
How the Internet ruined San Francisco (1999) - mshafrir
http://www.salon.com/1999/10/28/internet_2/
======
potatolicious
The more things change the more they say the same.

If there's one thing I've learned in life, is to never listen to people
moaning about the "good old days" and how [insert group] has "ruined" [insert
place], not like those [other group] that were great. The good old days were
never actually that good, and [insert group] is neither worse nor better than
[other group].

We're all way too young to be curmudgeons yet, so stop acting like it.

It's also amusing to see one wave of gentrifiers shake their fists angrily at
the next wave of gentrifiers. I heard about the Yuppie Eradication Project -
where people who invaded a traditionally Latino stronghold vowed to key the
cars of people who later invaded _that_.

FWIW, they can fight for the Mission all they want. No matter how many rose-
tinted pairs of glasses you put on, it's _still_ the piss-filled, shit-
littered, gun-happy, knife-stabby, gangbanger-filled shitpot we know and love.

~~~
mtalantikite
I have very mixed feelings about this.

It's easy to say 'too bad, you're a gentrifier complaining about further
gentrification', and I agree with that to some extent.

On the other hand, I think what the sentiment of this article is getting at is
the frustration that comes with watching culture and community being washed
away at a large scale. Sure, enclaves of artists/musicians/hackers may set up
shop in various neighborhoods throughout a city, but early on it's never
enough to really remove the feeling of culture and community of where one is
on a whole. But then at a certain point you hit some sort of inflection point
where the flood gates open and the entire city feels foreign. This happened to
Manhattan a while ago. Sure it's still uniquely New York, and it's still an
amazing place that I love, but it's a borough for the wealthy now.

I encountered this feeling of resentment towards post-flood-gate gentrifiers
recently on a subway ride on the Q train back into Brooklyn. If you've ever
spent any significant time on the Q train you've probably experienced the
emergency doors on one side of the train open, followed by a group of young
guys entering the car exclaiming "It's show time!", followed by all sorts of
acrobatic break dancing. It might not be all that amazing the 20th time, but
it is what it is. A couple weeks ago this familiar act began happening and, at
the risk of sounding prejudiced, a new-wave gentrifying girl yelled "Oh, no!
Stop! I hate this!" while giving a stank face to everyone. My initial
reaction: this is NYC, specifically Brooklyn, and it's for moments like this
that we live here, so what are you doing here?

I had realized that Brooklyn had changed significantly, but for some reason
this made me realize it's nearing the point of no return. You see people
charging $2700 for 1 bedrooms in Bushwick and Bentleys cruising on Flatbush
and realize the charm of the entire place is in danger of being lost.

~~~
MartinCron
I think about this in my own city (Seattle), where the quirky artists have
been progressively priced out of several neighborhoods. And sure, something is
lost when this happens, but I don't think anyone should be assured that their
place in the world is theirs forever. So, you have to move from Fremont to
Georgetown, and maybe then from Georgetown to South Park.

Sure, something is lost, but is it a real tragedy?

~~~
mtalantikite
I think when you get to the point of gentrification in a place like NYC or SF,
when it no longer is possible for the creative class to afford living there,
you do risk losing the city, and that's tragic.

It's not only a question of these being expensive places to live, but if the
entirety of the city is filled with bougie restaurants and bars, is that even
attractive anymore? Do I really care to live in a place filled with $15 burger
joints, art galleries that don't take risks because they are targeting wealthy
buyers in order to pay their leases, and music venues that have to have 7 acts
a night rotating through so the space can sell enough $7 beers to stay open?

I mean Bill and Hilarie Clinton even had an event at Roberta's in Bushwick
(Brooklyn) this week. The Clintons hanging out in Bushwick?! At what point do
people just start looking elsewhere?

These are all questions I don't have answers to. I do love New York, and every
time I leave I can't wait to get back. It's a magical place. But sometimes I
can't help but think nearly free rent and a blank canvas like Detroit sounds
mighty appealing.

~~~
MartinCron
_I can't help but think nearly free rent and a blank canvas like Detroit
sounds mighty appealing._

I honestly hope that the nearly free rent and blank canvas does appeal to a
lot of creative/artist/hacker types.

As shameful as it is to say, I've thought about buying property there (or
somewhere similarly cheap) _just so I could do cool stuff with it_. My small
residential lot doesn't have enough room (or a proper tree) to build a tree
house with my kids, and I don't have nearly enough room in my shop to
experiment with the crazy building stuff I want to do.

~~~
api
There are some interesting folks in Detroit, lured by the same attitude:

<http://omnicorpdetroit.com/blog/>

~~~
MartinCron
Thank you for sharing this, the Robocop reference makes me adore them even
more than I otherwise would have.

------
api
There's a sort of ugly urban cycle. First, you get an interesting place. Then
interesting people move in. These interesting people do interesting things.
Wages go up. Money moves in. Then you have real-estate hyperinflation, and the
place becomes unaffordable to anyone who isn't already rich or grandfathered
in.

Trouble is: the next wave of interesting people usually start out as starving
artists/hackers/entrepreneurs just like the previous wave did.

It's almost as if regional success beyond a certain point accomplishes nothing
but inflating real estate, which redirects further success into keeping that
real estate bubble inflated. This primarily benefits banks.

Imagine what would happen if this didn't happen... imagine living in a place
as inexpensive as a medium-sized Midwestern city, but with Silicon Valley
salaries. Imagine how many _other_ places that wealth could go: more startups,
more gadgets, better infrastructure, world-class everything, better health
care, even generosity. But nope, real estate just soaks up wealth beyond a
certain point and redirects it back into the financial pyramid.

Sometimes a place is so unbelievably interesting, like New York, that people
are willing to live in a catbox in order to be there. But even then people
have a tendency to get sick of this after a while, and anyone contemplating
reproducing or wanting to do anything that requires space is out of luck and
has to leave.

~~~
jessedhillon
_... imagine living in a place as inexpensive as a medium-sized Midwestern
city, but with Silicon Valley salaries._

I'm imagining myself waking up every morning wondering what good it is to be
making $XX0,000 if I have to live in _this_ place. My cousin makes ~$220,000
in Yakima WA as a doctor -- her main expenses are weekly flights to NYC.

The reason why people want to be in big cities is because _other people_ are
there -- supply and demand explains the high prices. I came from Sacramento,
but I wouldn't live there for even double my salary because nobody is doing
anything interesting there. The startup scene is non-existent and there are no
major universities turning out bright minds. Just more fat people having kids
at age 22.

Or are you asking why a SF-style city can't be as inexpensive as Topeka? To
that, I would answer: because nobody wants to be in Topeka.

~~~
adam
"...because nobody wants to be in Topeka."

Perhaps very few readers of HN would like to be in Topeka, but there are also
families that have lived there for generations and all kinds of people who I'm
sure absolutely love Topeka.

In fact, I suspect they would tell you that you can take NYC or SF and have it
(or worse.) The bottom line is to each their own - no reason to disparage
other's interests and life choices because you choose to live in a big city
and have found a community of like-minded people, it just makes you sound like
a pompous jerk.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
_Perhaps very few readers of HN would like to be in Topeka, but there are also
families that have lived there for generations and all kinds of people who I'm
sure absolutely love Topeka._

As an additional note, there are also families that have lived in New York
City for generations and all kinds of people who absolutely love New York.

Then they get priced out, too. This is why my family moved us to New Jersey at
age 5: between crime and school zoning, my parents couldn't stay in their home
city of New York _and_ raise children. So to the suburbs we went (in roughly
1994) and by even the mid-2000s we were completely priced out of the city all
four of us were born in and very much feel culturally attached to (what with
our families having lived there for 100 years or so).

And both my parents had white-collar, professional jobs with salaries and
benefits packages!

------
khuey
The problem is lack of supply of real estate. The proper response here is to
build higher density real estate, or to build transit systems that effectively
expand the amount of land that can be reached quickly enough to be "in" the
city, or both.

San Francisco has failed miserably at both. Development is a four letter word
due to the attitudes of many of the existing residents and the legal process
that allows anyone to stall and delay anything. BART meets the threshold for
tolerable transit, but there's not enough of it, and even if there were fast
rapid transit to the peninsula or Marin the residents there are even more
opposed to density than San Franciscans. Most of the new development is
happening in parts of the East Bay near BART because that's where people are
willing to allow it and where transit can get you downtown quickly. If the
city were to permit and construct 10 story buildings in the Sunset tomorrow
that wouldn't do much to alleviate real estate prices because it takes longer
to cross the city on transit than it does to BART in from the good parts of
Oakland.

~~~
wpietri
Outsiders and newcomers tend to see the problem as lack of supply. Those who
would have to live next to new skyscrapers (or move to make room) have a
bigger variety of opinions.

~~~
rayiner
If you want to control the character of what gets built next to you, buy up
that property. It's an abuse of zoning law to zone to keep your neighborhood
from changing. The purpose of zoning is to have orderly segregation of
industrial and residential areas, not to put neighborhoods into a time
capsule.

------
sksk
David Talbot, founder and CEO of Salon.com recently participated in KQED Forum
talking about 'How much tech can one city take?'. Somewhat similar to the
above article but a 2012 view.

For those of you who are interested you can hear it here:
<http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201209250900>

------
salem
I find it curious that the same people that complain about evictions complain
about high rises getting built. This sort of article gets written year after
year. People have to live somewhere, any if there continues to be resistance
to higher density housing, rents will keep skyrocketing.

------
jongold
San Francisco doesn't belong to anyone.

------
charonn0
The part I liked was when the author complained that there were too many jobs.

------
ultraswank
I moved to The Mission in 1996 So I'm likely included in the internet crowd
that ruined the city. I loved living there, but I when I visit now its not the
lack of artists that I notice, its the (relative) lack of crack addicts. Lets
not let the glasses get too rose colored. It might be more difficult for
people just starting out or on limited income to make it there, but if they do
there is a base line improvement to their quality of life that comes with
living in a safer and cleaner environment. I took my son to play at the newly
renovated park at Valencia and 19th the other month and I couldn't believe
that there was an outdoor water park in SF, much less The Mission, that I felt
OK with him playing in. The locals looked pretty excited about it too.

Besides the young and hip are doing what they always do, find new areas to
make hip. I've been living in the East Bay for a decade now and I can't
believe that Oakland is the new hip spot in the Bay Area. Hope it does
something for my property values.

------
johnnymonster
Anyone can die at any moment and everything is gone doesn't that suck. You
can't control death and you can't control change! Life always moves on no
matter what you do. Thats why you have to enjoy the moments as they pass and
stop trying to keep them from passing, forcing them to stand still! Life would
be boring without new things happening. I know some people get stuck in their
ways and can't stand change, but I can't imagine that life is very fun or
enjoyable at all!

------
Apocryphon
This seems like a timely article: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-
micro-apartments-201...](http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-micro-
apartments-20120924,0,5210788.story)

------
mynameishere
A truly bizarre complaint. You could say something similar about Los Angeles,
and many other Californian cities, but opposite in every way.

------
DoogieF
This town is flavorless, There's many things that are great about it, but
there is simply no vibe...IMHO.

------
TheMagicHorsey
There's always at least one person whining about certain cosmetic
characteristics as though they are cultural treasures. Characteristics of
neighborhoods are always changing. In the past they changed over a generation,
now technology and a rapidly transforming economy create changes in decades
and half-decades. This isn't a bad thing.

All the little things the author opines romantically about are relatively
recent developments that were decried by earlier generations no doubt. OH
THESE FILTHY BUTCHERS HAVE DISPLACED THE PICTURESQUE HUNTSMAN AND HIS MEAT
CARRIAGE WHICH USED TO PLY THE STREETS OF MINE YOUTH. You see what I'm saying?

This woman has no idea. She's all shriveled up and unstuck in time. She can't
see things with a long lens. All she knows is that things she is comfortable
with are changing, and she doesn't want to learn to see something beautiful in
what is still to come. She wants everything to be frozen in crystal for all
time.

These people are spacewankers of the worst sort. Don't let the fact that they
are good at writing English seduce you to this stupid hipster way of thinking.

