Chase Center

[Scoots1994]

It has close to a million residents and is the hub of the Bay Area. It’s also, as you mentioned, highly dense and very urban. By population it’s one of the 15 biggest cities in the US.

The biggest factor in the displacement of low-income folks in the US and globally has been the rise of the new urbanism movement which has reversed the trend of white flight to the suburbs. It’s primarily fed by the real estate industry now feasting on urban areas that it sucked value out of and is now inflating. In places like SF the tech industry has been allowed and even incentivized to come and basically take over the town. It’s well compensated employees have displaced a lot of the existing population. The demographics of that industry are disproportionately white and Asian and so you see that reflected in the population changes. SF has always had a large Asian population, BTW.

I’m a big fan of cities but I also believe that local government should manage economic growth so that it benefits existing residents and is sustainable over time.

Sorry to get too political but I do wish large corporations like the Warriors were more responsible and sensitive towards the communities that they operate within. In this case I think making ticket prices more accessible would make for a better product (a more energized arena) and also be a thoughtful PR move.

SF has always had a large asian community, but not 35%. And any city where parking for a day EASILY exceeds $50 everything is going to be expensive. I don't have a problem with corporations going where they can make the most money. I'm sure they will have a lot of promotions that amount to hundreds of cheap tickets a game, they just won't likely be at the gate. The Santa Cruz Warriors are still a cheap ticket.

City leaders are tasked with improving the city, improving the city makes it more desirable to live in, more desirable cities get wealthier people moving in, those wealthy people have more money to spend so the services around them upscale to serve them, that leads to rent getting more expensive and some low end businesses choosing to move on rather than continue in a market that has moved away from them, rinse and repeat. Even cities where there is extreme efforts to "maintain the existing residents" like Berkeley eventually fail. It's just too expensive to live in the bay area and be poor anymore. Heck, gas is a regular measure of where the market in an area really is ... I did a 4500 mile road trip and the DIFFERENCE from the highest gas I saw in the bay to the cheapest gas I saw was $2.91. It was $2.91 PER gallon cheaper to get gas in the middle of the country than the most expensive place I saw in the bay area.

Leadership in CA has made it progressively one of the most expensive and difficult places to live, and that is driving out middle class people too, and they are being replaced by wealthier people.

[wco81]

The urban thing started with the dot com boom and bust in the late ‘90s.

Tech startups attracted college graduates from across the country and they didn’t want to live in the burbs, but rather in the City.

Then they came to work for big companies like Google and Apple around 2010 and large startups like FB.

Again they wanted place with nightlife, places open after midnight rather than shutting down at 9 or 10 PM. They were willing to commute down to the Valley to live in SF. Even when the big companies hadn’t started providing those free buses down the Peninsula.

[Scoots1994]

The urban thing started with the dot com boom and bust in the late ‘90s.

Tech startups attracted college graduates from across the country and they didn’t want to live in the burbs, but rather in the City.

Then they came to work for big companies like Google and Apple around 2010 and large startups like FB.

Again they wanted place with nightlife, places open after midnight rather than shutting down at 9 or 10 PM. They were willing to commute down to the Valley to live in SF. Even when the big companies hadn’t started providing those free buses down the Peninsula.

But it's been happening since well before the 90s. It maybe accelerated then but it's been getting bad for a long time. Several bay area cities put rent control starting in the 70s.

[KevinMcreynolds]

It's always unfortunate when passionate fans are priced out of a venue, and I'm definitely bummed that Oakland is losing a real community asset. That being said, Chase Center is a long-term gigantic plus for the franchise. The new arena will guarantee enough cash to field whatever team the front office is able to put together. There won't be any luxury tax worries so long as Lacob and crew run the show. They'll have the means to do everything possible under the rules to compete, and it should stay that way for many years to come.

And, it looks like they did a great job on the arena itself. The seats, in general, are closer to the floor than Oracle. The ceiling is lower than Oracle. It should be a loud place, if the crowd shows any enthusiasm at all. Transportation will eventually sort itself out, but it could be a mess initially.

The arena itself is really impressive looking and the views looking over the bay should be really beautiful.

I’ll keep my fingers crossed regarding the energy in the arena but also hope that a super rich team like this can innovate in how to make games accessible to lower-income fans who are going to get excluded from the games if some real solutions aren’t figured out. SF has the lowest percentage of African Americans of any big city in the US (less than 5% of the city’s residents!) and those that do live here are the lowest earning of any demographic group. One of the best things about Oracle before the team blew up was how diverse the crowd was and how truly representative of the Bay Area. As ticket prices climbed the crowd became more monochromatic and, honestly, less fun.

Lightyears should also mean striving to serve all of the fan base not just rich bros. Don’t be like the tech sector Dubs!

First, sports has been too expensive for the majority of people for a long time, it's nothing new.

That's interesting about the lack of diversity of SF. You said "any big city" ... SF isn't all that "big" in square miles or population. It is the 2nd highest in density though. Asian people make up nearly 35% of SF population, so it seems they are "pushing out" everybody else as they are by far the fastest growing group.

SF was too damn expensive in the 70s and it's just insane now. We need to find ways to get people to move out of cities, and to stop having to go there for things ... ever.

To me, it wasn't expensive at all 20 years ago, let alone the 70's. When I moved there in 1998 I had a huge bedroom in a victorian in the heart of The Mission for $450 a month. I made 12 bucks an hour and lived comfortably. Now kids are paying $800 a month to SHARE a room way out in Park Merced.

[likemycurryhot]

The arena itself is really impressive looking and the views looking over the bay should be really beautiful.

I’ll keep my fingers crossed regarding the energy in the arena but also hope that a super rich team like this can innovate in how to make games accessible to lower-income fans who are going to get excluded from the games if some real solutions aren’t figured out. SF has the lowest percentage of African Americans of any big city in the US (less than 5% of the city’s residents!) and those that do live here are the lowest earning of any demographic group. One of the best things about Oracle before the team blew up was how diverse the crowd was and how truly representative of the Bay Area. As ticket prices climbed the crowd became more monochromatic and, honestly, less fun.

Lightyears should also mean striving to serve all of the fan base not just rich bros. Don’t be like the tech sector Dubs!

First, sports has been too expensive for the majority of people for a long time, it's nothing new.

That's interesting about the lack of diversity of SF. You said "any big city" ... SF isn't all that "big" in square miles or population. It is the 2nd highest in density though. Asian people make up nearly 35% of SF population, so it seems they are "pushing out" everybody else as they are by far the fastest growing group.

SF was too damn expensive in the 70s and it's just insane now. We need to find ways to get people to move out of cities, and to stop having to go there for things ... ever.

To me, it wasn't expensive at all 20 years ago, let alone the 70's. When I moved there in 1998 I had a huge bedroom in a victorian in the heart of The Mission for $450 a month. I made 12 bucks an hour and lived comfortably. Now kids are paying $800 a month to SHARE a room way out in Park Merced.

Ha, your story is my story, KevinMcReynolds. In 1992 I moved into a beautiful Victorian in the Mission for $350 a month and lived the life on a part-time job. Them were the days. Things started going off the rails in the late 90’s and got completely wrecked during the last 10 years. At least we have the Dubs.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

It has close to a million residents and is the hub of the Bay Area. It’s also, as you mentioned, highly dense and very urban. By population it’s one of the 15 biggest cities in the US.

The biggest factor in the displacement of low-income folks in the US and globally has been the rise of the new urbanism movement which has reversed the trend of white flight to the suburbs. It’s primarily fed by the real estate industry now feasting on urban areas that it sucked value out of and is now inflating. In places like SF the tech industry has been allowed and even incentivized to come and basically take over the town. It’s well compensated employees have displaced a lot of the existing population. The demographics of that industry are disproportionately white and Asian and so you see that reflected in the population changes. SF has always had a large Asian population, BTW.

I’m a big fan of cities but I also believe that local government should manage economic growth so that it benefits existing residents and is sustainable over time.

Sorry to get too political but I do wish large corporations like the Warriors were more responsible and sensitive towards the communities that they operate within. In this case I think making ticket prices more accessible would make for a better product (a more energized arena) and also be a thoughtful PR move.

The biggest factor in the displacement of poor people is zoning and Nimbyism. The Suburban zoning was a bigger than San Francisco's Zoning. People commute from San Francisco to Silicon Valley because there were not affordable apartments and ambience in Silicon Valley.

The city of Santa Clara may be the worst offending city in the Bay Area. It created all those offices without adding housing. Santa Clara wanted the tax revenue from the offices without having to pay for schools. Collectively all the suburbs drove up housing by trying to retain their character, resist growth and keep housing for poor people out of their towns.

Most of the homeless people could afford SROs but the cities and towns everywhere banned housing of that most affordable type of housing.

The state with their growth boundaries and the conservationists with their open space made things worse.
The Bay Area vast quantities of open space and barely used grazing land while people commute from what used to be good farm land near Modesto is environmtaly crazy..

Zoning insanity is raising home prices all across the USA including in rural areas and also in New Zealand and the other English speaking countries. High paid tech workers and free market did not create these home in an area with plenty of empty land, government created "artificial scarcity" is responsible for the high housing prices. The Bay Area is one of the most extreme examples of artificially inflated home prices. Vancouver is more extreme because they have less people and more vacant land. Jackson Hole Wyoming is even more extreme. Californians voted for a housing crises and homelessness.

Sorry for the politics

[wco81]

Actually the city of Santa Clara is more affordable than surrounding burbs.

And people aren't choosing to live in SF because it's cheaper. It might have been in the mid '90s but that quickly reversed.

Now you hear stories about people living in vans or RVs in the Google parking lot despite making high salaries. It's not that these people can't afford the $4000 rents here. They may instead be choosing to not pay those rents, at least maybe to amass a down payment or just until they make their stock compensation and then maybe quit and leave the area.

[likemycurryhot]

It has close to a million residents and is the hub of the Bay Area. It’s also, as you mentioned, highly dense and very urban. By population it’s one of the 15 biggest cities in the US.

The biggest factor in the displacement of low-income folks in the US and globally has been the rise of the new urbanism movement which has reversed the trend of white flight to the suburbs. It’s primarily fed by the real estate industry now feasting on urban areas that it sucked value out of and is now inflating. In places like SF the tech industry has been allowed and even incentivized to come and basically take over the town. It’s well compensated employees have displaced a lot of the existing population. The demographics of that industry are disproportionately white and Asian and so you see that reflected in the population changes. SF has always had a large Asian population, BTW.

I’m a big fan of cities but I also believe that local government should manage economic growth so that it benefits existing residents and is sustainable over time.

Sorry to get too political but I do wish large corporations like the Warriors were more responsible and sensitive towards the communities that they operate within. In this case I think making ticket prices more accessible would make for a better product (a more energized arena) and also be a thoughtful PR move.

The biggest factor in the displacement of poor people is zoning and Nimbyism. The Suburban zoning was a bigger than San Francisco's Zoning. People commute from San Francisco to Silicon Valley because there were not affordable apartments and ambience in Silicon Valley.

The city of Santa Clara may be the worst offending city in the Bay Area. It created all those offices without adding housing. Santa Clara wanted the tax revenue from the offices without having to pay for schools. Collectively all the suburbs drove up housing by trying to retain their character, resist growth and keep housing for poor people out of their towns.

Most of the homeless people could afford SROs but the cities and towns everywhere banned housing that most affordable type of housing.

The state with their growth boundaries and the conservationists with their open space made things worse.
The Bay Area vast quantities of open space and barely used grazing land while people commute from what used to be good farm land near Modesto is environmtaly crazy..

Zoning insanity is raising home prices all across the USA including in rural areas and also in New Zealand and the other English speaking countries. High paid tech workers and free market did not create these home in an area with plenty of empty land, government created "artificial scarcity" is responsible for the high housing prices. The Bay Area is one of the most extreme examples of artificially inflated home prices. Vancouver is more extreme because they have less people and more vacant land. Jackson Hole Wyoming is even more extreme. Californians voted for a housing crises and homelessness.

Sorry for the politics

I am going to disagree with you about the causes of displacement but, since this is a basketball forum, I'll spare you and everyone else a long winded diatribe. I will, however, recommend How To Kill A City by Peter Moskowitz as a really concise and readable analysis of what's going on in urban places around the globe. Anywho, its somewhat heartening that at least some of y'all are thinking about this stuff since housing policy doesn't seem to be important enough to discuss in any of our Presidential debates. I guess its not that important.

Cheers!