APPENDIX ARESPONSES TO GENTRIFICATION — FOUR CASE STUDIESThe authors visited four metropolitan areas in early 2000 to examine first-hand the dynamicsof <strong>gentrification</strong>. These areas displayed a very broad range of <strong>gentrification</strong>. With its sizzlingeconomy and constrained housing market, <strong>gentrification</strong> was widespread in the San Francisco BayArea. Much more modest <strong>gentrification</strong> was occurring in the reviving cities of Atlanta andWashington, D.C. Cleveland appeared to be attracting some higher income households into only afew neighborhoods, but not at a level that was producing any noticeable displacement of originalresidents. The dynamics of each of these markets are explained in the following sections.A. San Francisco Bay AreaGentrification in the Bay Area of California is much more widespread than in any other citystudied. Hard hit in past decades by defense base closings and the general economic slide inCalifornia during the early ‘90s, the Bay Area’s economy now seems unstoppable. An economictidal wave is washing over the Bay Area, originating in Silicon Valley, but affecting all parts of thismassive and varied metropolitan area. The wave has lifted many boats, soaked some longstandingdisadvantaged communities, and inundated other towns completely unprepared for the flood. Theeconomic pressures in the area lead renters and owners to compete for housing either in therelatively few remaining affordable areas, many of which have historically been home to lowerincome and minority residents, or in the as-yet undeveloped perimeter areas.1. Factors Driving GentrificationThe San Francisco Bay Area encompasses at least nine counties and the major cities ofOakland, San Francisco and San Jose. Nearly seven million people live in the area 51 and thousandsmove into the area annually from around the U.S. and other countries, attracted by its economicopportunity, moderate climate, and overall quality of life.Two major factors underlie development in the Bay Area: unprecedented economic growthand constrained housing markets.Rapid Job Growth. In addition to pressure from the state’s strong economic boom, the BayArea’s explosion in high technology development and commerce has led to an unprecedentedgrowth in jobs. Although the largest concentration of new jobs is in the Silicon Valley sub-regionaround San Jose, south of San Francisco, all counties in the region are currently experiencingsubstantial employment growth. Brennan and Hill’s research concludes that job growth in SanFrancisco proper increased only 0.3 percent between 1993 and 1996, while that in the Bay Area’s51 Demographic Research Unit, California Department of Finance, Table 1: Historical City/County PopulationEstimates, 1991-1999 with 1990 Census Count, retrieved March, 2000 on the World Wide Web:http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/demograp/Hist_E-4.xls.42
suburban areas increased fifteen times faster. 52 The gross numbers are more impressive, however:between 1995 and 1997 alone, 286,675 jobs were created in the Bay Area. 53While traditional views of <strong>gentrification</strong> suggest that job growth in the central city is a keydriver, the Bay Area displays a more contemporary phenomenon. There, job growth in suburbanareas – Silicon Valley and the Tri-Valley area east of Oakland, for example – has created intensehousing pressures throughout the Bay Area, but particularly in previously overlooked affordabledowntown neighborhoods. The result has been intense <strong>gentrification</strong> in those communities. Jobgrowth centered in Silicon Valley attracts hundreds of thousands of new workers to the area, but forevery 17 jobs created in Santa Clara County, only one new housing unit is built. 54 And in older citiessuch as San Francisco, “new economy” firms in fields such as multi-media technology areincreasingly locating in mixed residential/industrial neighborhoods such as the South of Market,rather than in the traditional central business district, further increasing the competition for dwellingspaces.Tight Housing Markets Leave Renters Vulnerable. With that extreme job/housingimbalance, lower wage Silicon Valley workers scour the region for affordable housing, often spillinginto the agriculture-rich Central Valley, enduring three-hour commutes each way, contributing to theair quality problem, and creating community conflict over land use and planning. Higher incomeworkers drive an hour north to San Francisco, Oakland, or Berkeley, seeking the urban amenities,night life and unique cultural diversity, but adding to the Bay Area’s tremendous congestion andenvironmental pressures.San Francisco’s housing has long been expensive, and the progressive city government haslong wrestled with affordable housing issues. Some argue that high housing costs are tied directly tothe density reductions included in the city’s 1960 general plan, which roughly halved the allowabledensity compared to the plan prepared in the ‘20s. If the Bay Area’s political culture allowed for morehousing, built up, not out, its housing costs would be more modest. The city instituted rent controlyears ago. A landlord may increase rents to what the market will bear once a tenant leaves. Thisincreases the pressure for tenant turnover.As in most cities across the country, San Francisco’s rental market is very complex, andoften resembles a game of squeezing balloons: Laws protecting tenants are put in place, andloopholes are identified and exploited. Loopholes then are filled and another opportunity pops up.For example, San Francisco has adopted restrictions on the numbers of apartments that can beconverted to condominiums, issued strict guidelines on how owners can move into units they own,and regulated the sale of tenancy-in-common sales of multi-family buildings. Despite theseprotections, in the seven years between 1988 and 1995, 25 buildings containing over 300 units were52 Brennan, John and Edward W. Hill, Where Are the Jobs?: Cities, Suburbs, and the Competition forEmployment. Washington: The Brookings Institution Survey Series, November, 1999, p. 6, Table 3.53 Urban Land Institute, Association of Bay Area Governments, and Bay Area Council, Bay Area Futures:Where Will We Live and Work, November, 1997, as quoted in the endnotes of Urban Habitat Program, p. 28.54 Yee and Quiroz-Martinez, p. 243
- Page 1: ___________________________________
- Page 4 and 5: POLICYLINKSUMMARY OF RECENT PUBLICA
- Page 6 and 7: ABSTRACTThis paper serves as a prim
- Page 8 and 9: PREFACEThe Brookings Institution Ce
- Page 11 and 12: DEALING WITH NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE:A
- Page 13 and 14: owners, and developers—better und
- Page 15 and 16: III. GENTRIFICATION DYNAMICS:DEFINI
- Page 17 and 18: A. How Big a Trend Is Gentrificatio
- Page 19 and 20: espective metropolitan areas, this
- Page 21 and 22: uilt only 31,000 new homes. 18 The
- Page 23 and 24: created a $5,000 first-time homebuy
- Page 25 and 26: consequences are perceived by varyi
- Page 27 and 28: esidents they should stay in place
- Page 29 and 30: and that these revenues are not era
- Page 31 and 32: sale. 42 The street’s mix of busi
- Page 33 and 34: communities (such as in Cleveland)
- Page 35 and 36: IV. THE POLITICAL DYNAMICS OF GENTR
- Page 37 and 38: the development process made unexpe
- Page 39: 2. increasing regional, city and co
- Page 42 and 43: Atlanta’s future into concrete st
- Page 44 and 45: Affordable Housing Preservation and
- Page 46 and 47: likely unproductive, although San F
- Page 48 and 49: where the entering families with sc
- Page 50 and 51: VI. CONCLUSIONThis paper provides a
- Page 54 and 55: taken out of the San Francisco mark
- Page 56 and 57: According to a recent survey, twent
- Page 58 and 59: developed among long-standing Afric
- Page 60 and 61: increased concentrations of minorit
- Page 62 and 63: class to 60-65 percent of the popul
- Page 64 and 65: experience in the Reynoldstown comm
- Page 66 and 67: Hot Housing Market. Perhaps the mos
- Page 68 and 69: The opening of the new Metro statio
- Page 70 and 71: 3. ConclusionOptimism about the cit
- Page 72 and 73: just over seven percent of all perm
- Page 74 and 75: But neighborhood watchers see the c
- Page 76 and 77: BIBLIOGRAPHYAtkinson, Rowland, “M
- Page 78 and 79: Mission Economic Development Associ
- Page 80: Walker, Mary Beth, A Population Pro