Gentrification Has Taken The Bay Area

The documentary San Francisco 2.0 examines how San Francisco city officials have given tax breaks to the Silicon Valley tech industry to move to San Francisco. These new techs companies have brought in a lot of wealth to the city, but at a cost. The majority of the low-income natives are being evicted or having their rents raised so high that they can't afford them. The gentrification of the city has impacted low-income districts (for example, the mission district known for its Latin immigrants) that the residents and the culture are being displaced. I believe the documentary is important for the study of the issue of gentrification because San Fransisco was known for being-counter culture, caring for the arts and for civil progress. The housing

For example, many cities that are rich in culture, diversity, and vitality are beacons for white people interested in the “upcoming scene.” This brings more and more whites who displace and marginalize the original residents through increasing prices. Cities such as New York, Boston, and San Francisco all have neighborhoods that originally had mostly poor, uneducated African Americans, and now are swelling with young, educated whites that have greatly increased the price of living. In Boston, Charlestown, Jamaica Plains, and Beacon Hill have all experienced intense characteristics of gentrification from the 1970s up until the present, showcasing an increase in the population with at least a bachelor’s degree, as well as a large increase in new and renovated buildings. In New York, the most famous example of gentrification is in Harlem, has undergone a process of gentrification after becoming known as the national, and even international symbol for black culture with a vibrancy that is not seen in the suburbs. Finally, in San Francisco, in the bay area, there has been a massive influx of affluent companies that have completely devastated the middle class due to a high rise in wealthy, educated, employees. These employees have taken residence up in the bay area, causing the entirety of the already previously gentrified neighborhood to skyrocket to unobtainable prices, even for the

Gentrification has greatly changed the face of Oakland so far in the 21st century. New shops and people are moving in at record numbers, greatly increasing the median income of the city; however, many long-term residents are being evicted due to increasing property values and rent prices. Many are also outraged at the loss of Oakland’s strong cultural roots, but at the same time, in low income areas, crime rates have greatly reduced and academic performance has increased. This begs the question: In what ways has gentrification positively and negatively affected Oakland so far in the 21st century?

Growing up in East Austin, one would be accustomed to seeing rundown neighborhoods inhabited mostly by African American and Hispanic working-class families. In the past few years though, the view has drastically changed. Now brightly colored two-story homes housing affluent Caucasian families occupy the once dilapidated areas. The previously desolated lots are now the future sites of lofts and condominiums. The recent changes in East Austin are a clear sign of gentrification. Gentrification is the extremely evident process of displacement. Revitalizing a derelict neighborhood favors the entire community, not just the ones with money. However, revitalization and gentrification

to make a “problem” disappear? They will be the human cost of gentrification. Unless the city in partnership with the business community and its Downtown Eastside residents can attain a solution together, it is difficult to fathom a future that is just, regardless of its economic promise.

Lorna Mason, Ed Morlock, and Christina Pisano argue that only a few of these spatial and racial rearrangements in the neighborhoods are transforming according to traditional definition of gentrification. Rather, they conclude that these areas are experiencing four different types of change – gentrification-led change, second-order gentrification-led change, immigration-led change, and no

When a neighborhood is gentrified it will not only change the image of it, but also the services available there (Al-Kodmany 2011, 62-63). In other words, gentrification does not only have an impact on the physical aspect of the land, but also the resources that lie there. During the 90s, the Near West Side neighborhood located near Loop, an up-scale neighborhood, sought drastic changes within the area. The changes in racial demographics in the Near West Side indicated that the health risks that affected minorities dropped in the past decade (1992-2002) (Al-Kodmany 2011,

Chinatown, Olvera Street, and Compton all contributed to culturally diversity and the expansion of Los Angeles. Although Los Angeles has become rich in cultures, its evolution did not go without racial tensions and segregation. With the arrival of blacks from the south, white-Los Angeles did always recognize the minority community. Angelenos did not always embrace diversity with pride, but perhaps the sad part is not the fact that racial segregation took place, but the fact that it was not created by just the individual, but also by the organization. Federal programs like the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Homeowner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC) divided up Los Angeles into a complex socio-economic racial-class system. The influences of the local level influenced the federal level and revolutionized the finance industry. (Avila, lecture 2/5/02) These federal organizations blatantly labeled minorities as derogatory, uneducated, second-class citizens that brought down property value in “white” neighborhoods. Latinos and Black were often labeled as a “minority problem” and even as a “disease” on official HOLC documents. The HOLC implemented strict government guidelines and kept maps of white neighborhoods confidential. It also devised a formal and uniform style of appraising homes by breaking neighborhoods into race classifications by letter. As Waldie states, “The Montana Land Company made it clear that lots were

During my interview, Dr. Owens let me know that the U.S. Census Bureau stopped collecting data on income, and referred me to the American Community survey. Furthermore, she gave me feedback on my index for gentrification, and made the suggestion to exclude race and ethnicity since affluent racial minorities can contribute to gentrification. By specifying the factors investigating and listing my assumptions, I give the a general idea of why I think that these factors are important to the operationalization of gentrification, and support my choices with what has been done in past studies. In the discussion section, I reason why this study is significant and how it could lead to subsequent policy changes. By outlining ways in which different audiences can benefit from this study, I show that in addition to extending the existing research, my study has the potential to make societal impacts across various fields. If this proposal were to become a dissertation, this section would be more extensive and would draw upon the results found after collecting all the

Is gentrification causing segregation in urban cities? The majority of modern day cities are in a state of steady gentrification. Many people believe that gentrification is making the city more modern, safe, and appealing to other people. However, these people in their naivety fail to comprehend the hidden consequences and impact of gentrification on various ethnic groups and low-income families. Gentrification is a master of disguise that hides itself with assumed correlations to everyday people. One such assumption is that gentrification will increase the socioeconomic diversity of a neighborhood.

“I took a trip to Oakland, California and fell in love with the area. We stayed at an Air B&B for the three days of our stay and the house was absolutely beautiful, it looked like my dream home. Despite all the glitz and glamour around us we noticed a large amount of homelessness compared to Columbus. We found out that this property is not someone’s home but a house used strictly as an Air B&B. When you hear something like that and see the amount of homelessness it makes you wonder how many of these homes are strictly for show? So after researching I found out, the reason for the rampant homelessness can be attributed to large increases in rent. Even worse, the cause for the increase is due to Silicon Valley” (Kasongo, 2017). Unfortunately, rent increasing virtually overnight is the reality of many low-income families. This situation is called gentrification and is felt throughout the world, from the Midwest, East coast or even Western Europe, no region is immune to this process. Gentrification in the Midwest is extensive and wide causing the displacement of many low-income minority residents which can lead to even bigger issues.

Inequity in the Bay Area is due to racial and economic inequality that is rooted from its historical development and shaped by the way residents respond to it. The difference between inequity and inequality is that inequity is the lack of fairness or justice that can be avoided, as for inequality it is an uneven distribution of resources. This essay will explain the roots of inequity in the Bay Area, its ties to the historical development of this region in terms of industrialization and suburbanization, and how residents respond to the challenges of inequity. Racial and economic inequality in terms of urbanization and gentrification are very deep roots of inequity in the Bay Area.

Viewing the complex matter of gentrification succinctly, it helps to uncover how multifaceted it is; in that gentrification involves the oppression, marginalization, displacement of vulnerable populations, particularly, the poor, and the black who are often already negatively impacted by the effects of classism, and racism. Gentrification threatens to erode the communities and livelihood maintained by these set of people because their displacement becomes a precondition for the total transformation of the area.

Affordable housing has become the paramount issue of cities and dense urban areas. San Francisco is the posterchild of an unaffordable city that regardless of immense investment from blue chip firms like Google, Facebook, and their ilk of startups evaluated at $1 billion or more, policymakers and elected officials must wrestle with the housing affordability crisis that is considered endogenous to swaths of homelessness and record statistics on crime. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has made affordable housing the centerpiece of his legislation and championed the cause as a social justice issue—neighborhoods must remain affordable to maintain diversity for all races, ethnicities, and low-income families. A small sample of 827 New Yorkers by the NY1-Baruch College City Poll found the main concern of respondents was affordable housing while crime, jobs, and homelessness were peripheral problems (Cuza, 2016). The public discourse on how to address housing across the United States has pointed to negative externalities that surround rent-regulation and homeownership. Conversely, for this essay I will present various cases in order to illustrate the housing crunch is influenced less by housing and land regulations, or antagonistic homeowners but is induced by global market forces.

Gentrification is a problem that is occurring in many communities. The city of Boyle Heights in East Los Angeles is one of the communities that the citizens of the community are notice new apartments build, galleries owner by rich people, and high prices for apartment the people are not able to afford to live there. Because the renewal of neighborhood environments that transform and attract middle and upper-class households and investors, creating problems for those who cannot afford rises of rents. According to O’Regan, “some of the biggest concerns about gentrification-potential displacement and increased rent burdens-are driven by rent or housing cost increases” (152). The only way to