New Geography

Blog

  • Housing Costs by Type of Place

  • Three Geographies – Commute Times

  • Three Geographies – Median Household Income

  • Three Geographies – Poverty Rates

  • Three Geographies – Race Distribution

  • Three Geographies – Population Distribution

  • Is Narcissus also a success story?

    In sharp contrast with its arch-rival, Los Angeles, San Francisco historically has won plaudits from easterners. Writing in his 1946 landmark work, Inside USA, John Gunther compared “tranquil and mature” San Francisco with LA, a city he loathed as “the home par excellence of the dissatisfied.” The City by the Bay, he wrote, “possesses a incomparable quality of charm” unsurpassed by any American city.

    But no group extols San Francisco’s virtues more than San Franciscans. Indeed when journalist Neil Morgan wrote about the place he labeled it “Narcissus of the West.” Perhaps nothing exemplified this self-reflecting modality than the old tendency to refer to the place simply as “The City,” as if, in real terms, there was no other.

    Over the past few decades, this combination of urban charm and narcissism has transformed San Francisco. The city I got to know as a young journalist in the early 1970s working for the alternative weekly San Francisco Bay Guardian was already changing. Areas once habituated by old-fashioned bohemians (i.e., those without trust funds) – North Beach, Union Street – already were being displaced by new age enthusiasts, investment bankers and young corporate executives.

    But still, in the 1970s, San Francisco remained very much a city of neighborhoods, each one very much a world unto itself. If the east face of the city – North Beach, Russian Hill, Downtown, Chinatown, Fisherman’s Wharf – was being transformed into a kind of high-end theme park, much of the western ends of the city, as well as places such as the Mission and Potrero Hill, remained bastions of ethnic diversity, middle and working class families.

    As our articles editor Andy Sywak, who is also editor of the Castro Courier neighborhood newspaper, points out in his first rate analysis, this San Francisco still exists, although it may be holding on for its life. Demographically, San Francisco has changed in ways that may well signal the future for at least a series of American urban geographies – Portland, Seattle, Boston, DC and even Manhattan come to mind – that although quick to celebrate diversity are in many ways becoming increasingly less so.

    In some ways, this may be the curse of too-good looks. Ever since Haight-Ashbury caught on as the epicenter of the 1960s hippy movement, San Francisco has lured ever more affluent and well-educated people. In the process, the price of real estate has skyrocketed, making the city virtually unaffordable for almost everyone outside the upper middle class. Once known as a rough, brawling union town, San Francisco likely now boasts the highest percentage of people living off wealth – rents, dividends, interest – of any major American city.

    A recent study by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that virtually every income group from households making $50,000 to $150,000 a year dropped between 2002 and 2006. In contrast, households making between $150,000 and $200,000 surged 52 percent and those earning even more expanded by 40 percent. Housing prices, although slightly off last, have more than doubled since 2002 to nearly $800,000; it takes an income near $200,000 to afford a median priced home.

    This upper class shift has fostered, indeed encouraged, a strange form of ultra-liberal politics. Perhaps no major American city wears its leftism on its sleeve more than San Francisco. When it comes to imposing “green” controls and standards, as well as any embracing gender and cultural liberalism, The City is not to be outdone.

    But such lifestyle liberalism should not be confused with traditional urban reform, which focused on how to expand the benefits of urban life and economy to broad sections of the population. To maintain and even expand this largely childless city – San Francisco has the lowest percentage of children per capita of any major American city – major reform of city institutions, notably schools, no longer commands priority. Instead, efforts can be concentrated in consolidating what University of Chicago urban theorist Saskia Sassen calls “the urban glamour zone.”

    In this sense, San Francisco is a place that combines the characteristics of an exclusive resort, with extremely expensive real estate and concentrations of high-end amenities, with an exclusive economy based on elite services fields such as finance, media and design. Even in hard times, its real estate economy can be propped up by purchases by the wealthy, both full and part-timers, who wish to imbibe The City’s urban charms.

    Increasingly – and likely more the case in the future – these wealthy people (and their progeny) will settle in San Francisco more for lifestyle than purely economic reasons. Instead of nurturing the traditional middle class, the city can depend on the kind of young temporary sojourners (remarked upon by our Adam Mayer, who recently moved back to the Bay Area) to provide relatively low-cost skilled labor as well as the legions of waiters, toenail painters, dog walkers, performance artists and the like.

    Such an urban economy, of course, also requires people willing to do very hard labor – busboys, janitors, cleaning ladies, gardeners – many of whom will have to commute from distant locales to service the “needs” of the cognitive elites. The one impoverished constituency tolerated in the new order, the homeless, will incongruously now share the glamour city with the glitterati. This is why, notes the great California historian and San Francisco native Kevin Starr, The City has become “a cross between Carmel and Calcutta.”

    Can such a society work, and, if so, is its model applicable elsewhere? Certainly you must be a place with inherent attractions to the wayward and affluent. Seattle, Portland, Boston as well as Manhattan could also evolve in this direction, and may already being doing so. It’s difficult, however, to see such an economy working out so well in other less powerfully attractive urban centers, particularly those with large concentrations of poverty.

    But for a lovely place like San Francisco the trajectory is not entirely negative. As the country’s population expands to 400 million in 2050, there will be a growing, albeit small niche, for high-cost places that appeal to those with requisite high-end skills or at least the right heredity.

    We can see this with the economy. Even as it has lost corporate headquarters, manufacturing and other generators of middle-class jobs, San Francisco’s appeal to high-end workers and as an entertainment center – Dr. Starr dubs his hometown “a theme park for restaurants” – has helped secure its position as kind of PR office, party town and alternative hip location for the far less charming, if more productive, nerdistan further south.

    San Francisco already has twice successfully hitched itself to the Valley’s surge, first in the late 90s dotcom surge and more recently in the Google-centric 2.0 boom. The city’s total jobs likely have not recovered their 2000 levels, but there has been a notable improvement over the last two years.

    The future progress, however, may prove more difficult. Although the administration of Mayor Gavin Newsom has trumpeted what it claims as a major economic as well as demographic turnaround, the inevitable popping of the 2.0 bubble could wreak some damage. Already layoffs in the hard-hit financial sector – some of it tied to the venture capital industry – last quarter saw tenants give up almost a Transamerica Pyramid’s worth of space.

    The picture is at least murky on the demographic side. Yet although state population numbers record a return to population growth, the census numbers, which we rely on at NG, are less impressive, recording a loss of roughly four percent since 2000.

    These competing claims will not be fully resolved until after the 2010 census. But population growth may be somewhat beside the point. San Francisco’s emerging identity is not as a bustling, growing city that attracts middle class families. Instead, its destiny – or karma as locals may prefer to see it – may be to lure the wealthy, the well-educated and talented to the communal self-celebration that long has stood the trademark of the place they call The City.

  • Community and a Sense of Place in San Francisco

    On any given weeknight in San Francisco, some professional, political or social association throws a cocktail hour. From black-tie galas in the latest hip restaurant to arts fundraisers held at dingy watering holes, these mixers are a staple of young professional life where people go to network, flirt and unwind.

    A recent event was packed with young, clean-cut white and Asian office workers. Everybody was affable, ambitious, smartly dressed and beaming with apparent confidence. In conversation, I learned that almost nobody was from here; some had only been here a few months. We talked about our careers, the coming summer’s travels and, being a largely twenty-something crowd, the best places to get fall down drunk. It was not an unpleasant way to pass the evening.

    Yet, as I walked back to my car through the cool streets, an emptiness lingered: the déjà vu of too many jaunty conversations at other cocktail hours. They reminded me of the breezy talks had in youth hostels the world over; and like any youth hostel, it seemed obvious that if I were to go to the same place a year later it would be an entirely different group of people. The exuberance would remain the same, but the faces would not.

    Undoubtedly, San Francisco is one of the great American cities – and perhaps its most beautiful. The thick fog that charges into the city at all times of year and the colorful Victorian homes that line the streets like dominoes create a charm few other cities anywhere can match. Certainly, it is not the cleanest American city, but it feels among our most loved judging by the stream of visitors and the upkeep of its buildings.

    Of course, many cities are beautiful, but what makes the town truly unique is its sense of place. Take a snapshot of a street in Los Angeles and it could pass as Denver, Dallas or Orlando, but when I walk on Irving, Hayes, Mission or Grant streets, I know without doubt that I am in San Francisco and no other place. The large stone edifices and doormen of Nob Hill recall Manhattan, but the ring of the cable car and the sudden, unexpected views of the Bay remind me that I am nowhere but here.

    And yet, there lies the great paradox of “the City” as locals like to call it: it is a place at once very personal and impersonal. Its geography, architecture and quirky culture are truly unique, and yet much of the City’s population consists of a revolving door of restless youth who stay for a few years before leaving.

    The concentration of entertainment, great cuisine, culture, and educated people give the city a verve and zest that few can match, but this lifestyle does not translate as well to young families: the City has the lowest percentage of its population under the age of 18 of any U.S. city. The City’s famously high cost of living makes it difficult to buy a home within city limits for under $700,000. Lots of condominiums cost more than that. Faced with this unpleasant economic reality, it is no wonder that many people move on after a couple of years.

    It is very tempting to want to place a value judgment on all this, to say that a city with as restless a population and few families offers only fleeting moments of adult enjoyments to a rotating list of players; certainly the more sublime satisfactions of being firmly rooted in one community, owning property and raising a family are increasingly out of reach for many residents.

    Besides the cost of living , the uber-liberal climate may also eventually nudge many people and business from San Francisco. But perhaps it’s OK — in a nation of 300 million headed towards 400 million — for a city to thrive as a “one-industry town, strictly in the pleasure dome business,” to quote Tom Wolfe’s description of Manhattan a few years ago. Few towns exhibit the urban high-life as well as San Francisco while retaining a close proximity to mountains, beaches and pristine forests.

    The real question then becomes: how much meaningful community can one find in cities like this, where people move in and out with great frequency, where transience is a norm rather than an exception? What sort of lives do we lead when we move on every few years and when friendships that we’ve invested time into do the same?

    As Robert Putnam writes in his seminal work Bowling Alone, “Communities with higher rates of residential turnover are less well integrated… Mobility undermines civic engagement and community-based social capital.” Not suprisingly social capital indexes generally ranks cities like San Francisco rather poorly.

    Thinking back to the cocktail party, I wish I could put tags on the people I met that night and see where they would be in five years. I think if I walked into the same place then, I would be greeted by a fresh group of well-manicured and confident peers talking about the newest excitements to be experienced in this land of high cosmopolitania.

    But where would be the people I saw? My guess is not in San Francisco. In Redwood City or Benecia, perhaps, or in the Midwestern or East Coast towns they grew up in, watching their toddlers run through their backyard talking about the time in their youth when they did “the San Francisco thing.” And man, it was a blast.

  • Letter from the Ephemeral City

    “How is it living in a real city now?” friends and family ask with smug earnestness now that I reside in much coveted San Francisco. The response ranges from a straightforward ‘nice’ to a heated diatribe against their assumption that the city to the south I resided in for the previous seven years was not a ‘real’ city. The defense of Los Angeles is futile to those who won’t listen – those who judge it based on what has been projected through television and movies: unrelenting smog, apocalyptic fires, drug addicted actresses, road rage wars and the like.

    Yet there is never any need to defend my recent move to San Francisco – a supposed paragon of progressiveness loved by people from all corners of the globe (aside from the right wing media who will use any opportunity to poke fun at the political lunacy that often takes place here). Even the critics of San Francisco cannot deny the sheer beauty of the city’s geography: at the tip of a peninsula bounded by San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Taking its georgraphy into account, it becomes readily apparent that San Francisco is what it is because of the Bay and ocean around it – the inhabitants and architecture are secondary. The city as we know it is merely an homage to the forces of nature.

    Beyond the spectacle of the Bay and the favorable weather, what impressions come to mind when San Francisco is mentioned? Aside from icons such as the Golden Gate Bridge, Alcatraz, and cable cars, most people remember the city for its historically liberal political climate.Who can forget about the Beat Generation, the Summer of Love and the Gay Rights Movement? There is no doubt that these social benchmarks have had positive reverberations throughout the world –leading to broader acceptance of a diversity of cultures and lifestyles and the elevation of the peace movement.

    Unfortunately, because of these successes, the city is currently suffering from an identity crisis in an attempt to live up to its past glory. The city is not unlike a child prodigy, who at a very early age garnered a lot clout but burned out before it was able to fully mature.

    It is a tragic observation that liberal politics has become a parody of itself within San Francisco. Just recently, when the Olympic torch for the 2008 Beijing Games arrived in the city, Mayor Gavin Newsom was forced to abruptly reroute the path of travel in order to avoid violent protests from disrupting the event. Even though the good Mayor was looking out for the reputation of his city, the majority of people who waited hours to witness the historic event ended the day in bitter disappointment.

    Also in the headlines recently, Barack Obama was chastised for making a disparaging remark about the people of rural Pennsylvania – a key voting block for that state’s primary election – at a dinner party in a donor’s mansion. Of course, the media subsequently put every effort into emphasizing the fact that Mr. Obama’s blunder was made in none other than San Francisco, the poster child of leftist elitism. Even pop culture outlets like the television show South Park and the stand-up comic Dave Chapelle have notably poked fun at the city and its hypocrisy.

    There is nothing wrong with liberal political viewpoints. After all, the United States is a country where individuals can freely express their voice for what they believe is fair and just. The breakdown occurs at the point in which the residents and politicians of San Francisco fail to realize that we have entered an era that has superseded identity politics. Instead of focusing on critical issues facing the city, being identified as part of the ‘left’ or any number of ‘special interest groups,’ is actually more important; hence, nothing gets done and real progress is hindered. In other words, the city no longer has a can-do attitude.

    Part of the reason for this has to do with the fact that for those who can actually afford to live comfortably in San Francisco, the quality of life is really good. It is not difficult for one to become complacent with the numerous cultural venues and fine dining and drinking establishment in this small city.

    It is also easy to forget about what actually makes a city function – like maintaining basic infrastructure, keeping the streets safe and clean, and making sure that the service workers, who are so critical to the prominent San Francisco tourist industry, are treated justly. These issues are not as glamorous to someone more focused on saving the world by ‘going green.’ For someone with a higher than average income, purchasing a sustainable good from a trendy yet over-priced ‘green’ boutique is sufficient for self-satisfaction – there is no need to face more urgent issues head-on.

    Like the fog that oftentimes comes in and shrouds the city in a white mist blurring the landscape, so is the ephemeral quality of the city itself. Only 760,000 residents strong and 47 square miles in area, the city can seem provincial. Trumped both in area and population by San Jose, just 50 miles to the south, the Silicon Valley has for the last 30 years or so become the business center of the Bay Area. Many outside the area are not aware that companies like Apple, Google, and Yahoo are headquartered in no-name suburbs with names like Cupertino, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale – a good 45-minute to an hour drive outside San Francisco.

    Actually, businesses have been leaving the city for some time now, yet many people who commute outside San Francisco still choose to live within the city limits, contributing to what is ironically called a ‘reverse commute.’ Lifestyle, in essence, is beating out commerce when it comes to the desirability of living in San Francisco. The implications are many for this observation due to the fact that in order for a city to continually be successful, it must promote the possibility of upward mobility and have an entrepreneurial spirit. In this regard, San Francisco is failing.

    Growing up in the Bay Area, my impressions of what a city is has been defined by my excursions with my family as a youngster to San Francisco. I would beg and plead my parents every weekend to take me to the city, just so I could be among the tall buildings, be in awe at the topography and views, and people watch in Union Square. Now I live here and the ephemeral feeling of being in a dream state is ever present. Yet, as I have grown older, I am savvy to the nuances of city life and complexities that go into making a place successful. I just hope that San Francisco can wake up out of its slumber, get out of its collective social hangover and take advantage of what cultural capital is left by once again becoming a place where change is possible and ordinary citizens have the opportunity to dream.

  • Attracting American Companies to Canada

    A few days ago I received in the mail the latest issue of Area Development. I really enjoy this magazine with its rankings on the cities with the best business climate and articles on how to attract skilled workers. As an academic whose research deals with how to attract and retain top-quality workers, I cannot help but enjoy this magazine.

    This time Area Development came with a 40-page glossy pamphlet called Location Canada. It was filled with colorful pictures of downtowns, industrial parks and happy workers. What a great idea, I thought. This is the perfect readership.

    But I wonder how many readers or companies would be attracted by these happy scenes. First there’s the issue of politics. It is no secret that Canada is a center-left country. The only right-wing folks are mostly concentrated in the Province of Alberta— which is also the fastest growing economy in the nation. True, Conservatives ran the country for about a decade in the 80s and have run a minority Government since last year. But most American conservatives would find ours a bit too liberal. Although the Conservatives may be against abortion, they will have to accept gay rights, strong gun regulations, universal health care and multiculturalism (as opposed to the melting pot). So this could be a major turn-off for most American conservatives willing to give it a try in Canada.

    If you’re a member of the religious-right , you’d better forget Canada. Here religion and politics are totally separated. No God Bless Canada. And No God Saves the Queen ether. Most people, at least under 70, don’t care much about British Royalty either.

    Needless to say that a young left-of-center Democrat would react differently – not that he or she would fall in love with our values and want to move right away. After all, we have our very own cultural identities, celebrate different holidays and have different heroes (one might argue we also have fewer and venerate them less).

    If a tech worker and his family wanted to work in Montreal (in the Province of Quebec with its 80-percent French-speaking population with 50-percent of them dreaming of splitting from Canada), well, be ready for a real culture shock. No, this is not fake! People do speak French for real. And those outside of Montreal do not speak much English. I am saying this because I have heard many Americans saying out loud that Quebecers are just faking it. Believe me, they are not. Quebecers are also very proud of their culture and language, and expect immigrants to learn their language , support their values and culture (there was a very hot debate last year about what to do with immigrants who want to impose their religious beliefs at work and in schools).

    So while many tourists or students might enjoy a sojourn in La Belle Province, staying on as a working adult is a different matter. True, some working environments are mostly English but occasionally they are fined for it.

    But Canada’s mild socialism — inside and outside Quebec — also has its advantages. Government health care can be very attractive, not only for working families but for companies concerned with a large health care burden. This is one key reason why Toyota recently chose to build its plant in Woodstock, Ontario rather in the US (it already has one in Cambridge, Ontario).

    Canada also has a generous parental-leave program for pregnant women and even for fathers. We are not talking weeks here but months of well-paid leave. You can also put your child in state-subsidized daycare.

    Paternalism does not stop as you age. Once your child is almost an adult he or she will have to chance to attend a Quebec university for about $4000 a year, including elite schools like McGill University . Students from low-income families can very easily obtain student loans. Interest rates on those loans are low and will not negatively affect their credit record when the time comes to get a mortgage. Banks actually don’t even look at it even if you owe $50,000. Also, for families, municipalities run $20 a week summer camps . Generally those are safe and state-regulated. Of course, Canadians pay for those services through their income tax ; it’s really a question of whether the trade off is worth it. Generally speaking, the more affluent you are, or intend to become, the less the welfare state works for you.

    And let’s talk the worst thing about Canada: winter! That, we cannot do anything about it. It is snowy and cold across the country from December until March. Things are worst in Quebec. However, Minneapolis and Boston pretty much have the same kind of winter as Toronto. Vancouver is just a few hours drive north of Seattle so it frequently as gloomy, rainy and cool.

    So would this make talented Americans think twice about working in Canada? Would it be worth the try? Liberals would like it; many conservatives would become very antagonistic and frustrated. Basically, despite the similarities, you must become accustomed to big differences. As a country, Canada works very well, but for Canadians. For Americans with big ambitions, it’s really a matter of who you are — and who you want to be.