SF CHRONICLE SUNDAY ARTICLE: "San Francisco. The Ephemeral City"

[UdoKier]

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/08/INGFACJGS51.DTL

The ephemeral city
San Francisco has lost its middle class, become a 'theme park for restaurants,' and is the playground of the nomadic rich and restless leeches living off them

Joel Kotkin

Sunday, May 8, 2005

San Francisco today represents the ultimate expression of a new kind of urban area -- the ephemeral city. This urban form, dominated by the nomadic rich, the restless young and those living off them, has emerged across the advanced industrial world, but perhaps nowhere more clearly and arguably nowhere more successfully than in the city by the bay.

The ephemeral city differs dramatically from traditional urban centers. No longer populated mainly by middle class families and a diverse set of industries, it is dominated by a wealthy elite, part-time sojourners, hordes of tourists and those that serve them. "This is a kind of city that makes its living selling luxury services," suggests Fred Siegel, an urban historian at New York's Cooper Union.

This article, written by a guy who has lived in LA for years, has a bit of a right-wing spin to it, but it also makes some good points about the kind of city San Francisco is becoming.

But I have to take issue with at least one stat he points out. He says that SF has a higher percentage of residents living off of dividends and rental income than any other city.

I would like to point out that that is not necessarily an anti-egalitarian statistic. Most rentals in most other cities are ENORMOUS apartment "complexes" with pools and amenities that generate millions in revenue for huge corporations, often out of town.

Most of San Francisco's rental properties are small, from 2~6 units and owned by ordinary local people, oftentimes people who live in the same building. Making them out to be land barons just because rents and property values have gone through the roof is a bit unfair.

I'd rather rent from the wonderful elderly Chinese lady who's may neighbor and landlord, than have a jacuzzi and pool and rent a sheet-rock tomb from some faceless corporation.

Anyway, I don't agree with all the premises of the article, but it is interesting.

[salvorhardin]

1. Sounds interesting

Do you have a link?

I found a very similar article here, at the author's website:
http://www.joelkotkin.com/Urban_Affairs/MET%20The%20Rise%20of%20the%20Ephemeral%20City.htm

[UdoKier]

2. Oops. I'm such a goof.

Forgot to put it in.

Looks like a lot of the same stuff.

I do think this guy is coming from a different place philosophically, but still worth a read.

Funny he rags on SF, but lives in freeway hellhole LA. Whatever. Different Strokes and all.

[EFerrari]

3. I'll have to check that out when I can see.

My landlord lives next door to me and he's a great friend of ours. On the other hand, he's selling the building and it's being converted into condos.

And, as a sometime property manager, "living off of rental income" is a very hard way to make a living. If you make your mortgage, you're in good shape. The upkeep is expensive, the law labyrinthine (is that the word?) and it involves making yourself available to people 24/7.

[democracyindanger]

4. He's just mad that SF got the Stem Cell Center and SoCal didn't

Seriously, though, he's got some good points. The elementary school population has plummeted because families can't afford to live in the City. But it seems like he came up with a buzzword--"ephemeral cities"--and molded SF around it.

[enid602]

5. SF

I think the author is bemoaning the fact that SF is less a traditional city than it used to be. With scarcely more than a half million people living in a city surrounded by 8 million or so VERY suburban citizens, it has lost the drama and excitement of traditional city life. I think SF has done well in preserving itself, but the rest of the Bay Area, while pleasant, is not terribly interesting.

[UdoKier]

6. Minor correction. SF has almost 800,000 population.

NT

[AP]

7. The point about rental/div income is that people aren't living off earning

an income from their labor. It ties in to the fact that there's no middle class. Productive wealth comes from work. Wealth that comes from capital is great, but if there aren't many people in SF who earn money from their labor, you won't have a middle class. And if that spreads across the country, we're not going to have much of an America.