San Francisco is no stranger to gentrification. The city’s most recent bout stemmed from the influx of tech industries in the 1990s and lasted well into the 2010s (Hu, 2023). However, it was thought to be over with the departure of technology companies from the city due to the sudden switch to remote work—thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic—and the allure of states with lower tax rates. Unfortunately, the reinvigoration of the tech industry, in large part due to the rising profitability of AI, has created a new wave of gentrification, specifically in San Francisco’s Mission District. The Mission District, a historically immigrant neighborhood has been an ethnic enclave for Latine people since the 1960s and is generally thought to have somewhat resisted the gentrification of the “dot com” boom; now, residents are concerned over whether they will be able to protect their neighborhood from the new AI wave (Bindman, 2023).

​

There is no question that gentrification is occurring all over the United States, but whether it is considered detrimental and who or even if someone should be responsible for protecting residents in these communities has become a hot topic for debate. In San Francisco, specifically within the Mission District, gentrification threatens the very essence of the area, and the city as a whole. The City must work to combat this gentrification, otherwise, it risks the displacement of residents, the loss of a large aspect of the city’s cultural identity, and the whitewashing of San Francisco’s history. However, some argue that in places like the Mission District—which have been historically underserved, underinvested, and in the case of the Mission, actually redlined—gentrification draws capital into the area and improves the lives of everyone in the region; it’s a trickle-down effect that sounds good in theory but does not work in practice (Miller, 2019). Contrasting that, it can be argued that the existence of a collective identity and affordable living spaces, such as the ones offered in the Mission District—at least in comparison to other parts of San Francisco—are essential to ensure San Francisco is livable for marginalized groups (Leonard and Arevalo 2024). Without this identity, the Mission District will become unrecognizable and lose everything that makes its existence so important to San Francisco. 

​

The gentrification that occurred in the Mission District during the 1990s and early 2000s had an incredibly detrimental effect on the neighborhood and its residents. It gave the district the highest eviction rate in San Francisco from 1999-2000, contributed to the closure of formal and informal community centers, and outpriced companies aiming to build affordable housing in favor of privatized developers (Martí 2006, 8-9). Even through all of this, the Mission District and its residents persevered, but many were unable to stay in the place they called home due to rising prices. As trillions of dollars are being invested in the development of AI, it becomes increasingly difficult for long-time residents to remain where they are (Letzing and World Economic Forum 2024). Not only do housing costs increase but so does the cost of living. Even if a resident can stay in their home, they may not be able to afford to shop or eat in the area (Atkinson 2000, 307). Additionally, studies have shown that when largely minority-occupied neighborhoods are gentrified, the people living in them tend to move to more disadvantaged communities rather than to wealthier neighborhoods where people from mostly white, gentrifying neighborhoods generally move (Hwang and Ding 2020). This continues the cycle of disadvantage given that no neighborhood is safe from gentrification, especially poor neighborhoods of color. 

​

San Francisco and its residents often laud themselves on the diverse culture and progressive nature of the city, but uncontested gentrification in the Mission District counters these portrayals. San Francisco must work to preserve the Mission District as it is now, protecting the residents, ensuring the survival of a crucial cultural enclave in the city, and allowing residents to stay in their homes. To avoid displacement, San Francisco city officials should implement protections for residents in the Mission District. This includes expanding the number of rent-controlled apartments in the area, encouraging development that is only focused on affordable housing, and regulating the market so large tech companies and their employees can’t outprice residents (McDonald 2021). Strategies such as community land trusts, increasing income taxes on the ultra-wealthy, and limited-equity housing cooperatives (which create a path for lower-income residents to move from renting to owning) are all feasible plans to counter gentrification while uplifting historically underserved communities (Rose 2002). 

​

Additionally, San Francisco should implement measures to help businesses become better established within the neighborhood and prioritize—or even subsidize—small businesses that contribute to the culture of the Mission District. Residents, like Soran Mofti, acknowledge that the displacement of small businesses, similar to his, contributes to the erasure of long-established businesses and the atmosphere in the area (Bindman 2023). The AI companies moving into the Mission District argue that they are simply reinvesting in an underserved community by providing much-needed capital that will bring “positivity” to the area (Bindman 2023). Suppose they argue that gentrification is a necessary investment in the neighborhood and serves residents. In that case, the City of San Francisco should use community input, as well as tax dollars from the returning tech companies and new businesses, to reinvest in the neighborhood and improve it while preserving its culture and respecting its residents. Furthermore, by involving often ignored community members, San Francisco would legitimize the existence of residents at risk for displacement, an important step in the fight against gentrification.

​

The only thing that gentrification will accomplish in a place like the Mission District is an erasure of culture, a displacement of residents–whether that be physical or social–and further oppression of already marginalized communities. If San Francisco is truly the city it prides itself on being: a haven of progressive, inclusive, and culturally diverse communities, then it must not allow the further gentrification of the Mission District. It is the city’s responsibility to protect all of its residents, not just the ones who become multi-millionaires. If San Francisco does not take action to combat the influx of AI techies in the Mission District and fight against the displacement of longtime residents, not only will thousands of people be forced from their homes, but San Francisco will lose a large part of what makes the city so unique.

 

--
 

Bibliography

 

Atkinson, Rowland. “The Hidden Costs of Gentrification: Displacement in Central London.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 15, no. 4 (2000): 307–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41107148. 

 

Bindman, Ariana. 2023. “Another Tech Wave Is Coming for San Francisco’s Mission District.” SFGATE. October 9, 2023. https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/tech-ai-san-francisco-mission-district-18409305.php 

 

Hu, Elise. 2023. “How This Bay Area Tech Boom’s Different from the Last One.” NPR.org. December 17, 2023. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/12/17/251996835/how-this-bay-area-tech-booms-different-from-the-the-last-one.

 

Hwang, Jackelyn, and Lei Ding. 2020. “Unequal Displacement: Gentrification, Racial Stratification, and Residential Destinations in Philadelphia.” American Journal of Sociology 126 (2): 354–406. https://doi.org/10.1086/711015.

 

Leonard, Christian, and Alejandra Arevalo. 2024. “See the Entire Bay Area Real Estate Market Mapped.” The San Francisco Chronicle. July 1, 2024. https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/real-estate/bay-area-home-prices/.

 

Letzing, John, and World Economic Forum. 2024. “To Really Grasp AI Expectations, Look to the Trillions Being Invested.” World Economic Forum. April 3, 2024. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/04/appreciate-ai-expectations-trillions-invested/. 

 

Martí, Fernando. 2006. “The Mission District -A History of Resistance for the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition.” https://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/633596/9137878/1288129554673/Mission+District+History.pdf?t.

 

McDonald, Patrick Range. 2021. “Trickle-down Housing Is a Failure. Here’s What You Need to Know.” Housing Is a Human Right. May 26, 2021. https://www.housingisahumanright.org/trickle-down-housing-is-a-failure-heres-what-you-need-to-know/.

 

Miller, Lindsay M. 2019. “We Need to Change How We Think about Gentrification - National Civic League.” National Civic League. 2019. https://www.nationalcivicleague.org/ncr-article/we-need-to-change-how-we-think-about-gentrification/.

 

Rose, Kalima. “Combating Gentrification Through Equitable Development.” Race, Poverty & the Environment 9, no. 1 (2002): 5–56. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41554331.