[bennyfreshness]

I'm an engineer who just moved here to the Mission where I'm paying this exorbitant amount of money in rent mentioned in the article. The people in my building (of which 4 of 7 units are Googlers, I'm not one) battle a group of locals who congregate in the park drinking and doing drugs over noise, parking, trash, and various other complaints almost daily. We just want a safe living environment close to our workplace. I don't feel sorry for these low budget semi homeless drunks but hope the gentrification raises property value substantially for the home-owning locals who've been here for years. Its sad other long time locals who rent are also being forced out, but still can't help but think the process is cleaning up the city. Gentrification just never had a bad connotation to me and still doesn't now that I"m seeing it on the front lines.

[jaems33]

'Gentrification just never had a bad connotation to me and still doesn't now that I"m seeing it on the front lines.'

Having lived in New York, maybe I saw a different gentrification? Creatives and artists who brought a lot of pride and interest in a neighbourhood. Local establishments that had character and often people who lived within the area. Cultural diversity.

But as the area becomes more popular, attracting people who are willing to pay higher rent, it becomes ridiculous for people who bring value to the community to exist. That local cafe can't afford to the increasing rent there and so it's replaced by a generic Starbucks. That apartment which houses the band that plays locally is now occupied by a couple who works across bridge. That little restaurant that sold really delicious and cheap breakfast no longer can afford that spot and instead the whole frontage is now another chain.

I'm ambivalent because I understand that's just a normal cycle. But in a way, it's a bit unfair to some of these people who brought a lot of reason to be in that location, but now can't afford it because they helped make it too popular.

I no longer live in NY and reside in an extremely wealthy neighbourhood. Businesses around me are generally overpriced and lack character because... maybe those are the only things that can survive around here.

[rwhitman]

There's a state of equilibrium between 'bad neighborhood' and bourgeois that needs to be achieved if gentrification is to sustainably hold a diverse base of residents. There's a tipping point that can easily take a neighborhood in one direction or the other. Somehow over the years I've managed to live in this "sweet spot" in a number of different cities - just after the gangs have left, the artists and coffee shops are thriving but the older residents can still afford their rent.

The downside to gentrification is that it never stays in the sweet spot forever, eventually the neighborhood becomes SoHo or SoMa or whatever. With the current wave of re-urbanization in the US this cycle has been moving faster and faster and gentrification moving further afield. Eventually the majority of every major city will look like manhattan with the poor and creative class living nearly to the suburbs.

I'd say thats the real downside to rampant gentrification - a future where urban centers loose all character - and affordability and creativity are relegated to distant enclaves far out of reach

[geebee]

I agree, though the outcome of the gentrification process can still vary. Starbucks and chain restaurants definitely aren't the only possible outcome. Look at the left bank of Paris, for instance. It's a boutique dream. There's something lost, no doubt, in all the wealth. It's hard to imagine a penniless artist catching pigeons in the luxembourg gardens for dinner. But it is an exceedingly pleasant place to go for a walk, look in shop windows, and have a cup of coffee.

I remember an essay (linked to by David Brooks in the NYTimes) about the gentrification of the upper west side in New York. You might be interested in taking a look...

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-upper-west-sid...

[juiceandjuice]

Nobody forced you to live where you live man. There are plenty of other neighborhoods without the "locals" you dislike. Maybe you'd need to pony up the extra dough, but then complaining that you don't have enough money to live where you want to live is silly too. Especially because it's more than affordable in portola/sunset/outer mission/excelsior/parkmerced/ingleside and even daly city/san bruno/pacifica etc... the rents haven't risen nearly as high there as they have in other neighborhoods... but then again, they aren't as "cool" either...

This whole idea that you are somehow entitled to live where you want to live on your own terms is ridiculous. I'm not saying that you should be scared of where you live, but it's buyer beware man, and you get what you pay for.

Also, I doubt those googlers live close to their workplace (no, shuttle doesn't count), which makes it even more ridiculous.

[olegious]

Not sure why you're being voted down. SF is a crazy place where "gentrification" is a bad word.

[Symmetry]

Presumably they're objecting to "hope the gentrification raises property value substantially for the home-owning locals who've been here for years". Which presumably was the opposite of what the poster meant to write.

[bps4484]

is the opposite what he meant to write? It was always my assumption that he was correct; gentrification raises property values, so "home-owning locals" make money off of their real estate value going up, while renters will be potentially pushed out (or stay and pay more in rent). Am I missing something?

[brevityness]

Not as bad as in Berkeley.