
A Tale Of Two Latino Areas In Miami And San Francisco - yummyfajitas
http://marketurbanism.com/2015/04/20/travel-update-a-tale-of-two-latino-areas-in-miami-and-san-francisco/
======
jimbobimbo
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?

~~~
rglullis
A quick read: [http://www.economist.com/news/united-
states/21644164-gentrif...](http://www.economist.com/news/united-
states/21644164-gentrification-good-poor-bring-hipsters)

" _The case against it is simple. Newcomers with more money supposedly crowd
out older residents. (...) Young, mostly white singletons have crowded into a
district once built for families. (...)

Yet there is little evidence that gentrification is responsible for displacing
the poor or minorities. Black people were moving out of Washington in the
1980s, long before most parts of the city began gentrifying. In cities like
Detroit, where gentrifiers are few and far between and housing costs almost
nothing, they are still leaving. (...) They did find, however, that the
average income of black people with high- school diplomas in gentrifying areas
soared. (...)

Gentrifiers can make life better for locals in plenty of ways (...) When
professionals move to an area, “they know how to get things done”. They put
pressure on schools, the police and the city to improve. As property prices
increase, rents go up—but that also generates more property-tax revenue,
helping to improve local services. In many cities, zoning laws force
developers to build subsidised housing for the poor as well as pricey pads for
well-off newcomers, which means that rising house prices can help to create
more subsidised housing, not less._"

Also, I think it is very funny how most of the criticism of gentrification is
done by the white-liberal types and it reeks of classism. The original article
says "It’s not unusual to find live chickens running through people’s
backyards" like it is a good thing. I can almost read an implicit defense of
segregation.

~~~
eqdw
I live in a lower income neighbourhood in the east bay, because prices have
risen so fast, and I'm so new, that that's all I can afford.

I've on several occasions been accused of gentrification, sometimes even by
close friends or coworkers. But all I can think of is the fact that most of
these coworkers are either under rent control, paying less than half I do for
a comparable place (and come the fuck on, you work in tech, you don't _need_
rent control), and the other half live in luxury high rises.

I'm a foreigner, I don't always understand race relations. I thought
segregation was bad. But apparently my friends self-segregate, and when I dare
to live in 'their' neighbourhood, _I 'm_ the bad guy.

Life's a lot better when you think of other people as human beings, instead of
a weird separate group to be left alone, don't you think?

~~~
moron4hire
Part of the problem is that most people who want to talk about *isms of any
kind are not capable of thinking in terms other than binary. In this
particular case, you're either the person who is moving in or the person who
is moving out, with no consideration given to the large real-estate
speculation firm that built the new high-rise condo projects that don't fit
the neighborhood, on land probably acquired through some sort of government
sale process and/or at least partially funded by grant money.

It's the ol' "searching in the street for the keys you lost in the yard
because the streetlight is the only light you have."

Everyone wants an affordable place to live. It takes the power of government
to wrench that land out from under people without fair compensation and pass
it over at below-market rates to big-business to be redeveloped and resold at
higher costs to ultimately increase property and income tax revenue.

~~~
lkbm
I mostly hear feminists and anti-racism/anti-oppression activists argue very
much the opposite. Your job is to progress toward being less racist and less
sexist. It's about rejecting the view that people are intentionally racist or
good people, but rather that we all have countless implicit biases and a
system that promotes inequality, and we have to actively move toward _less_
bias.

The idea that some of us just _aren 't_ racist/sexist/classist/etc. is very
much what is being argued against by "most people who want to talk about
*isms".

Obviously, I can't provide a full survey of all thought on this matter, but
here's the most recent racism article I've read:
[http://www.salon.com/2015/04/10/white_americas_racial_illite...](http://www.salon.com/2015/04/10/white_americas_racial_illiteracy_why_our_national_conversation_is_poisoned_from_the_start_partner/)

I think it does a decent idea of expressing that it's not a binary.

~~~
moron4hire
I just think the binary approach is an incredibly naive, fruitless way of
looking at an issue, one that suggests that resolution isn't the goal, but
rather the clash between ideologies themselves is.

When you treat the negative spaces of non-activity as equally evil to the
positive spaces of activity, you shove people who are straddling the middle
_away_ from your side and towards your opposition. That keeps the middle
ground right where it has always been, and nothing ever gets better.
Mechanically, that's just incredibly stupid.

What's the message of this Salon article? "White people, you're always going
to be a part of the problem, and nothing you can do will be considered part of
the solution, because your desire to be involved is part of the problem. You
are always wrong." Do articles like this make it more or less likely to
convert people who _have_ started to think about it? To me, "you're always
going to be wrong" is just driving people away. It is too easy to turn that
into "then why even try?"

If that's _not_ the message, then someone in one of the sociology departments
of universities across America needs to come up with a much better way of
talking about the issue, because that's how I and a lot of people take it.

Outside of the recent spat of police shootings, the white-privilege topic is
the only one I've personally been seeing coming out of academic circles and
into the public. I guess that's part of my privilege that I get to live in a
world not surrounded by concern about race. But I'm not a social worker or
community organizer or politician or sociologist. I'm a software engineer. I'm
busy making a living for myself. That doesn't make me a part of the problem
_or_ the solution. That just makes me a person. I'm not asking to be held up
and congratulated for not being actively racist. I'm just asking to also not
be vilified for keeping my nose in my own business.

That's my point of the issue not being binary. "You're either for us or
against us" is a totalitarian rhetoric, one that is not compatible with
healthy democracies (though I belabor under no illusion that we live in a
healthy democracy).

------
brianbreslin
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.

~~~
clamprecht
I had a 10 hour layover in Miami on my way back to Argentina. I walked through
Little Havana and it was awesome. Almost everyone speaks Spanish, and there
were even a few who didn't speak English, but had probably lived there for
decades. (To me this is a plus, not a minus). I asked a guy at the bus stop
which bus went back to the airport. "¿Cómo?", he replied? Even at mainstream
businesses like Chase Bank, they greet you in Spanish unless you are clearly
gringo (as I am).

~~~
paulhauggis
This shows you how much cultural acceptance the US has to offer. For example,
if you go to France and try to speak English, you will get scoffed at.

~~~
PeterWhittaker
I think it depends where you are and how much of an effort you make, how
friendly you are. I speak French fluently and even in Paris (where people have
a reputation for being gallophillic and anglophobic in the extreme) I've had
lovely conversations in English, both with locals and with visitors from other
parts of the country.

I've also seen people "close ranks" when confronted by the "ugly American" who
speaks not a word of French and shouts to make themselves understood. I've
even joined those ranks until the person became far too annoying, at which
point I offered a brusque and factual, pithy translation, delivered as if
talking to a spoiled child.

It felt quite good. I'm not proud of that, but it did.

My experience in Paris is consistent with all of my travels: Make an effort,
be interested, be nice, get warmth and welcome in return. Be a douche, get
douched right back.

~~~
DougMerritt
> My experience in Paris is consistent with all of my travels: Make an effort,
> be interested, be nice, get warmth and welcome in return.

Same here, as an American who never studied French, aside from the French-for-
tourists booklet once I was in Paris (which I _did_ try hard to learn).

People were delightful; I did not experience any of the negative stereotype
when struggling to communicate with people, whether they spoke English or only
French.

Same in several other countries, too, but Paris is particularly noteworthy
considering the common (and ancient) slanders on that topic.

People have suggested that Parisians are more prejudiced against French
dialects than they are against non-speakers, but I wouldn't know.

I do know that presumably-ugly Americans complained about Paris/Parisians,
when I found it/them fantastic.

(I'm looking at your post history out of curiosity, excuse' moi (spell?))

------
CatDevURandom
> 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.

~~~
kenrikm
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
The dominance of Cubans as part of the demographic is quickly slipping. So
many more argentines, venezuelans, colombians, nicaraguans, and brazilians are
here now. Agreed that brownsville/overtown/liberty city are all still
dangerous. Wynwood was dangerous 5-6 years ago!

~~~
kenrikm
The Venezuelans took over Weston. ;)

------
lkrubner
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
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.)

~~~
epmatsw
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-Re...](http://www.decaturish.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/04/1375-Report_2013_Final_Print_File_reduced_file.pdf)

------
patio11
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
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
Yes minority cultures have no place in America. Cheesecake Factory and
McDonalds is our Melting Pot

~~~
roneesh
There's a chain restaurant called The Melting Pot, so I'd say that's our
melting pot.

------
exelius
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
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

~~~
exelius
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
>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
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.

------
baldfat
Gentrification is a Mytyh -
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...](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)

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/a...](http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/american-
futures/allentown-bets-big-shed-its-former-image)

[http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/breathin...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/breathing-
life-into-allentown-pennsylvania-comes-to-the-rescue/379742/)

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
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
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.

~~~
woah
Want somewhere to live? Let people build housing. Pretty simple.

~~~
mturmon
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-
para...](http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2014/06/living-in-a-fools-paradise/).
This appeared in a special issue devoted to the SF housing situation.

------
peterwwillis
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.

------
michaelfeathers
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.

------
brudgers
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_.

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

------
mathattack
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
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
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.

------
shenaor
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.

------
gphil
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.

------
jinushaun
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.

------
bluedino
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
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.

------
mariodiana
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?

------
madaxe_again
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
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
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.

~~~
DanBlake
I believe you need to rethink what the word 'imminently' means. The most
aggressive timescale out there from the National Climate Assessment suggests a
4 foot rise during the next one hundred years. If that started today, its less
than a half inch a year. Thats hardly imminent. Thats not even in your
lifetime you see the 3 foot mark.

~~~
madaxe_again
A century is imminent as it is, unless you think only in single-life
timescales, and a two foot rise will be enough to make Miami economically
unviable - as above, sewerage - and fresh water - will be severely impinged by
a moderate rise.

That's 50 years, even with current models. If Miami is to survive, it needs
new infrastructure, now - and even that will only hold for the short term. The
only long term option would be a massive caisson building effort, building a
huge concrete sheet wall around the city, buried deep into the strata, down to
below the porous limestone it's built atop - at least 20 feet deep in most
places. Even then, you'll have issues with sinkholes due to water being
removed from the strata... in short, abandonment is where Miami will end up.
Nothing else makes sense.

Sea level rise is accelerating beyond our most aggressive models currently,
due to ice shelf collapse - Antarctic and Greenland ice shelves are vanishing
much faster than anticipated, and will likely all be gone within the decade -
expect new models over the next 18 months to predict some rather radical
outcomes entirely within our lifetimes.

~~~
DanBlake
California is running out of water and has a few years left. Thats imminent.
Florida sinking in 50, 100 or 200 years is not. A large percentage of tech
folk are highly mobile and as such, florida sinking in even 20 years will not
dissuade them from moving here as the vast majority of them are renters
anyways. I dont doubt its something to think about and sealevel is definitely
rising, I just was contradicting your answer that the one obvious answer is
sea level rise. If you put it in percentages of why people move here, I doubt
its even in a 5% range.

------
jklinger410
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.

------
istvan__
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/)

------
dcre
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.

------
davidf18
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....](http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-
article-1.1913739)

------
dilap
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
> 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
Aw man, that's going to be offices? That's a bummer :(

------
fiatmoney
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-
un...](http://www.48hills.org/2015/01/27/sf-planners-yawn-vacant-units/)

------
DanBlake
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.

------
makeitsuckless
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.

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

------
brudgers
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
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
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...

------
Dirlewanger
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)?

------
at-fates-hands
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-
fea...](http://www.floridatrend.com/article/11504/gentrification-fears)

 _" 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-o...](http://miamitruthandlies.blogspot.com/2011/05/situation-in-
overtown.html)

 _" 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
It's been going on since well before 2005. In the 1980's Miami Beach was a
cheap place to live.

------
pjc50
Isn't Miami "sinking", or at least under long-term threat from sea level rise,
hurricanes, etc?

~~~
yardie
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.

------
lexiconmagic
Francisco _

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

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

------
georgeglue1
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.

------
cameroncf
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.

