Gentrification—more wealthy people moving into lower-income communities—often faces opposition, sometimes for the wrong reasons. It is important to consider all benefits and costs when formulating urban development policies.
There’s very little that differentiates proposals by four distinguished planning and design firms to better connect my university to its immediate neighborhood and the wider city. Why is that, and does it have to be that way?
In an attempt to combat prohibitively high housing costs in California, some look to repeal the 1995 state law that limits the power of local rent control ordinances. However, removing those restrictions would likely exaggerate current problems.
Measure S gives city leaders a moderately satisfying smack across the face. As satisfying as that may be, Measure S is remarkably bad planning and development policy at the expense of the vast majority of Angelinos.
After San Francisco Supervisors reject housing moratorium, proponents vow ballot initiative. But a moratorium is the wrong solution to the problem and would likely lead to continued price increases, condo conversions, and Ellis Act evictions.
The evolution of the development agreement reveals how its proliferation as a land use tool is a symptom of a larger struggle between increasingly complicated land use regulations, the public’s conflicting goals, and developers’ desire for certainty
The income of original residents is more important to the gentrification debate than any opposition to luxury development or price controls. We need to begin to embed income inequality within the gentrification debate.