>
>>I personally think that much of the "rust belt" corridor served by the
>>3rd St. LRT line should be preserved as industrially zoned land, for
>>employment sites, not used for housing (which is most likely to continue
>>the trend to SF becoming a bedroom suburb for Silicon Valley), which
>>doesn't serve the interests of working class SF residents, who don't
>>commute to Santa Clara. If the rust belt can attract significant
>>employment sites, then people from other parts of SF will need to be
>>able to get there.
>
>I must disagree, at least in part. Barring a major earthquake, new
>housing construction is one of the only things that will keep SF much of
>a middle-class town at all.
First:
What do you mean by "middle class"? I tend to agree with Noam Chomsky
that "middle class" has become an utterly meaningless phrase because
it is used in contradictory ways. For example, I understand "class"
to refer to the relative power that people have in virtue of their
position in the economy. Professional/managerial/small business class (PMC)
have more privileges and power than manual workers but less than
those who own/control the major concentrations of capital (banks,
corporations). Do you mean to refer to the professional/managerial/
small business strata as "middle class"? If so, then you can't *also*
mean "middle income" by "middle class" beccause average or typical PMC
incomes are much higher than the median income. People with median
incomes usually have working class jobs (like cops or bus drivers).
Second: The city is clearly becoming a PMC stronghold. Even at the
time of the 1990 census the median family income in S.F. was over 30,000
a year when median Bay Area family income was around 24,000. (High
proportion of PMC households is also reflected in a very high proportion
of the population with college degrees.) This
process of gentrification is clearly continuing, maybe even speeding up.
Rent control and controls that preserve working class jobs are the
main impediments or speed bumps to this process of gentrification right
now. PMCers have no "right" to live here just because they have the
market clout to outspend working class folks who currently live here
for housing. On the other hand, current residents do have the right
to use their political capacity to try to prevent PMC expansion at
their expense.
>New construction should drive down the
>market price of housing to the point that the non-rich can afford to move
>into/stay in the city, while regulatory attempts to hold back rising real
>estate values can only make a tiny dent for a subset of existing
>residents.
Apart from neoliberal (aka libertarian) dogma, what reason is there
to believe this? Another alternative is subsidized cooperative housing.
>
>Unless we suddenly get lots more apartment towers (unlikely for aesthetic
>reasons) the former industrial zones are really all we have to work with.
Work with to what end? I would argue that, as far as potential employment
site locations are concerned, the "former industrial zones" are "all
we have to work with." What we should be aiming at is a balance where
(a) working class people can still live and work in this city, and (b)
people can both live and work in the city rather than being forced
to either move elsewhere (to Oakland, say) or drive long distnaces to
work (and they will drive). In short, using up all the indusitrial space
for housing is a quickbuck approach that will worsen the jobs/housing
mismatch.
> The good news is that today's economy requires far less industrial land
>- information, service, and related industries, and not just those hiring
>at the top of the scale, can use mixed-use, commercial, or even
>residential land without causing trouble for all but the most
>NIMBY/BANANA neighbors.
I think you're buying into a lot of hype.
>
>Not to say we don't want *any* industrial land - we do. But the
>experience of NYC and other cities shows that inner-city development can
>bring new vitality to formerly neglected areas, benefiting new and old
>neighbors alike.
NYC shows exactly the opposite. NYC shows exactly what is wrong
with FIRE industry monoculture, i.e. allowing office development
to push all of the former industrial shops out of Manhattan. The
result: a chronic unemployment situation for the working class,
something like 13% currently. Read Bob Fitch's book "The Assassination
of New York" for a refutation of what Andrew is suggesting here.
Fitch shows that preserving the economic prospects of the working class
majority was no priority at all for a city government in hock
to the Rockefellers et al. And it was allowing all the industrial
land to be rezoned that killed those job prospects. Exactly
the problem that SF now faces. (PS, "FIRE" is short for Financiail-
Insurance-Real Estate")
>
>What does this have to do with transit? you ask.
>
>Only this: that if you buy the premise that transit can revitalize a
>neighborhood, which it *sometimes* can and *often* does not, you do want
>to promote high-density, mixed-use development.
High density mixed use devlopment can be of many kinds. The mix of
loft industries with other uses was characteristic of much of Manhattan...
and now what you have is *not* "mixed use" but office monoculture.
The SOMA *has* been mixed use, and we're seeing a lot of shops being
forced out in deference to upscale housing.
>
>Also: you can avoid becoming a bedroom community by making the
>opportunities for commercial development make more sense. Good
>*regional* transit and well-balanced neighborhoods for commercial and
>residential use are an effective way to attract employers, which (like it
>or not) cities must always be in the business of doing. Attract the
>high-value ones (e.g. Cisco) and the others (e.g. Solectron) will follow.
Cisco, eh? You have a preference for sweatshops, Andrew?
Tom Wetzel