Gentrification is happening at an alarming rate in San Francisco, faster than any other city in the U.S., and a lot of people are blaming the influx of the tech industry, particularly those coming up from the distinguished, Silicon Valley.
However, the tech industry aren’t the only ones playing a major role in the displacement of many San Francisco residents. Developers, real estate brokers, and City Hall all play a role in the intense development pressures that the city has seen since the early 2000s. It’s generated masses of infrastructure that has seen residents of working class neighborhoods, which also tend to be home to many of the artists of San Francisco, fear for eviction and buyouts.
However, the tech industry aren’t the only ones playing a major role in the displacement of many San Francisco residents. Developers, real estate brokers, and City Hall all play a role in the intense development pressures that the city has seen since the early 2000s. It’s generated masses of infrastructure that has seen residents of working class neighborhoods, which also tend to be home to many of the artists of San Francisco, fear for eviction and buyouts.
Photo: eltecolote.com
San Francisco’s Mission District, which has historically been home to Mexican and Central American immigrants, where Spanish is the dominant spoken language, is particularly falling victim to the real-estate market due to its cool, urban vibe. Luxury condominiums at sky high rent rates are pushing out all the small businesses, non-profit organizations, and affordable housing agencies, along with the bodegas, tacquerias, bars, and auto shops, all of which add to the charm of the neighborhood. It’s displacing what was once a truly fascinating area of the city with its own subculture and artist community, reducing its rich ethnic background.
An organization named Save the Mission, ‘a community coalition of Mission and San Francisco citizens’ is proposing that a legislation, ‘Proposition I’ be put into place on election day, November 3rd 2015. It asks for a temporary halt to market-rate development, essentially slowing down the growth of unaffordable housing that is displacing its residents. It will require the city to develop a Neighborhood Stabilization Strategy, which will make integration easier on the district, without drastic changes to the community. It will promote development of housing that is affordable to at least 33% low and moderate income households.
Photo: eltecolote.com
Proposition I is proposing that rent will still increase during the 18-month temporary halt, but at a very affordable rate of .3 percent, instead of the 9.2 percent increase which has occurred in recent years.
It’s not the first time a plan has been put into place however to help slow down rapid gentrification; the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, which covers the Mission District, was put into place in 2008. Unfortunately, due to unforeseeable economic projections and escalation in market prices for the rest of the city, it directly affected surrounding neighborhoods and so must be revisited.
Save the Mission states in the proposal that “despite the conceptual framework in place to provide “significant” affordable housing, there was not adequate funding for any [low-moderate income housing] to be developed.” It had originally included measurements to ensure that housing was preserved by size and affordability, and residents were protected from involuntary displacement, while it would aim to help decrease concentrated poverty levels. The organization says that the city has not assured these qualities since 2012.
It’s not the first time a plan has been put into place however to help slow down rapid gentrification; the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, which covers the Mission District, was put into place in 2008. Unfortunately, due to unforeseeable economic projections and escalation in market prices for the rest of the city, it directly affected surrounding neighborhoods and so must be revisited.
Save the Mission states in the proposal that “despite the conceptual framework in place to provide “significant” affordable housing, there was not adequate funding for any [low-moderate income housing] to be developed.” It had originally included measurements to ensure that housing was preserved by size and affordability, and residents were protected from involuntary displacement, while it would aim to help decrease concentrated poverty levels. The organization says that the city has not assured these qualities since 2012.
Berkley planning professor, Karen Chapple has been analyzing government housing, demographic, employment, transportation, land use, and policy data for ten-year intervals in San Francisco from 1990, 2000, and 2013.
From this data, she was able to tell which districts according to the percentage of households which are considered low or moderate to high income houses will be at risk for gentrification or displacement.
According to City Lab, the researchers on the project divided the categories into two, defining “gentrification as a demographic or physical change, such as a rise in weathier residents or in neighborhood investment. Meanwhile they viewed ‘displacement’ as a loss of low-income residents.”
The Mission district is at a level of advanced gentrification, with over 39% of households at a lower level income.
From this data, she was able to tell which districts according to the percentage of households which are considered low or moderate to high income houses will be at risk for gentrification or displacement.
According to City Lab, the researchers on the project divided the categories into two, defining “gentrification as a demographic or physical change, such as a rise in weathier residents or in neighborhood investment. Meanwhile they viewed ‘displacement’ as a loss of low-income residents.”
The Mission district is at a level of advanced gentrification, with over 39% of households at a lower level income.
Photo: citylab.com
The district is becoming decolorized, stripped of its enchanting nature, but the results are not entirely negative; according to the Guardian, San Francisco’s unemployment rate has gone down. It’s now only 3.4%, compared to 4.8% in 2014, and 8.3% in 2013. However, what this new job growth is doing, is causing tension due to the correlation of soaring rent prices. Richard Walker, an urban geographer at the University of California, Berkeley has said “there is only a handful of cities in the world that have such an extreme problem of gentrification.” San Francisco now has twice as many billionaires per capita as London, and the city is considerably smaller [46.87 square miles, compared to London’s 607 square miles.] The New York Times seem to think that “the local color is still here: Splashy murals, many with political themes, provide open-air art on numerous buildings. But the housing prices have risen well beyond the reach of the average artist.” Therefore, the art may be visible for the moment whilst protest is occurring, but the inhabitable repercussion of the situation may mean that it won’t be around for long.
Although it’s quite impossible to see what the future of San Francisco looks like, it seems that it’s communities of alternative culture, whether ethnic or not, are becoming bedrooms and playgrounds for the wealthy. Change and innovation can have positive effects on a city, but the rate at which this is happening in San Francisco is what is ultimately generating such objection amongst residents, particularly in the Mission. It is not the only district in the city where this is occurring though, however it is definitely one that is being affected most brutally. Save the Mission want to become a model of control for waves of development, and are hoping to save San Francisco, not just the Mission. “If we show those in charge that they need to value livable neighborhoods that maintain middle income housing, small businesses and arts and culture institutions, they will know they will have to value it elsewhere.” |
Save the Mission committee was formed in 2015 after two separate actions at City Hall that commanded that whomever is elected, pay attention to the housing and arts crisis, along with a temporary housing halt. They are not denying the innovation that drives the city and the gentrification that occurs simultaneously, but are demanding that more sensible and balanced planning occurs along with protection put into place. It will allow for a more balanced and livable city that will include the needs of the working and middle class.
With most legislations of course, there are opposing sides; one force, are the people backing ‘No On I’. It’s a team who have large amounts of money to try to fight against Prop I. According to a recent article in El Tecolote newspaper, they have already sent emails, mailers, and Facebook posts, which according to the organization, all misrepresent what Proposition I will do. There is a “lie” floating around that the halt on building work will cost the city $1 billion, however, “the city controller has determined its cost to be only up to $1 million.” To counteract, Save The Mission have sent out an email to all their followers, letting them know No on I's performance, that the “luxury housing developers are planning to spend up to $1 million to stop us from passing Prop I and dealing with the affordability crisis.” Hundreds of San Francisco citizens will be standing behind Proposition I at election day to help save the city. The question on the election ballot will be: “Shall the City suspend the issuance of permits on certain types of housing and business development projects in the Mission District for at least 18 months; and develop a Neighborhood Stabilization Plan for the Mission District by January 31, 2017?” |