Hollow City brings up extremely interesting opinions and ideas about the gentrification of San Francisco. The idea of a hollow city at all is a very intriguing concept. Solnit and Schwartzenberg give so many examples of the types of people Ferlinghetti and Ginsberg write about as central to the San Franciscan culture being turned onto the streets or driven from the city entirely. It is a heartbreaking situation. If all the “angelheaded hipsters,” “men with burlap feet,” beatniks, and winos are expelled from the city, what is left but yuppies and empty buildings? It seems that those who made San Francisco great as a mythological and socially desirable places will no longer inhabit it. As the authors predict, there will be black culture, but no black people. This goes for all non-yuppie traditions. There will sushi bars with no Japanese, Latino restaurants with no Latinos, reggae clubs with no Rastafarians, etc. These are not the types of people who will commute into the city for the work like laborers or dot-com employees. They will take their art, culture, and social views elsewhere, leaving San Francisco (to borrow from Professor Wilson) a spectral city.
The photography with accompanying stories is what makes this book impressive and effective. Tracking certain trends is common enough, but she took the time to gather photos and personally interview hundreds of people about their experiences in the hollowing of San Francisco. This is what drives the points home. Seeing poor, elderly people and low-income families driven from their homes simply because there is more money to be made is heartbreaking. Stories like Ira Nowinski’s, being evicted the same day he was mugged for the four cents he was carrying from his long-time home, are especially poignant. This book is an incredible look into the changing city and what it might mean for the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Sadie –
I agree with your assessment of the Solnit’s work and how it is infinitely more powerful due to her research, interviews, and photo journalism. Most people can discuss the down fall of contemporary society due to gentrification but Solnit addresses issues I think are often over looked. She identifies everyone as active participants. Issues of gentrification, economic squeeze, and homogenization are not the sole results of dot-comers. She addresses that fact that the issues break gender, race, age, and sexuality lines. Being queer or a minority does not justify immoral behavior, poor social etiquette, or simple lack of action or community participation. She cites specifically Leslie Katz a lesbian who proposed no limitation for growth of space for Internet companies and Amos Brown and African American city official involved with a scandalous eviction of a family in one of his buildings. I applaud her for saying and attacking some groups or people that others might be hesitant to criticizes. She additionally adds that their does exists dot-comers who are socially active and only want to make enough money so they may leave and take up more socially redeeming jobs such as teaching. Granted it is often a loop sided relationship, the battle in San Francisco is not strictly us versus them and it is refreshing hear Solnit address this.
I also agree with your assessment of Solnit's work as made that much more captivating and poignant by her interviews and photojournalism. Ira Nowinski was almost difficult to look at--his pain is so evident. There is something about looking at that kind of loneliness that is just devastating, and I think Stolin both intended to and succeeded in capturing that.
Post a Comment