I don’t live far from one of the larger public parks around our area and it’s pretty much the same. Looking at the rates they start around $175 for weekdays and $225 for weekends for a size that accommodates up to 150 people. Of course this particular park also has some other amenities and buildings that can be rented for somewhat more. Other than that there is a park entrance fee (not all our public parks have this) per car and you can wander around, see the sights, enjoy the outdoors, have a picnic, take pictures, whatever from 7am to dusk.
I get the outrage if it is literally +$200 for me to go to the park and sit on the grass, but that map kind of shows a much different reality. As far as large groups or other people who have rented a space they have signed an agreement with the county to use that space and by interfering it is possible to have the police called and to be escorted from the park. Of course that works both ways and if your wedding gets out of control the police can just as easy come to haul the bridal party away. Parks aren’t quite utilized here the same way as a major city, green space isn’t something of a premium.
Brentwood All American Burger, circa 1981. A ban on smoking in restaurants was proposed in 1973 by resident and Councilman Marvin Braude. Only in 1993 did the rest of L.A City Council get on board, and even then the restaurant owners were dragged in coughing and wheezing.
People lived there before the urban pioneers (probably the only use of “urban” that implies white people, not black). Poor families, usually, but real people whose lives were made worse by having to move further away because they could no longer afford their own neighborhood.
I think this is patently untrue. Gentrification is not simply a result of passive processes, and It’s important IMHO to separate the passive forces involved in change from the active, coordinated, powerful, greed-driven ones involved in Gentrification. It’s easy to say that the first handful of people moving into an area that has a different ethnic/socioeconomic background are “part of a larger movement” or pushing a place down “it’s current path” in hindsight. But that’s pretty unfair to people, who, most likely, moved to a place either because the rents were affordable (and want it to stay that way) or because the neighborhood is diverse (and want it to stay that way).
Change =/= Gentrification with a capital “G.” Fools resist change. Change is inevitable, natural and can be positive. Gentrification is not natural. It’s a result of either the failure to enact regulation that protects poor people, or the coordinated actions of greedy people who want to exclude and remove them to enrich themselves. Gentrification hurts people, makes their lives untenable, makes their housing, health and general welfare tenuous.
There is a difference between paying for goods and services, and paying for human labour. I think we will eventually have to find out where the line is drawn, because this “Uber for < something >” trend is sending workers back to the middle ages.
I want to say “Just don’t go to the park”, which i just did. But i do understand that is the consequence and crux of the matter with gentrification. I don’t pretend to know how to even begin to address this kind of problem. I’m assuming that the city is the one who is running this reservation system for the park, or perhaps someone else who is cutting the city into the profits. This revenue flow would make it very difficult for the city to want to stop these pay-to-play type of deals. It’s disgusting and it will most likely become more common as more areas become more densely populated across the US/world.
Yeah, I’m not sure I understand the issue here, I guess its just new? Properly managed, it can be a good thing and a good source of revenue for the park system. The park near me has an offleash dog area, soccer field, hockey arena, two baseball diamonds, a pool, a splash pad, a community garden, a skate path, and a multiuse room you can rent for events. 99% is free to use. Park usage fees help pay for this stuff. (key words in all that “properly managed” - don’t let them turn your public parks into pay for play parks!)
You don’t need coordination. All realtors reading on BoingBoing that district X is the new cool and acting accordingly, is not coordination. Coordination is when developers flatten a neighbourhood for town-approved “regeneration” projects, and more often than not it fails spectacularly.
Gentrification is not coordinated, that’s the whole point: it’s an organic process due to aspirational forces. If you value (or in fact idolise, as people currently do) aspiration and social climbing, then gentrification is inevitable.
That’s my whole quote. You took the second part of the “OR.”
And perhaps I have a lower bar for what is considered “coordinated.” Real Estate agents have common political and social goals, they even have industry groups that push their agenda. Being a part of these organizations, and not speaking against their deleterious effects on neighborhoods and poor and working class people is “coordinated.” I intended to separate the two into A) the industries - like real estate - who profit from Capital “G” gentrification and B) people just moving to a place because they like it there. Industries in category A may leverage the actions of category B, but that doesn’t make category B complicit, and it certainly doesn’t mean that category A’s actions are “inevitable” or “natural.”
Dolores Park has picnic table areas for rent, this is renting the large green grass areas. The large users who have been prompting stuff like this have been corporate parties held by startups.
Dolores park has been jam packed for YEARS. No one started complaining until people started holding the reservations and using it to exclude others. There was an existing system in place called first come first served, and everyone operated fairly well under that structure. This depends more on whether you think corporate activities should be able to expclue the gen public (or if you believe corps are poeple too and have the same rights) IMO. Cus even on a first come first served basis, well, tech will just pay people to stake out their spots. Goodbye Dolores, maybe I will still see you once in a while at Mass.
I went to the SF Parks website to see for myself. I’d like to stick it to the Man as much as anybody, but it ain’t as bad as this article makes it seem. If you have a party of 25 or less, you can have your pick-a-nick anyplace you want in Dolores Park for free (anyplace that’s not already reserved, that is). The $260 applies to corporate events of 100 people or more.
Howz about a little research before the next alarmist call to battle?
If you look at the new stadium area for downtown Detroit, the gentrification there is absolutely being planned for. For example, they’re building a train that doesn’t connect to any of the rest of the city or anywhere outside. Ayn Rand Walled Skyscraperville is the obvious goal, not some sort of accidental side effect.
As I said: “properly managed” - I sound like a broken record… but in Toronto’s park system… commercial and private company events in parks are very limited. Big events/festivals must be in support of charities or non-profits, ie: they cannot be solely for profit. And we have very specific areas for picnics/BBQs that can be reserved for large groups that are away from general use areas.
I think giving large groups an area to reserve and use away from the general usage area would be a good thing and would decrease altercations… no? Am I being too optimistic?
True, but there are other for-profit systems out there that have yet to be touched. Jails, detention centers, property seizure by police in some states, etc.
Not saying nothing can be done but there’s little incentive to do so on a government level and with enough back dealing it can remain in place for a long time before voters are able to force a change.
I’ve been seeing first hand the gentrification in Austin and i can easily see shit like this park thing happen here. I’m not thrilled and i’m at a loss as to what can be done as it just seems like it’s inevitable.
Well, ulitmately the problem is that the park is SUPER crowded on many days. Any reservation system is going to impact a lot of people. So unless the city starts limiting headcount at the park, or substantially raises the fee for making the green private and can show the public some sort of benefit it is an overuse issue that there is no simple fix for that I know of.
I’ve hung around open space advocacy for a while, and when the demand is way way higher than the supply for a public resource, there are no easy answers, IMO.
You ain’t kidding there! Cities need parks! More parks, more green space, more recreation space, just more parks. No matter the city, you need more parks. SanFran used to be my favourite city to visit in the USofA, but I haven’t been since the mid-90s. I imagine a lot has changed…
Port Covington in Baltimore has the same feel to it. They’ve just asked for and received approval for a tax increment financing deal of $535 million. I recognize the good that Under Armor has been for the city, and I know that their CEO has long been pro-Baltimore, but that’s a whole hell of a lot of money going to capital “D” developers.
