[reilly3000]

San Francisco was brilliant before tech, and will be shining in the next boom. Some things are bigger than now, and maybe bigger than we can fully understand.

Here’s some enjoyable reading for those with a few minutes to spare: http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist1/early.html

To me the confluence of cultures, like the brackish waters of the bay, are it’s hallmark. The issues around sudden wealth, excess, limited housing, and visionary governance seem to be more about the place than a particular moment.

[Manuel_D]

San Francisco had a declining population from 1960 until 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco

So according to people voting with their feet: no, San Francisco was not a brilliant place before tech. Or at least it wasn't brilliant enough to attract a net increase in population.

[mc32]

Believe it or not, I met a RE agent who told me back in the early 90s RE agents were leaving SF because business was so bad. It's hard to imagine, but at least an anecdote.

But so was San Jose. Apparently the "downtown" was boarded up in many places till the late 90s when it began emerging from a mini-Detroit like state. MacEnary was feverishly trying to resuscitate it, I don't think it was his effort so much as it was tech to the rescue, else it would have been an Albukerke.

[bodyfour]

That is completely true, but it's by no means confined to SF.

In SF in the 1980s, SOMA was one of the cheapest places even in a cheap city like SF... lost of broke creative types living in old warehouse/industrial space that would otherwise be going derelict.

In lower Manhattan whole neighborhoods were in a similar state -- bohemian artists occupying loads of space that nobody else would touch.

And in London plenty of neighborhoods were full of squats. Housing stock had become so worthless that it wasn't even worth the effort to prevent people living there for free.

Now those same neighborhoods are among the most expensive urban areas in the English-speaking world. People are literally spending millions of dollars to live at those exact same street addresses... in some cases even living in the same structures, just instead of a half-derelict warehouse it'll now be all marble countertops and the like.

All of these places have their own stories and unique factors, but it's also very remarkable how similar the trajectories and how extreme the swing has been.

[mc32]

I was told alphabet city was like that. Squatting and soup kitchens; semi abandoned buildings.

[jdminhbg]

I don’t live in California but visit[ed] a bunch for work and family reasons. San Jose has essentially always felt like a rust belt city with better weather. Even up until 2020 the downtown restaurant and bar scene was like going to the cool part of Toledo. I don’t understand why that is, but it’s not surprising to me that any small economic downturn would result in flight.

[reilly3000]

I’ll also add that 60’s - 80’s San Francisco and the Bay Area at large gave the world counter-culture, organic food, gay rights, and the birth of modern computing. I would attribute the population swing more to general trends towards growth in suburbia.

[reilly3000]

Exodus is part of its ethos. By 2002 some people were ready to declare the city deceased. Boom towns need their busts like forests need fires.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/24/business/a-city-takes-a-b...

[colinmhayes]

Because NIMBYs kept converting apartments to SFH so people were forced to move.