- 13,655
- 1,083
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
ooIRON MANoo.......even your own perception is skewed and flawed for other areas of SF. Mission might be a specific example but there are areas in SF that are totally fine that have great school programs and don't need to be redone for better. To think the people moving in this city are trying to "make a difference" is laughable. People are moving here to get closer to their jobs and trying to enjoy themselves. Maybe cause the nature of these people moving in are more civil brings a better neighborhood to that area but I really don't think it's an intentional as if they are trying to make a difference. Plus half of the people living here will move out once they have kids anyways, so this better schooling program is BS.
Not every gentrification case is the same. You can also state the case that this generation wants to be closer to work after seeing their parents deal with 45-90 minute daily commutes.
Honest question, do you guys prefer the dilapidated conditions prior to gentrification?
Also, another factor, it may be twenty something's that's start the gentrification process, it isn't until developers show up with their big wallets and bulldozers. That's shot gets ****** up for all sides. "Hipsters" like their culture filled enclaves, living alongside people that have been there for a couple of generations. Developers/investors see that and then the cookie cutter town homes and condos come along.
They don't care about the culture of the neighborhood but they care about the neighborhood.
There are so many factors, and every case is different.