I’ve written about the Tenderloin neighborhood in San Francisco before. It’s an infamous neighborhood in the center of the city that has for decades resisted gentrification (which was the topic of my post).

But as the technology sector continues to urbanize, many fear that it’s only a matter of time before it does eventually gentrify. A new nickname has even emerged for the neighborhood: the Twitterloin.

However, a local nonprofit called the Wildflowers Institute is trying to ensure that gentrification doesn’t erase the cultural assets currently housed in the neighborhood. Through a project called “Hidden Gems”, the group is literally knocking on doors to find active artists within the community (many of whom live in single rooms) and then supporting them through fellowship programs and other investments.

What’s fascinating about their approach is that they are actively seeking out the informal activities taking place within the community – activities that would otherwise be hidden and then potentially lost. Once discovered, they then do a number of mapping exercises to keep track of this data.

As somebody who believes city building will become a lot more data driven in the future, I think this is a really interesting initiative. And as gentrification pressures continue to increase in San Francisco, I’m sure this information will help guide the discussions. You can’t account for something you don’t know exists.

If you’d like to learn more about this initiative, check out this short 4 minute video from the New York Times. I would then love to hear from you in the comment section below.

James Frank Dy Zarsadiaz (a Ph.D. candidate at Northwestern) published an article in Atlantic Cities a few days ago called, “Why gentrification is so hard to stop.”

In it, he essentially talks about how neo-liberalism has allowed private interest to trump public good and how it has dramatically changed cities and the expectations of its residents:

"…those who can afford to live in a city now expect a personalized, "just for you" urban lifestyle. For-profit companies chase these urbanites with upscale housing and creative marketing campaigns, transforming blighted and blue-collar neighborhoods into "livable" urban nooks."

Now, as a developer I know I’m biased here, but is gentrification really as evil as he makes it out to be?

One of the most insightful comments on the article had the following to say:

"I’ve always maintained that gentrification is what occurs when demand exceeds supply and blight is what occurs when supply exceeds demand."

I like it because it’s a simple way of saying that what we are seeing is a natural market outcome. What’s wrong with somebody wanting to buy a house in a marginal area and fix it up? Can we reasonably expect to stop people from doing this so that wealth never increases within a neighborhood?

The bigger issue, in my view, is rising income inequality. We know that this is becoming more and more of an issue. The benefits to being smart and educated today are huge. So how do we ensure that we’re not creating a society of haves and have-nots?

Let’s figure this out and let people buy whatever homes they want.

One startup that’s been on my radar (which isn’t yet available in Canada) is Nextdoor. They describe themselves as a “private social network for your neighborhood” and are active in more than 22,500 American neighborhoods. To date they’ve raised $100M in venture funding.

From what I can tell, their primary focus (and big value proposition) has been around safety and security. Residents can use it to report incidents, such as a car break in. There are obviously other use cases, but I keep hearing this one come up. And I think it works because the community is so closely controlled. Every address is verified.

But a few things come to mind as I read about their success and growth (400% neighborhood growth over the past year). How many social networks can people handle? Why can’t this be done using an existing platform (and perhaps a closed group)? And is there an opportunity to create the same kind of closed social network for condo and apartment buildings?

There are lots of social networks out there. Whether you’re a wine snob or a pet owner, somebody has thought it. But if Path’s recent struggles are any indication, niche social networks can be tough. Which is why Nextdoor seems like a bit of an outlier to me.

But I think the success of Nextdoor stems from the fact that, even in our hyper connected world, a lot of us, paradoxically, still don’t know the people who live right beside us. And I think this is also the case in multi-family dwellings. It’s a problem I’ve thought about and discussed with an number of my condo-dwelling friends.

So I look forward to seeing how Nextdoor evolves and also seeing if they end up expanding to condos and apartments.

I’ve written about the Tenderloin neighborhood in San Francisco before. It’s an infamous neighborhood in the center of the city that has for decades resisted gentrification (which was the topic of my post).

But as the technology sector continues to urbanize, many fear that it’s only a matter of time before it does eventually gentrify. A new nickname has even emerged for the neighborhood: the Twitterloin.

However, a local nonprofit called the Wildflowers Institute is trying to ensure that gentrification doesn’t erase the cultural assets currently housed in the neighborhood. Through a project called “Hidden Gems”, the group is literally knocking on doors to find active artists within the community (many of whom live in single rooms) and then supporting them through fellowship programs and other investments.

What’s fascinating about their approach is that they are actively seeking out the informal activities taking place within the community – activities that would otherwise be hidden and then potentially lost. Once discovered, they then do a number of mapping exercises to keep track of this data.

As somebody who believes city building will become a lot more data driven in the future, I think this is a really interesting initiative. And as gentrification pressures continue to increase in San Francisco, I’m sure this information will help guide the discussions. You can’t account for something you don’t know exists.

If you’d like to learn more about this initiative, check out this short 4 minute video from the New York Times. I would then love to hear from you in the comment section below.

James Frank Dy Zarsadiaz (a Ph.D. candidate at Northwestern) published an article in Atlantic Cities a few days ago called, “Why gentrification is so hard to stop.”

In it, he essentially talks about how neo-liberalism has allowed private interest to trump public good and how it has dramatically changed cities and the expectations of its residents:

"…those who can afford to live in a city now expect a personalized, "just for you" urban lifestyle. For-profit companies chase these urbanites with upscale housing and creative marketing campaigns, transforming blighted and blue-collar neighborhoods into "livable" urban nooks."

Now, as a developer I know I’m biased here, but is gentrification really as evil as he makes it out to be?

One of the most insightful comments on the article had the following to say:

"I’ve always maintained that gentrification is what occurs when demand exceeds supply and blight is what occurs when supply exceeds demand."

I like it because it’s a simple way of saying that what we are seeing is a natural market outcome. What’s wrong with somebody wanting to buy a house in a marginal area and fix it up? Can we reasonably expect to stop people from doing this so that wealth never increases within a neighborhood?

The bigger issue, in my view, is rising income inequality. We know that this is becoming more and more of an issue. The benefits to being smart and educated today are huge. So how do we ensure that we’re not creating a society of haves and have-nots?

Let’s figure this out and let people buy whatever homes they want.

One startup that’s been on my radar (which isn’t yet available in Canada) is Nextdoor. They describe themselves as a “private social network for your neighborhood” and are active in more than 22,500 American neighborhoods. To date they’ve raised $100M in venture funding.

From what I can tell, their primary focus (and big value proposition) has been around safety and security. Residents can use it to report incidents, such as a car break in. There are obviously other use cases, but I keep hearing this one come up. And I think it works because the community is so closely controlled. Every address is verified.

But a few things come to mind as I read about their success and growth (400% neighborhood growth over the past year). How many social networks can people handle? Why can’t this be done using an existing platform (and perhaps a closed group)? And is there an opportunity to create the same kind of closed social network for condo and apartment buildings?

There are lots of social networks out there. Whether you’re a wine snob or a pet owner, somebody has thought it. But if Path’s recent struggles are any indication, niche social networks can be tough. Which is why Nextdoor seems like a bit of an outlier to me.

But I think the success of Nextdoor stems from the fact that, even in our hyper connected world, a lot of us, paradoxically, still don’t know the people who live right beside us. And I think this is also the case in multi-family dwellings. It’s a problem I’ve thought about and discussed with an number of my condo-dwelling friends.

So I look forward to seeing how Nextdoor evolves and also seeing if they end up expanding to condos and apartments.