the suburbs. You can have a "better life" and live in our cities. Our schools have an almost 50% transfer rate for children. This means that 50% of the children that started in September will finish their school year at a different school. I will take diversity over homogeneous non-gentrification. This word is to ambiguous and and not clear in telling anything.

ChuckMcM 12y ago

That left me wondering if the author, Scott Beyer, works for some developer PR firm. All leading up to this call to action: All this, of course, suggests an ironic aspect of urban housing markets that is misunderstood by most government officials and NIMBYs: “if a city wants to preserve, it must build.” Which I heard as "Hey San Francisco, let Simon Property Group develop this area into a techie zone, we'll make money and it will take pressure off the other neighborhoods because we'll be the cool place to be!"

mturmon 12y ago
Follow Scott Beyer's byline to his blog to his about page: "My book will argue that cities should instead embrace “Market Urbanism.” This phrase was invented in 2007 by Adam Hengels, a development consultant who founded the Market Urbanism blog [where the OP appeared]. He defines it as the intersection between capitalists and urbanists, and his contributors describe how municipal governments repeatedly harm economic productivity. My book will package his ideology into a series of proposals..." So it seems like he's taken a development consultant as his role model and is fitting his observations into an already-decided ideology and action plan. That's why the article seems so one-dimensional and ignores obvious facts.
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  Yes, that pretty much puts the article in perspective.
- woah 12y ago
  Want somewhere to live? Let people build housing. Pretty simple.
  - mturmon 12y ago
    I don't disagree with all of his conclusions. But I think that his piece was so glib as to be meaningless. He essentially promises that, by lifting building restrictions, you can preserve ethnic neighborhoods from gentrification (for what that's worth), because development will be channeled elsewhere, e.g. into high-rises that the professional class (in his reading) favors. Just writing it down exposes how facile this is. And that doesn't even get into other problems, like the unguarded analogies between San Francisco and Miami ("warm-weather cities"). Here's an article that I enjoyed, which also reached a pro-development conclusion, but with a lot more nuance: http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2014/06/living-in-a-fools-paradise/ http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2014/06/living-in-a-fools-para.... This appeared in a special issue devoted to the SF housing situation.

georgeglue1 12y ago

The article claims that SF needs an outlet for condo and high rise growth. Isn't SOMA/Mission Bay taking this up? There are almost certainly larger cultural differences.

mathattack 12y ago

I think the author misses the point. Miami can fit the rich people all in one neighborhood because there aren't so many of them. San Francisco is sitting on an enormous bed of prosperity, and has little cheap land around it. There's not enough room for all the rich people, let alone everyone else. You can't just say, "Toss them in the Marina." (Of as some might prefer, "Toss them off...") I wish there was an easy answer, because none of the surrounding areas wants to locally address low income housing. My hunch is this needs to be handled on a State level to avoid the NIMBY syndrome. I don't think rent control or shaking down new developers to include a few below-market rooms solves much in the face of such an overwhelming supply and demand imbalance.

autoreleasepool 12y ago
I love in Miami; there are A LOT of rich people here. These people are actually rich too, as in 6 figure salaries are what they consider just well off. The majority of them are ultra wealthy Latin Americans or Europeans who live here part of the time and maybe have their kids go to high school here where they basically live on their own in huge apartments. The sad thing is there is actually shortage in housing and the rents are getting extremely high while wages are absolute shit. It doesn't help that every new apartment complex that gets built are marketed as "luxury" apartments for the ultra rich. There are two separate markets for renters here. When you can build ultra luxury appartments and rent them for $5000 - $10000 a month, there is no reason to construct more lower to middle class housing.
- mathattack 12y ago
  The foreign money was a problem in NYC too. Lots of new buildings with empty apartments owned by international buyers. I like to view myself as a capitalist, but this seems like a break-down of the system. I'm not sure if the problem is regulatory overhead making low-cost housing impossible to build, or what, but it does cause resentment.

cameroncf 12y ago

Many (most?) west coast cities are land locked against ocean, mountains, bays, military posts (San Diego), and other land features. This restricts growth and magnifies shortages of real estate. Miami has some confinements along it's borders but it's nowhere near as confined as San Fransisco and other west coast cities. This fluff piece is anecdotal and offers no real support of it's conclusions other than the author's loosely defended personal opinion.

shenaor 12y ago

I've been living in Miami for about 8 years. I love Miami :) but, Miami is great but the city overall still depends on the car culture. Population Density + Car Culture is never good. The moment people are too lazy that they have to drive one block to get groceries; now thats a problem. Yea, the Brickell is great and all but I would never live there unless I worked there. The area has allowed other areas to stay "ethnic" with the expense of poor planning, for me getting in and out of Brickell is a odyssey and I only live 2 miles away. I can't image what it is for someone who commutes there every day. Miami lacks the public transportation other cities have developed. Unless the public transportations keeps up, Miami will just be a vacation home for the rich not the "hub of the Americas" as it is always dubbed.

mlmonkey 12y ago

The writer has no clue about SF, and yet pontificates as if he knows something. Mission (in SF) was not historically a Latino neighborhood; it was originally Irish. He picks 1 example (8 Washington) and proceeds to paint the entire city with it. Did he not bother to look a little south at SoMa, with its tall buildings? I stopped reading at this point.

caseyf7 12y ago
Very true. Also, the area around the ballpark was empty piers and parking lots in the 90s and has already been built up incredibly.

ScottBurson 12y ago

Dang, can you fix the spelling in the title please? (FranCisco)

jklinger410 12y ago

In the future we will recognize the concept of gentrification as a white-guilt fueled racist sentiment and people will stop using it. I'm so excited for that day.

makeitsuckless 12y ago

I don't think the writer understands what gentrification is, or what the "creative class" looks for in their environment. Brickell's high rises are neither. The kind of people that gentrify places like SF, or Brooklyn, or a thousand other places around the world apparently aren't there in Miami. Because they would never want to be found dead in a place like Brickell.

davidf18 12y ago

Harvard economist Edward Glaeser; author of the book Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier; has written about this as well as many others such as Economics Nobelist Paul Krugman who cites Glaeser). The problems with the high rents in today's cities is through the use of politics to artificially increase the value of land through zoning density restrictions and overuse of historic landmark status. These laws that increase the cost of land serve as a hidden tax on the poorer segments of society to subsidize the wealthy. See: NYPost Build Big Bill (de Blasio -- Mayor of NYC) http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1.1913739 http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1....

bcheung 12y ago

Miami and San Francisco are both warm-weather cities. That's hilarious.