The problem is the whole bay area is averse to build up.
Mostly true. However, that somewhat diminishes the degree by which SF especially is averse to construction, and more worryingly is averse to outsiders of all kinds - not just culturally misplaced Midwestern-ers - which is quite telling. Its a special brand of NIMBYism not found elsewhere.
The following comment is also from the Economist piece and sheds light on the kind of jaundiced eyes - I don't know what else one would call it - that long time SF residents view outsiders with. This sentiment is something I highly identify with and is rarely talked about, when the issue of SF housing is hotly debated.
The author is a Kansas City native who has moved to SF to wait tables :
2) San Francisco can be elitist and exclusionary towards outsiders. Some
San Francisco residents look any non-Brooklyn part of the country with dismissal
and/or disdain, creating a distinct form of self-defeating snobbery.
I also felt this elitism when I would look at all the row houses in the Richmond
and Sunset and how few where being torn down to build more efficient apartment
buildings. The message was, and is,- we have ours and we don't care about your
struggles.
I also felt this excluding elitism when I would learn about legacy apartment
dwellers who live in great locations and pay a fraction of the market price
because of government controls. The government kept rental prices artificially
low for established renters and rental prices artificially high for outsiders
looking to move in and rent.
The casual snobbery, the lack of new construction, and a preference for
established renters made the city feel unwelcoming to outsiders. Which is ironic,
because most people I met in San Francisco were born and raised elsewhere.
[1] The rest of his comment is eminently readable too; I've truncated it
because I felt I've hijacked this thread enough.
I don't know why, but there are a great many SFers who like to think of themselves as progressives (in the modern liberal sense) and have this weird affectation where they like to let you know what nth generation SFer they are. Like it makes a difference or as if I cared.
What i can't parse is that these are the same people who say they are for more immigrant rights --whatever one thinks of immigrant rights, I can't square their desire to tell you how genuine a San Franciscan they are and the proof is in their being nth generation. So a 6th gen SFer has more status than a 5th gen SFer and so on.
SF is the only place I've seen where people feel compelled to tell you their gen as if it were status in and of itself somehow.
I spent a year there during the dot com boom, and was frankly pretty happy to move to Italy.
I'm somewhat liberal politically, but San Fran always felt like a different kind of 'progressive' than back home in relatively egalitarian, fairly moderate and generally well-run Oregon.
When I got to Padova, it felt like coming back to the real world. I'd go downtown and see young and old, wealthy and the not-so-well off. These days, thanks to immigration, it's also acquired some ethnic diversity: my daughter goes to a public school with children whose parents are quite varied.
The economy isn't great here though, and it really makes you wonder... Most of the planet would absolutely love to have the bay area's problems, as you can see by how many places try and ape it with their Silicon Alley, Prairie, Forest, Meadows, Fjord, Barren Wasteland, Cwm, Bog and so on.
When I got to Padova, it felt like coming back to the real world. I'd go downtown and see young and old, wealthy and the not-so-well off. These days, thanks to immigration, it's also acquired some ethnic diversity: my daughter goes to a public school with children whose parents are quite varied.
I'm confused; are you saying this is in contrast with SF? The Bay Area generally is one of the most diverse places I've ever been; Oakland is often cited as the most diverse city in America.
Comments
The following comment is also from the Economist piece and sheds light on the kind of jaundiced eyes - I don't know what else one would call it - that long time SF residents view outsiders with. This sentiment is something I highly identify with and is rarely talked about, when the issue of SF housing is hotly debated.
The author is a Kansas City native who has moved to SF to wait tables :
[1] The rest of his comment is eminently readable too; I've truncated it because I felt I've hijacked this thread enough.http://www.economist.com/comment/2360736#comment-2360736
I don't know why, but there are a great many SFers who like to think of themselves as progressives (in the modern liberal sense) and have this weird affectation where they like to let you know what nth generation SFer they are. Like it makes a difference or as if I cared.
What i can't parse is that these are the same people who say they are for more immigrant rights --whatever one thinks of immigrant rights, I can't square their desire to tell you how genuine a San Franciscan they are and the proof is in their being nth generation. So a 6th gen SFer has more status than a 5th gen SFer and so on.
SF is the only place I've seen where people feel compelled to tell you their gen as if it were status in and of itself somehow.
I spent a year there during the dot com boom, and was frankly pretty happy to move to Italy.
I'm somewhat liberal politically, but San Fran always felt like a different kind of 'progressive' than back home in relatively egalitarian, fairly moderate and generally well-run Oregon.
When I got to Padova, it felt like coming back to the real world. I'd go downtown and see young and old, wealthy and the not-so-well off. These days, thanks to immigration, it's also acquired some ethnic diversity: my daughter goes to a public school with children whose parents are quite varied.
The economy isn't great here though, and it really makes you wonder... Most of the planet would absolutely love to have the bay area's problems, as you can see by how many places try and ape it with their Silicon Alley, Prairie, Forest, Meadows, Fjord, Barren Wasteland, Cwm, Bog and so on.
I'm confused; are you saying this is in contrast with SF? The Bay Area generally is one of the most diverse places I've ever been; Oakland is often cited as the most diverse city in America.
I think of it as parochialism, but there may be a better word.
I've started using the word privilege to describe it to San Franciscans. The reactions this gets are interesting.
nativism