> But there's not much gentrification going on, since Twitter keeps hundreds of staff inside, with free gourmet meals, plus a slew of free services, dry cleaning, even cleaning staff apartments. It is competing with local businesses rather than helping support them — it's the opposite of gentrification.
It's not as if Twitter or Google provide those services via their own full time employees, right? They hire local companies to provide these services. We're talking about catered food from local companies, apartment cleaning from a cleaning company, etc.
If anything, we'd expect a _greater_ level of commerce with local businesses, since employees might not choose to spend their own income on those services. By providing the services to all employees, those companies actually create more demand for local business than would probably otherwise exist.
The fact that they're being provided as benefits is irrelevant - they are increasing demand.
The article seems to ignore this, and as a result it does not make sense to me.
The article is not talking about creating jobs in general, but about cleaning up certain neighborhoods. Nice restaurants aren't opening in the Tederloin because the catering is being brought in from elsewhere in the city.
Having recently visited SF, I can't really say I was impressed with the neighborhoods surrounding these tech companies. If there is a greater level of local commerce happening, it's not apparent visually.
Many people in the Tenderloin actively avoid gentrification[0]. For many of the people who live there, it is a beacon of hope. The one place in the center of many major US cities, where many of the outcasts of modern urban society can still remain in the city. They like their life. They have been living there for years and hope they can continue to live there for many more. There is no delusion that once they give in to gentrification, they will be forced out of the city and most will never again be able to afford living again. And in the process neighbors who have grown up living together in the same place for decades will be ripped apart while they have to move elsewhere, but not in a way where they can preserve the communities they currently have.
If I counted myself among those who have called the Tenderloin home for years, I would despise the people who seek to terraform my home making it inhabitable to me while they make it habitable to themselves.
[0] Read about Carolyn Abst's attempts to arborize the Tenderloin.
You might as well ask why Americans hate Southerners or Southern Californians or Midwesterners. Or why hipsters from Portland and NY are made fun of or why Americans hate Canada and Mexico and Europe and East Asians and of course Central Asians and Semitic people. We're a nation of haters.
I don't personally know a single American that hates Canada or Mexico. In fact, I would say the opinion of Canada is between neutral and quite positive. They've just about never done anything to wrong us, have been a good border partner, and an amazing trade + energy partner.
I also don't know a single person that hates Silicon Valley. Most Americans, in my opinion, are clueless about Silicon Valley, outside of knowing that there are technology companies there. Why? Because the people / culture and politics of Silicon Valley don't matter to them and their day to day lives.
My post was partially tongue in cheek. American's don't universally hate Canada or Mexico or Silicon Valley. In the right context though many of them might sneer at Silicon Valley (or for many at least the ultra-liberal bay area). Ask most Canadians living in the states and you will hear innumerable sad stories of being the butt of not very funny poutine and maple syrup jokes.
I get the sense that this author is misinterpreting what a someone from the Silicon Valley means when they say they're going to change the world. To the silicon valley, "to change" means "to improve by eliminating inefficiency."
If the complaint is that the Silicon Valley should be more charitable, the author is missing the purpose of their goal. Charity rarely, if ever, improves efficiency and often detracts from it.
I'm not trying say that charity is wrong. It's just the wrong standard of success in this case.
It's not as if Twitter or Google provide those services via their own full time employees, right? They hire local companies to provide these services. We're talking about catered food from local companies, apartment cleaning from a cleaning company, etc.
If anything, we'd expect a _greater_ level of commerce with local businesses, since employees might not choose to spend their own income on those services. By providing the services to all employees, those companies actually create more demand for local business than would probably otherwise exist.
The fact that they're being provided as benefits is irrelevant - they are increasing demand.
The article seems to ignore this, and as a result it does not make sense to me.