Golden Gate Bridge San Francisco, California govexec.com |
It is the start of a new week, which means fresh ideas to think about. Today we consider "What's the Matter With San Francisco?" Well maybe not because that would require thinking well above and beyond blogger's pay grade. Actually, that is the title of Gabriel Metcalf's article for CityLab, which looks at how the city's progressive politics created a housing affordability gap. San Francisco is gorgeous city with many fine cultural and recreational attractions but living within the fabled "City by The Bay" has exceeded the realm of realistic possibility. Whatever remnants of its historic eccentric counter-culture that make San Francisco so appealing are gone in a puff of cannabis smoke. That and the types of cultural tinkering that does not work in places that are just too expensive. It sad to see much of what makes this beautiful city disappear under the crush of luxury housing units. It has gotten to the point where a decent and affordable place is out of reach for teachers, writers, artists, organizers. It seems that unless something has money making potential, it is not worth trying at all. How did come to this point?
Downtown San Francisco tophdgallery.com |
At the apex of all this peace, love, and togetherness, San Francisco accomplished some truly wonderful things. Mr. Metcalf writes, "It invented new models of delivering affordable housing and health care, it invested deeply in public spaces, from parks to bike lanes. It adopted a transit-first policy...It did its best to create a high-tax, high-service public sector that could generate the funds to provide a more generous social safety network at a time when the national government was moving in the other direction..." San Francisco became a place of refuge for people from Central America and South America, Asia, gays and lesbians from all over the United States searching for a better life. In short, San Francisco proved that a European-style economic model could thrive on American soil.
Pedicab driver with passengers San Francisco, California sundaystreetssf.com |
In the late sixties, this anti-new construction and development stance made sense as reaction to the urban renewal madness of the previous era. Let us be honest, in the extremely tone deaf, misguided efforts to re-make post World War II cities, urban planners and civic officials destroyed historically racial and ethnic neighborhoods, jammed freeways through cities and worst of all, built foreboding aesthetic eyesore public housing towers. The response to this mindless urban development activity was for urban planning to take on a more preservationist outlook. The logic was, "Since the bad guys were trying to destroy the city, the good guys needed to defend it from change."
Masonic and Haight Streets in San Francisco adventruresofagoodman.com |
Somewhere between 1970 and 2000, the historical context changed. In fact, as Mr. Metcalf observed, "It was,...one of the most profound cultural and demographic shifts in American history: after years of suburban migration, people started moving to cities again." You can begin to see which direction this is headed in. The return to the cities reversed the post-War trend, where virtually every major American city lost people to the suburbs for all the usual reasons: racism and white flight, an effort to flee from organized labor's influence, the need for more space, and the attraction of single-family home ownership. The jobs also moved to where the people were. Urban divestment was the defining issue that vexed activists and politicians.
Change in city population relative to base year 1940 Source: SPUR analysis drawn from U.S, Census data citylab.com |
Around 1980, the populations of cities such as New York and San Francisco began to grow again. This took many urban theorist, at the time, by surprise. It was a dramatic continuous growth. For example, Mr. Metcalf writes, "Between 1980 and 2014, Boston grew by 16 percent, New York by 20 percent, San Francisco by 23 percent and Seattle by 35 percent..." Despite these numbers, not all cities experienced a reversal of population loss. Many of the "Rust Belt" cities (eg. Detroit) have continued to see their populations shrink. Nevertheless, for a city like San Francisco with 35 years of growth under their belt, contemporary urban problems are completely different from what they were in previous generations. Instead of dealing with
Changes in city population ("Rust Belt") relative to base year 1940 Source: SPUR analysis drawn from U.S, Census data citylab.com |
Conventional thinking, "When more people want to live in a city, it drives up the cost of housing, unless a commensurate amount of places to live are added." Makes perfect sense, right? In the case of San Francisco, by the 1990s, it was obvious that it had a choice to make: "Reverse course on its development attitudes, or watch America's rekindled desire for city life overwhelm the openness and diversity that had made the city so special." Care to guess which choice San Francisco made?
San Francisco Examiner headlines boomcalifornia.com |
House for sale in the Haight Ashbury neighborhood REUTERS/Robert Galbraith pricetags.wordpress.com |
View from Broadway Street towards the Bay Bridge commons.wikimedia.org |
Therefore, the city has gotten a reputation for astronomical rents and the once hallowed progressive housing policy has shifted to protecting long-term residents from being displaced. The city could no longer be a refuge from immigrants or radicals across the globe. The progressives are unable to come to grips with their central contradiction "...of being against the creation of more 'places' that would give people the chance to live in the city." Once San Francisco closed its paisley and patchouli doors to the eccentrics, it could no longer live up to its progressive values nor do anything for the people who did already live there.
San Francisco truism Dan Parham (@DanParham) twitter.com |
Aerial view of Market Street San Francisco, California en.wikipedia.org |
San Francisco is not the only bad housing and land-use policy Bay Area culprit. Thus, a more comprehensive regional strategy is required, where all cities would do their share to accommodate regional population growth instead of trying to resolve the matter within city boundaries. San Francisco has also been part of the problem, when it could have been part of the solution. Its suburban communities do not share the city's progressive politics, not wanting to be a refuge for people from all over the world seeking a better life and opportunities.
San Francisco is a city built on ambition and ideal. This ambition and ideal are carried forward into this generation and the culture they are creating is going to be absolutely amazing. However, this bright future must be tempered with policies that deal with realities of right now. This means long-term investment in public transit to make up for the lack of investment in regional mobility, more access to economic advancement, and most important way to embrace new development without destroying San Francisco's glorious heritage.
No comments:
Post a Comment