Gentrification Fears Threaten to Derail Mission Street Improvements

City efforts to make more room for walking and transit on Mission Street are being fought by some residents who think they’ll exacerbate gentrification. Image: Planning Department

Mission District residents who equate streetscape improvements with rising rents dominated a community meeting discussion yesterday about public space upgrades along Mission Street.

It was the Planning Department’s latest public meeting about its Mission Street Public Life Plan, an effort to envision Mission Street “as a vital transit corridor with art, commerce and new public spaces for people to enjoy,” encompassing Mission outside of downtown (from South Van Ness Avenue to Randall Street).

The plan would complement other efforts from the SFMTA to convert two traffic lanes into Muni-only lanes and install bulb-outs to improve pedestrian safety and streamline bus boardings. But residents who spoke up in the question-and-answer session seemed to fervently oppose any upgrades, especially beautification efforts like trees and art that helped transform nearby Valencia Street years ago.

Trees, benches, and other sidewalk amenities were blamed for the skyrocketing rents, evictions, and demographic shifts in the neighborhood. Little distinction was made between those and upgrades for transit and pedestrian safety.

One resident, Tom Stolmer, called the streetscape plan a “thinly veiled effort to exploit the Mission into a theme park for Google.”

“It’s just another way to bring gentrification,” John Mendoza of Calle 24, a group of Latino merchants and residents in the neighborhood around the 24th Street commercial corridor, told Streetsblog. “If they don’t get it one way, they’ll come in the back door. If they don’t come in the back door, they’ll come in the window.”

Calle 24 President Erick Arguello said “people are now suspicious” of the city’s agenda since planners hadn’t previously launched street improvement efforts when residents pushed for them in past decades. When streetscape improvements started going in on 24th Street, he said it resulted in rising rents, leading Calle 24 to push for a halt to any street upgrade efforts. “We saw the buildings go up for sale, we saw the prospecting coming in,” he said.

“We don’t see it as the right time to do this,” said Arguello. “We see anything that’s going to draw development to the area as a threat — any time we do any improvements to any street, whether it’s bulb-outs or anything else.”

“Our priority is to stabilize, protect, and preserve our corridor, the Latino cultural district, first,” he added.

When asked if he would support only the bus-only lanes on Mission, Arguello said, “It doesn’t just come with that. It comes with art, it comes with trees.”

Last summer, Calle 24 successfully pushed to get 24th removed from the highly popular Sunday Streets route. Arguello told Streetsblog at the time that residents felt there are too many events held on the street, and that merchants no longer wanted to pay high permitting fees to serve food outside. Calle 24 also opposed sidewalk extensions on nearby Potrero Avenue because, Arguello said at the time, “I never see people on Potrero” and “parking is really important.”

James Rojas, an urban planner who studies Latino neighborhoods and attended yesterday’s meeting, said the gentrification fears about improving streets seem to be misplaced.

“The whole idea is to think about pedestrian safety and improving the public right-of-way,” said Rojas. “Gentrification is going to happen with or without those improvements.”

The most vocal speakers at the meeting didn’t talk about streetscapes, but urged Planning Department staff to focus on efforts to ensure the tenancy of existing residents, and complained that their input seemed to be ignored.

In response, Ilaria Salvadori of the Planning Department’s City Design Group told the crowd that the streetscape plan was specifically focused on public space, not housing policy.

After several attendees insisted that “the community” didn’t want the beautification improvements, Salvadori said tree plantings and sidewalk improvements could be held off. “This plan was an opportunity to do more” than transit and pedestrian safety upgrades, she said. “If the community doesn’t want to do more, we don’t do more.”

It’s unclear how widespread the resistance to streetscape changes is, as even opponents argued that attendance at the meeting seemed somewhat sparse and not representative of the neighborhood’s demographics. The Planning Department is still collecting survey results, though opponents complained that the questions were specific to the plan and didn’t allow them to provide broader feedback.

Shirley Johnson, a Mission resident and bicycle advocate, said she felt too intimidated to voice her support for the Planning Department’s efforts in the meeting discussion.

“I think people are concerned about rising rents, and that’s understandable,” she said. “But I think everybody deserves trees and nice things, no matter what neighborhood you’re in. The neighborhood needs to be safe for pedestrians and safe for people walking down the street at night.”

“Walking and public transit use are an important means of mobility for this community,” Rojas wrote in an essay about how Mission residents use the streets. He continued:

The area is well served both by BART Rail and Muni buses. Its relatively flat topography makes walking easier than in most SF neighborhoods. This creates a flurry of activity from people walking to and from the public transit, Latinas pushing strollers, kids riding bikes and people walking to and from business. These mobility patterns impact and set the stage for the area’s do-it-yourself economic and urban design patterns.

“How you enhance the public right-of-way is another process,” Rojas told Streetsblog, “how you make sure the community really knows what’s going on here.”

  • NoeValleyJim

    We sure stopped a bunch of freeways from being built. My guess is that poorer, disenfranchised communities did not speak up because their residents were not involved in the political process.

  • Erick Arguello

    In our area residents that are driving in are working class who go to the mom and pop immigrant business’s,non-profit services and local churches mostly Latino. We hear from the service non-profits and the immigrant business owners. I don’t know where the wealthier car drivers are going, maybe Valencia. I don’t have that info. We also hear about the overcrowding on buses that have made it dangerous for many that ride the buses on Mission St. We supported to keep the Bryant bus twice and added the 5 to 24th. Many seniors and persons with disability showed up to a public meeting with the MTA and expressed their concerns about walking further (26 Valencia).
    Thats an issue that needs to be addressed. I appreciate your opinions and ideas.

  • NoeValleyJim

    By skipping stops, Muni can run faster and carry more people with the same number of buses and drivers. This makes the buses less crowded. That is the main idea of TEP. The City can get more service for the same amount of money. People with disability already have a very excellent paratransit service.

    Car drivers are wealthier statistically than bus riders, I can show you the evidence if you like.

  • Erick Arguello

    I agree. Does it also include ethnic and gender breakdowns? Growing up in the Mission buying a car was a sign of success for many immigrant and chicano families. Not a luxury car but anything on 4 wheels. The low rider culture comes from that prospective. Pride and culture. Later It also became a way to keep young men busy and off the streets. Today the lowriders are making a comeback in the Mission. They are visible at events and are cruising 24th and Mission St. on a more of a regular basis and making a political statement.

    The car culture is deep in our community, and not to say we don’t take the bus or do both or ride a bike.

    We also have many seniors who ride the bus in our neighborhood and we need to look at how effective these changes have been or not for everyone in the community, young and old and within different cultures.

  • murphstahoe

    “residents that are driving in”

    I think that’s a contradiction.

  • murphstahoe

    “Later It also became a way to keep young men busy and off the streets.”

    I find it very odd that a car… is something that keeps people *off* the streets.

  • Erick Arguello

    In our culture “Staying off the streets” means staying out of trouble.

    They spend a lot of time repairing the cars and creating murals on them. Keeps them focused on something positive that gives them pride in them selves and community. Bonding with others in a positive way.

  • NoeValleyJim

    I agree with what you are saying here.

  • Christopher Champion

    “It’s unclear how widespread the resistance to streetscape changes is, as even opponents argued that attendance at the meeting seemed somewhat sparse and not representative of the neighborhood’s demographics”

    As the saying goes you opinion does not count if you do not vote.
    If the 10 people at this meeting where against it the city is not going to go through with this plan.

  • chompsky

    You do realize this is about Mission st., right?

  • SFnative74

    I vote for leaving Mission St alone, other than safety improvements at any intersections where there is a crash problem. I walked down it the other day and it was actually a nice contrast from Valencia St.

  • tiredSFer

    you mean other than rent control?

  • jd_x

    Erick, you are missing how statistics work. Nobody is saying there aren’t low-income residents of the Mission who drive. However, since it’s a proven fact that low-income residents are a higher percentage of public transit users than they are motorists, helping public transit over cars will always be a *net* benefit for the low-income community. Of course, some (those who drive) will lose out in this situation, but many more will be helped. So if you care about the low-income community at-large, it makes no sense to prioritize car transit over public transit. You should be the first and foremost advocate for better public transit over more space and resources devoted to private automobiles.

    I honestly don’t know if you just don’t understand this or if you have ulterior motives. Either way, what you are saying is irrational.

  • NoeValleyJim

    Why do you refuse to answer the question? Get an account if you want to have a serious debate with someone. It is impossible to have a discussion with the multiple people posting under “Guest”.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

This Week: A People-Friendly Mission Street

|
It’s a light week on the Streetsblog calendar — here are the highlights: Wednesday: The SFMTA and Planning Department will hold an open house community meeting on Mission Street’s proposed transit and pedestrian upgrades, which have faced resistance from residents who fear they’ll exacerbate gentrification. 6 p.m. Saturday: Bike alongside Andy Thornley, the SF Bicycle Coalition’s former policy director, for another edition of Andy’s […]

This Week: A Deluge of Transportation Planning Meetings

|
It’s the week before Thanksgiving, which means it’s time for city agencies to pack in a last-minute flood of community meetings before the holiday season. The SFMTA will host meetings on Market Street car restrictions and transit lanes, upgrades for the Muni 8X-Bayshore Express, and another public workshop about designs for a protected bikeway on […]

Some Residents Urge City to Make Bolder Safety Upgrades on Potrero

|
The city’s latest proposal to improve safety and transit service on Potrero Avenue is slightly different than earlier versions of the plan. While the redesign would expand pedestrian space, some residents at a public meeting yesterday pointed out that it could do much more to make the street safer for biking and walking. Staff from the Department […]