Please...this is a weak counter-argument. Should the residents be allowed to terrorize another property owner for trying to improve the neighborhood, granted in her own opinion, but really, are trees not universally considered a benefit. You can still have the grittiness and trees.Originally posted by bluehour
Last edited by mendelman; 26 Oct 2006 at 10:22 AM.
I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?
I'm not supporting the terrorizing of the resident.
I'm just sticking up for the right of residents to not want gentrification, whethers thats trees or anything else.
Sure diversity of opinion is a good thing (???!)
Are you in support of quality of life, or is that too elitist?
I'm not against trees! (hands up, backing away)
I just support the residents' right to not have trees if they don't want 'em. Of course they should organize themselves productively etc etc instead of harassing the poor 50 year old lady who wants the trees.
Plus I like the tenderloin the way it is. But thats just my opinion.
Really it gets a need for different solutions in different places-- development should be context based. trees aren't the best urban space solution for the tenderloin.
Understood...(I have not been to SF), but what recourse would residents have to prevent "gentrification", beyond harrasement or silly/absurb code changes?
If a property owner wanted to build a new upper-income condo building in the neighborhood and it was allowed by code, there's not much, legally/ethically, that the opposition could do to stop it.
I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?
In my experience the only recourse residents opposed to gentrification have is public campaigns. Not necessarily nasty ones like the one mentioned above, but swaying public sentiment via local newspapers etc. Lobby public officials to make it an issue.
Then you can hope for funding to help, like rent control or public housing purchasing etc.
Residents of gentrifying areas tend to be less savy (ie less eduction and money, really) than those gentrifying. They tend to loose the "disagreement" and have to move due to market forces (increased rent etc).
To paraphrase jaws (oh, the pain of agreeing with my favorite libertarian scold) majorities and elected officials do not equal morally right. Especially in the case of self-righteous, irrational counterculturalists like Daly, who should stick to participating in Mime Troop protests, not serving on the Board of Supervisors of a major city with problems.Ahh, now you're making me miss home... San Francisco.
Why not have parts of a city that aren't spotless with high rents? Why force an urban-space agenda on all parts of a city? Why do all cities have to be Guiliani-ed? Do all parts of a city have to be suitable for architecture offices and architect homes?
Plus i've got to stand up for Christ Daly-- he's not a wacko. He's an elected official, no less wacko than the next. looks like he's going to win the election... looks like he represents the wishes of majority of the residents....
Statistics are much more unclear on this piece of conventional wisdom than one might think. There are plenty of families in the neighborhood who might appreciate basic cleanliness and services.
But then, that's not who the article is talking about, is it (even if they are a plurality or majority of the neighborhood). The interviewed "spokespeople" appear to be the kind of very self-defined (and self-deluded) "rebels without a cause" types. Trees would indeed represent a threat to their self image. Better piles of human feces and puddles of vomit-that means I don't have to deal with The Man.
Not that I can't see their (and your) point to a certain extent. If basic decency immediately results in skyrocketing rents and gentrification, then any improvement at all would lead more police presence and hence to displacement of the 200 pound transvestite who likes to shoot up heroin on the doorstep of the local convenience market or apartment building or playground. I may be very pro-legalization, but I also feel the negative impacts of this kind of behavior have to be rigorously enforced.
ok, i'm admitting it.
i've got a personal interest in Christ Daly. even if i agree with his politics, i should admit that.
and I think a 200 pound transvestite who likes to shoot up heroin on the doorstep of the local convenience market or apartment building or playground could be just as good a member of the community as a 90 pound SUV driver with an addition to botox, a starbucks in one hand and a small yappy dog in the other.
Personal interest? Hmmmmmm. Tell us more. He has quite the Che Rebel Glamour, I guess.
As fashionable as it may be to dislike the SUVists (Heck, I hate the things and think they should be banned in a dense city like SF), and I may be a libertarian when it comes to drug LAWS, but I have little liking for the nasty side effects of drug addictions.
I would have a big problem with stepping over someone passed out on my doorstep. And, you can only do so much for people who persist in engaging in destructive behavior (as I well know for myself). So....the 200 pound drag queen heroin addict passed out on my step would be a problem. I can deal with it, but then I'm a male with big dogs (they don't "yap" they bark rather impressively). The 10 year old who has to live in the Tenderloin-I'm not sure the rights of the nodding druggy extend so far as to mean he can't use a playground because the derelicts have taken over. I guess that makes me too "conservative" for the likes of Enabler Chris.
The fact that SUV drivers are irritating does nothing to lessen the fact that public narcotics abuse and sex-trade plying are anti-social.
Lemme ask you this, Bluehour, what is ti that you like about "grittyness"?
Actual nihilistic/thanatotic tendencies?
Romanticist delusions that nihilistic/thanatotic poses are inherently more authentic and intriguing than straightforward positivist goals like cleanliness, peace, order, etc. ?
Confusion between a goth/punk aesthetic, which like all aesthetics is a superficial phenomenon, and its anti-establishment, non-conformist content (similar, but not identical, to the above) ?
----------------
On a different note: some posters seem to believe that any amelioration of antisocial behavior results in a rapid rise in property values. If that is so, I would find it encouraging since it means people are desperate to live in older, city-center neighborhoods and only the utmost degradation will keep them away.
Life and death of great pattern languages
Excellent points, Luca. I think there is a strong tendency to glamorize squalor. And, the Tenderloin has a lot of "squalor."
And no, I don't mean that everyone has to live on a neat suburban cul-de-sac and have 1/8 inch trimmed grass, wear a gray suit and be an insurance adjuster. And, I do like a mixture of building ages, conditions, sizes, and characters. But, there are certain minimums of behavior. Drunken screaming at 3:00 a.m. is not a glamorous thing that should be rmonaticized. Jumping the little Vietnamese lady walking down the street to obtain drug money is not good. Gang fights are not good. Living camped out on the median with superating sores and psychosis is not good.
SO do the gentrifiers...which is why it happens.
I agree with you 100% on the social deviance stuff. I am increasingly convinced that, while not the only factor, the breakdown of 'Edwardian' civility was the prime cause for the city-center exodus.
Life and death of great pattern languages
There is a solution to demand for urban grittyness. Allow residential buildings in industrial zones, the dirtiest the better. Problem solved!
ohhh, this is getting fun. distinctly off topic, but fun.
I deny romanticist delusions and confusion over a goth/punk aestetic, and commend you on your verbosity and distinctly scornful tone.
I like the tenderloin because its different from the more thoroughly gentrified parts of SF. I like difference. All kinds of it.
Urban SUV drivers are more than irritating-- they are consuming far more of a scarce resource than needed, contributing more to climate change than needed, and if they hit pedestrians or other cars tend to cause more damage than other types of motorized vehicles.
I don't think living on a median nodding-off from heroin and panhandling is a good lifestyle choice, but I understand why a human being would be driven to do that and think we should provide the resources to allow people to change this kind of lifestyle if they so wish. I don't mind living in a community with people who live this type of lifestyle. I wouldn't want my community to only consist of them, but I appreciate the diversity of opinion.
Fair enough; I enjoy seeing people with day-glo pink hair at the grocery store as mcuh as the next Londoner. I guess I draw the line at actually negative oputcomes / criminal behavior.
Perhaps the only thing Ken Livingston's ever said that I agree with is that "Anyone who drives [an SUV} in London is an idiot".
I'm not sure I understand how allowing parts of the city to descend or wallow in decrepitude and anti-social behavior will help the drug addicts? Provide a place for them be be able to be ignored?
Becuase that's the outcome, right? In a liberal system you can have diversity, but you can't force (not for long, anyhow) the working, striving, sacrificing majority to subsidize their lifestyle or have much concern (including preservation) for places that an anti-social minority has made off-limits to their families.
Life and death of great pattern languages
Just thought I'd check back here to let every one know that the aforementioned "self righteous wacko" Chris Daly won re-election in SF District 6.
By the way Luca, not planting trees does not make a city "descend or wallow in decrepitude and anti-social behavior."
The tenderloin district of San Francisco is a very diverse district, with a significant number of working class and retired residents, social service providers, middle class residents, business and office blocks from the 1990s boom, big box stores next to the freeway and SF typical gentrifying pressures. This isn't a pit of decrepitude etc that necessarily needs to be fixed. I'm questioning the need for a tree planting campaign that apparently met resistence from other residents.
As a side note, your "working, striving, sacrificing majority ... places that an anti-social minority has made off-limits to their families" sounds like a distinctly British complaint! Didn't Tony Blair say just that the other night? Don't know how relevant it would be to San Fransisco.
I'm astounded by that comment.
Don't you think the unprecedented flight to the suburbs in post-war America was at least partly due to the increasing crime and anti-social behavior that began in the late 1950s, really took off in the 1960s and 1970s, etc?
Arguably, up to the 1920s, cities were run for the benefit of haute-bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie. The cops, city hall, sanitation, etc. were by and large all there to keep the middle class safe and happy. The moment the gummint started focusing on 'social welfare', 'public housing', civil/criminal rights, the middle class held up a big, fat, self-satisfied middle finger and fled to the 'burbs. Obviously other factors were at play, too. But the idea that there should be, on purpose (as opposed by default) a part of town that 'caters' to the underclass is precisely the sort of thinking that sends anyone with a family scuttering for the subdivisions. Many people might sacrifice some quiet/privacy/space to be in an interesting place. Hardly anyone will sacrifice their safety or decorum.
Life and death of great pattern languages
True..in purely isolated/instrinsic manner. But the efforts/actions of the local popluous to harrass the one wanting the trees is wrong - morally and ethically.
But trees aren't going to negatively affect the level of 'grittiness' either. So that problem is that one set of people may be misinterpreting the trees as a signal of them being pushout, but another set may be viewing the trees as simply a sum gain in urban comfort.
That's the point.
I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?
I stayed away from this thread because I didn't want to climb down into the crap-pit, especially about an article written with such a typical west-coast lack of self-criticism.
There are two major points wrong with this though:
The dichotomy constructed here is the wealthy socalite vs. the crack whore.
From what I've seen most 'up and coming' neighborhoods are actually mostly well-functioning working class neighborhoods full of working families (usually immigrants), very local commerce, with a very high ratio of locally owned buisnesses, and strong community organizations, who are usually the ones fighting gentrification---not the prostitute union.
The second thing is, that Mr. Sycamore twerp needs to be taken out back and shot.
So hiring people to do hard work with their hands for pay is not legitimate, and the only legitimate, uplifting thing to do for a person is send them for computer training? Good God. That's phenominally disrespectful to everyone who has ever made a living with their hands (the vast majority of men in this country's history).
Reality does not conform to your ideology.
http://neighborhoods.chicago.il.us Photographs of Life in the Neighborhoods of Chicago
http://hafd.org/~jordanb/ Pretentious Weblog.
Last night my friends were dj'ing at a club that happens to be in the Gayborhood. The Gayborhood being physically located in the geographic heart of Center City Philadelphia.
This club is just a plain old Philly rowhouse. The first floor is still very much a gay bar. The second floor is more or less run by hipsters for hipsters. It's becoming quite the source of contention in the neighborhood. But that's another story entirely.
Anyway, i was walking up to said club last night and there were two transvestites standing just outside the door talking and enjoying a smoke (cigarettes). I quite politely said, "excuse me ladies" as i passed between them. One of them was holding a rather large leather belt, folded in half. As i passed s/he tapped me on the ass with it.
I turned around and wagged my finger at the offending trannie. After i had a minute to think about it it occured to me that the belt was not just a gimmick but probably a tool of the trade and it would probably earn her a few extra bucks tonight.
Prostitution is more or less tolerated there as long as everyone "plays by the rules" and keeps it quiet. That doesn't keep the neighborhood from having some of the most expensive rents in the city. Nor does it mean that it's an unattractive or dangerous neighborhood.
Which brings me to my next point. My house. I live where i live because it's the house that i wanted at the price i could afford. We just happen to be the only white household on the block. Does that make us gentrifiers if we're living where we can afford to live?
We could've bought a house on the same street, two or three blocks to the east and been in an all-white neighborhod that is certainly a lot cleaner than where i live now (but only marginally safer). Our options were then, pay double or cut your square footage in half. I'm not going to pay double for housing so i can live next-door to people of a similar skin tone.
In the broader context it's something to think about. It's still relatively easy in Philly to buy a 1200 - 1500 sq. ft. rowhome in a solid neighborhood for under $200k. In the suburbs around here that's nearly impossible unless you're talking about places like Camden, Norristown, and Chester.
People in their late 20's know this, most of them don't have an aversion to living or buying in the city, and are going to go where the price is right. Come on down.
Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an increase in the role of charity and in the worship of volunteerism. These represent the élite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige; that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens.
Looks like they gentrified the neighborhood by driving out all the intolerant people!Sounds like a good plan!
Quote
