The First Cycle of Gentrification in West Oakland, California: 1998-2008

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The First Cycle of Gentrification in West Oakland, California: 1998-2008 THE FIRST CYCLE OF GENTRIFICATION IN WEST OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA: 1998-2008 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of The requirements for The degree Master of Arts In Geography By Jason Neil Zimmerman April 2009 ii THE FIRST CYCLE OF GENTRIFICATION IN WEST OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA: 1998-2008 Jason Zimmerman San Francisco State University 2009 Gentrification is a complex process of urban change in which higher-income residents and commercial uses replace those of lower socioeconomic status. This thesis examines the process of gentrification between 1998 and 2008 in West Oakland, California, describing the transformations that occurred in the area and the extent to which gentrification is represented by these changes. West Oakland did gentrify, albeit in a slower and less dramatic manner than was expected. Increased land values and residential displacement, combined with an influx of wealthier residents, highlighted these shifts. However, it is a neighborhood to which wealthier residents and large developer capital came later than other nearby neighborhoods. Factors including local government development policy, community involvement in the redevelopment of the neighborhood, and city housing policies altered the course and arguably limited the extent of gentrification in West Oakland. Today West Oakland can be seen as a neighborhood that remains vulnerable to gentrification while at the same time it is a place of last resort for large flows of capital to settle and enact a process of gentrification. ii iii TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction……………………………………………………………….….........1 II. Significance of Research…………………...…………………………………..15 III. Study Area Background……………………………...…………………………18 IV. A Review of the Literature…………………………………..…………….......31 1. Uneven Development in Cities…………………………..…………..........32 2. Defining Gentrification………………………….……..………………...….35 3. Human Agency Versus Structural Arguments…………..……………….38 4. Suburbanization and the Rediscovery of the City……………..………...43 5. Three Waves of Gentrification……..………………………………………48 6. Third Wave Gentrification, Global Economy and Neoliberal Politics…..55 7. The Undiscovered Parts of the City…………………………………...….59 8. New Assessments of Gentrification…………………………………...….61 V. Research Methods…………………………………………………………........66 VI. Findings…………………………………………………………………….........73 1. Measuring Gentrification…………………………………………………...75 a. Housing and Home/Rental Price Change…………………………..….76 b. Eviction Data………………………………………………………….…..80 c. Income Data………………………………………………………….…...85 d. Ethnic Composition in West Oakland…………………………….…….88 iii iv e. Educational Attainment and Consumption Patterns……………………92 2. Factors Influencing Gentrification in West Oakland………………………..95 a. Geographic Proximity to Boom-Related Employment Centers………..95 b. Supply and Type of Housing in West Oakland…………………….……97 c. The Aftermath of the Cypress Freeway Collapse…………………....…98 d. The 10k Plan…………………………………….………………...……...104 e. The West Oakland Redevelopment Area……………………………...110 1. Community Participation in Redevelopment………………….…...110 2. Housing Policy in the WERP……………………………….…….....122 f. Community Influence in Land Use/ Gentrification……………….........128 VII. Discussion………………………………...………………………………........134 1. The First Cycle of Gentrification in West Oakland……………………......134 2. Shaping Land Use and Housing Policy for the Future……………...…....141 3. Theoretical Implications and Further Research…………………………...147 VIII. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………......153 IX. Appendices……………………………………………………………………...157 X. References……………………………………………………………………....159 iv v List of Tables Table 1. Oakland Population By Ethnicity………………………….….…………..21 Table 2a. Renter-Occupied Units by Percentage of Total Units.……....……....83 Table 2b. Renter-Occupied Units by Number of Units. .………………...……....83 Table 2c. Owner-Occupied Units by Percentage of Total Units…………...…....83 Table 2d. Owner-Occupied Units by Number of Units. …………….……...…....83 Table 3a. West Oakland Household Income ……….……………………….......87 Table 3b. West Oakland Household Income ……….……………………….......87 Table 4. Average Vehicles Per Household…………………………………….....93 Table 5. Median Household Income…………………………………………......124 Table 6. Oakland Foreclosure Rates…………………………………………….134 v vi List of Figures Figure 1. Oakland Within the Bay Area………………………………………………3 Figure 2. West Oakland, CA………………………………………………………....10 Figure 3. Urban Renewal Projects and Transportation Construction Through West Oakland………….…………………………….……………………………..….13 Figure 4. Residential Security Map of Oakland, 1956.……………..…................23 Figure 5. Zip Code Map of West Oakland and Adjacent Areas.…………….......71 Figure 6. Active and Major Development Projects………………………………..100 Figure 7. West Oakland Opportunity Sites for RFQ February 2008…………...103 Figure 8. 10K Plan Oakland Housing Developments……………………………105 Figure 9. Redevelopment Boundaries in West Oakland………………………...111 Figure 10. Eminent Domain in the West Oakland Redevelopment Area………117 Figure 11. Oakland Redevelopment Areas……………………………………....119 Figure 12. West Oakland Household Median Income Percentage Change 1990-2000 By Census Block Group………………………………………………..136 vi vii List of Appendices Appendix 1. Interview Subjects……………………………………………………..157 Appendix 2. Interview Questions…………………………………………………...157 vii 1 I. Introduction This is an upcoming area. Beautiful victorians, artists everywhere, lofts all at reasonable prices for the bay area. Where else can you get a 5000 sq foot lot with a 2000 square foot victorian at or under $600k? All 7-10 minutes from San Francisco. Bart is just around the corner and there is an almost private onramp that puts you directly to the fast track lane. - (craigslist.org 2007) Gentrification is a complex process of change in the urban environment that is often accompanied by polarizing debates about the revitalization of urban neighborhoods. Researchers describe gentrification essentially as a process by which higher-income households and more affluent commercial users displace those of lower economic standing. Neighborhoods that were for decades areas of disinvestment become sites that are recognized by private developers, local governments, and homebuyers as sites for new profitable investment. These changes create further transformations in the character and culture of these neighborhoods (Kennedy and Leonard 2001a, Hackworth 2002.) Gentrification transforms both the built landscape and the demographic composition of neighborhoods. It is not simply a succession of different groups in urban space, but a reflection of social struggles around the right to inhabit space. These spatial transformations often follow similar trajectories, but different places undergo these phenomena in unique ways that are conditioned by local political, economic, cultural, and physical characteristics. 1 2 West Oakland is a low-income neighborhood within Oakland, California (see Figure 1) whose distinctive experience with gentrification is the result of community members, developers, local media, and political figures articulating and trying to implement their different visions of the neighborhood. These struggles determine the functions of urban space, and who will have access to that space. They contribute to the production of a landscape that is highly varied in its residential and commercial makeup and physical characteristics. Global flows of capital fuel gentrification in cities throughout the world, as cycles of economic expansion and contraction correspond with cycles of speculation into and disinvestment from urban real estate markets. At the local scale, city governments, community groups, and regional economic patterns condition the specific uneven manner in which these global flows of capital are metabolized. Gentrification is the expression of these local forces and the land use policies they help to enact. It reveals the class-based social struggles that take place in cities and ultimately influence the function and form of neighborhoods. Uneven development simultaneously creates spaces of investment and disinvestment, and at different geographic scales. Within the Bay Area there are richer and poorer cities, and these are comprised of richer or poorer neighborhoods. At the neighborhood scale as well, West Oakland is plagued by poverty and unemployment in some places, while an adjacent block may be the site of newly built upscale lofts. Gentrification is not a seamless process. 2 3 Figure 1. Oakland Within the Bay Area Source: maps.google.com. Instead, it grows in flurries of economic activity within the context of local constraints and catalysts. These bursts of development that transform the physical and social landscapes are finite in that they conform to economic cycles of expansion and decline that may follow larger regional or national trends, but adhere to local conditions as well. 3 4 West Oakland’s experience with gentrification, although one of shortened duration and intensity relative to other Bay Area neighborhoods, corresponded to the cycle of economic boom and bust between 1998 and 2008. This cycle comprised two speculative bursts and collapses, beginning with the internet, or dot-com, bubble beginning in the late 1990s and continuing with the real estate bubble that came to an end in 2008. These periods of economic prosperity and decline often fuel phases of gentrification in urban neighborhoods, and during this period West Oakland underwent its first cycle of gentrification, as parts of
Recommended publications
  • A Downtown for Everyone Robert A
    REPORT SEPTEMBER 2015 A DOWNTOWN Shaping the future of FOR downtown Oakland EVERYONE Contents Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary SPUR staff Egon Terplan, Project lead 6 Introduction Mohit Shewaramani, Oakland Fellow 9 How We Got Here Sarah Jo Szambelan, Research Manager Robert Ogilvie, Oakland Director 12 Today’s Opportunities and Challenges SPUR Oakland City Board 20 Our Vision: A Downtown for Everyone Robert A. Wilkins (project co-chair) Bill Stotler (project co-chair) 24 BIG IDEA 1 Tomiquia Moss (board chair) Grow 50,000 more jobs in downtown and create pathways to get A DOWNTOWN Fred Blackwell people into them. Deborah Boyer 33 BIG IDEA 2 Anagha Dandekar Clifford Bring 25,000 more residents to downtown at a range of incomes, and Jose Corona Shaping the future of Charmaine Curtis enable existing residents to remain. Paul Figueroa 37 BIG IDEA 3 downtown Oakland Mike Ghielmetti FOR Set clear and consistent rules for growth to make downtown a better Spencer Gillette place for everyone. Chris Iglesias Robert Joseph 44 BIG IDEA 4 Ken Lowney Create inviting public spaces and streets as part of an active public Christopher Lytle realm. Olis Simmons Joshua Simon 54 BIG IDEA 5 EVERYONE Resources and reviewers Make it easy to get to and around downtown through an expanded Anyka Barber, Alex Boyd, Anthony Bruzzone, Clarissa transportation network. Cabansagan, Dave Campbell, Jim Cunradi, John Dolby, 63 Big Ideas for the Future Margo Dunlap, Karen Engel, Sarah Filley, Rachel Flynn, Erin Ferguson, Sarah Fine, Aliza Gallo, Jennie Gerard, June 66
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Infill
    Smart Infill A practical guide to creating vibrant places throughout the Bay Area Greenbelt Alliance would like to thank the following organizations for their support for this report: Forest City Panoramic Interests SKS Investments Greenbelt Alliance also thanks the following individuals, who contributed expertise or reviewed significant portions ofSmart Infill: Gillian Adams, Association of Bay Area Governments Curt Johansen, Triad Communities W. Anderson Barnes, Grant Thornton LLC Vivian Kahn, Dyett and Bhatia George Brewster, KMJ Urban Communities Dan Kingsley, SKS Investments Paul Campos, Home Builders Association of Northern Gabriel Metcalf, San Francisco Planning and Urban California Research John Chapman, Trustee, East Bay Community Foundation Kate O’Hara, East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy Ann Cheng, Transportation and Land Use Coalition Paul Penninger, Non-Profit Housing Association of Tim Colen, San Francisco Housing Action Coalition Northern California (formerly) Zach Cowan, City of Berkeley Charles Purvis, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Ignacio Dayrit, City of Emeryville Christy Riviere, Association of Bay Area Governments David Early, Design, Community & Environment Jack Robertson, AF Evans John Ellis, WRT Kate White, Urban Land Institute San Francisco Rachel Hooper, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP Chris Wuthmann, Renew Property Services Rosey Jencks, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Michelle Yesney, David J. Powers & Associates Thanks also to the many city staff around the region who helped us understand
    [Show full text]
  • Going Uptown in Downtown Oakland: Market‐Rate Housing As a Redevelopment Tool
    GOING UPTOWN IN DOWNTOWN OAKLAND: MARKET‐RATE HOUSING AS A REDEVELOPMENT TOOL Jessica Sheldon Master of City Planning Candidate University of California, Berkeley submission for APA’s Economic Development Division Graduate Scholarship February 6, 2009 Abstract At least since urban renewal efforts of the 1960s, local governments around the country have struggled with how to revitalize city centers in order to turn around declining populations and job opportunities. Traditionally, these efforts have focused on employment growth or retail and industrial development. Beginning in the 1990s, however, there was increased focus on a different strategy: attracting new residents into market‐rate units. Proponents argue that new residential development will itself spur greater retail and job growth. The city of Oakland, California represents one of the fullest implementations of this strategy. Between 2000 and 2008, over 10,000 new residential—mostly market‐rate—units were approved for construction in the downtown area. This paper examines how a consensus emerged around market‐rate residential development, with a focus on the negotiations between the mayor, city council, developers, and community advocates over one specific project, “The Uptown.” A strong mayor was the primary driver of the development, yet other stakeholders came to support it and managed to have at least some of their interests fulfilled. Jessica Sheldon Going Uptown In Oakland, California at the beginning of the 21st century, a consensus emerged among developers, politicians, and other city officials that market‐rate residential development was the best strategy for revitalizing the city’s downtown. At that particular moment in time—at the height of the housing bubble—and with a location just minutes from San Francisco, it seemed like downtown Oakland was poised for a comeback.
    [Show full text]
  • A Downtown for Everyone Robert A
    REPORT SEPTEMBER 2015 A DOWNTOWN Shaping the future of FOR downtown Oakland EVERYONE Contents Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary SPUR staff Egon Terplan, Project lead 6 Introduction Mohit Shewaramani, Oakland Fellow 9 How We Got Here Sarah Jo Szambelan, Research Manager Robert Ogilvie, Oakland Director 12 Today’s Opportunities and Challenges SPUR Oakland City Board 20 Our Vision: A Downtown for Everyone Robert A. Wilkins (project co-chair) Bill Stotler (project co-chair) 24 BIG IDEA 1 Tomiquia Moss (board chair) Grow 50,000 more jobs in downtown and create pathways to get Fred Blackwell people into them. Deborah Boyer 33 BIG IDEA 2 Anagha Dandekar Clifford Jose Corona Bring 25,000 more residents to downtown at a range of incomes, and Charmaine Curtis enable existing residents to remain. Paul Figueroa 37 BIG IDEA 3 Mike Ghielmetti Set clear and consistent rules for growth to make downtown a better Spencer Gillette place for everyone. Chris Iglesias Robert Joseph 44 BIG IDEA 4 Ken Lowney Create inviting public spaces and streets as part of an active public Christopher Lytle realm. Olis Simmons Joshua Simon 54 BIG IDEA 5 Resources and reviewers Make it easy to get to and around downtown through an expanded Anyka Barber, Alex Boyd, Anthony Bruzzone, Clarissa transportation network. Cabansagan, Dave Campbell, Jim Cunradi, John Dolby, 63 Big Ideas for the Future Margo Dunlap, Karen Engel, Sarah Filley, Rachel Flynn, Erin Ferguson, Sarah Fine, Aliza Gallo, Jennie Gerard, June 66 Plan of Action Grant, Savlan Hauser, Linda Hausrath, Zakiya Harris,
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Advocates for Affordable Housing
    Community Economics, Inc. FORTY YEARS OF TECHNICAL SAVVY AND PROGRESSIVE VISION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Community Economics, Inc. FORTY YEARS OF TECHNICAL SAVVY AND PROGRESSIVE VISION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING © 2015 Community Economics, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from Community Economics, Inc. 1 Introduction 5 Our Story 42 Our Partners 48 Our Projects 57 Advocates for Affordable Housing 70 Joel Rubenzahl: Portrait of Principle 79 Our People 96 A Bright Future 102 Appendix The Mission Community Economics, Inc.’s mission is to increase the sup- ply of permanently affordable housing serving the lowest- income households. CEI will undertake this mission through (1) the provision of technical assistance in the development and financing of permanently affordable housing to nonprofit developers, public agencies, and tenant organizations, and (2) education, research, and policy development with housing advocates, public policymakers, and the lending and invest- ment community. Introduction Letter from the Board THE HIDDEN CODE While so many entities follow the mantra that growth is good, Community Economics has never believed in getting bigger for its own sake. If we think of a community as tight-knit and compact, and we think of economics in terms of efficiency and productivity, then over its 40-year history, Community Economics has always stayed true to its name. Yet this tiny organization — a mere five people, working out of a sunny office in Oakland — has had a major impact on the California and national afford- able housing movements, helping create homes for tens of thousands of people who would otherwise struggle to afford a decent place to live.
    [Show full text]
  • Development Without Displacement RESISTING GENTRIFICATION in the BAY AREA
    Development without Displacement RESISTING GENTRIFICATION IN THE BAY AREA Written by Causa Justa :: Just Cause with health impact research and data and policy analysis contributed by the Alameda County Public Health Department, Place Matters Team Acknowledgements This report was written by Causa Justa :: Just Cause (CJJC) with health impact research and data and policy analysis contributed by the Alameda County Public Health Department (ACPHD), Place Matters Team. A special thanks goes out to all the individuals who provided feedback on the draft framework and policy and health analyses, and to those who shared their stories and experiences. Causa Justa :: Just Cause Writers Reviewers and Contributors Dawn Phillips, Co-Director of Programs, Lead Writer Gloria Bruce, East Bay Housing Organizations Luis Flores, Jr., CJJC Intern & Stronach Fellow, Dr. Richard Walker, Professor Emeritus of University of California, Berkeley Geography, University of California, Berkeley Jamila Henderson, Contracted Project Coordinator Will Dominie, Contra Costa Health Services Causa Justa :: Just Cause Contributors and Interviewers Reviewers Sonia Aldape, CJJC Volunteer Robbie Clark, Housing Rights Campaign Lead Carmela Zakon, CJJC Volunteer Organizer, CJJC Luis Flores, Jr., CJJC Intern & Stronach Fellow, Maria Zamudio, San Francisco Housing Rights University of California, Berkeley Campaign Organizer, CJJC Jamila Henderson, Contracted Project Coordinator, Gilda Haas, Professor of Urban Planning, Antioch CJJC University & Board of Directors, CJJC María Poblet,
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Existing Conditions/Opportunities
    CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES This chapter of the Housing Element analyzes population and housing characteristics, identifies special housing needs among certain population groups, evaluates housing conditions, and provides other important information to support the goals, policies, and programs to meet the needs of current and future Oakland residents. This chapter of the Housing Element has been revised according to California Housing and Community Development Department’s Housing Element Streamlined Update Guidance. The guidance for this update specifies a ”Requisite Analysis for changes to only certain housing needs, thus not all language, tables and figures have been changed from the prior published Housing Element. The primary source of data for the updated analysis is derived from the 2010 Census. Exceptions to this are noted in the text or table references.7 Chapter 3 is divided into 11 sections, as follows: A. Population and Household Characteristics – provides general information on population and household characteristics, such as ethnicity, age, household composition, income, and household size. B. Housing Characteristics – describes general housing characteristics such as the number of housing units by type, tenure, and vacancy. C. Age and Condition of Housing Stock – describes the age and condition of the City’s housing stock and provides an estimate of the number and percentage of dwelling units in need of rehabilitation. D. Housing Cost – compares rental housing costs and housing prices in Oakland with surrounding communities and analyzes the affordability of housing in Oakland in relation to local incomes. E. Foreclosures – summarizes the impacts on City of Oakland residents as a result of the housing market bubble and resulting economic crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Keeping “The Town” in Downtown: an Assessment and Recommendations to Support Racial Equity in the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan
    Keeping “the Town” in Downtown: An Assessment and Recommendations to Support Racial Equity in the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan 2018 I-SEEED Equity Team (consultant to the Planning Bureau) City of Oakland Planning Bureau The I-SEEED Equity Team is led by the Institute for Social, Economic, Environmental, and Educational Design (ISEEED) With the partnership of: • Julia Liou and Mike Lok, Asian Health Services • Greg Hodge, Khepera Consulting • Jme McLean, Mesu Strategies, LLC • Eric Arnold, Oakulture • Kalima Rose, PolicyLink • Sarah Filley, Popuphood, LLC • Dwayne Marsh, Race Forward I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4 II. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 5 III. Context for Racial Equity Work ........................................................................................... 12 IV. Purpose and Focus of this Racial Equity Assessment ................................................. 17 V. Assessment Methodology .................................................................................................... 20 VI. Racial Inequities in Oakland ................................................................................................. 24 VII. Priority Racial Equity Stakeholders .................................................................................... 46 VIII. Assessment of Community Engagement .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Merritt Bart Station Vision Plan
    LAKE MERRITT BART STATION Final Summary Report FUNDING PROVIDED BY CALTRANS March 2006 Prepared by LAKE MERRITT BART STATION FINAL SUMMARY REPORT Prepared for: California State Dept. of Transportation Community-Based Planning March 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………………………… 1 INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………… 3 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND GOALS ………………………………………… 3 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT …………………………………………… 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS ……………………………………………………… 6 STUDY AREA CONTEXT …………………………………………………… 6 LAND USE …………………………………………………………………… 9 Existing Uses ……………………………………………………………… 9 Open Space …………………………………………………………… 12 Built Form …………………………………………………………… 13 TRANSPORTATION …………………………………………………………… 14 Regional Context ……………………………………………………… 14 Local Transportation …………………………………………………… 16 DEMOGRAPHICS …………………………………………………………………………… 25 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND MARKET ANALYSIS ………………………… 29 DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND OPPORTUNITIES ………………………………………… 31 Existing Plans and Projects Nearby ……………………………………… 31 Opportunity Sites………………………………………………………… 33 FOCUS GROUP KEY FINDINGS ……………………………………………… 36 BETTER STREETS CONCEPT STUDY ………………………………………… 39 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………… 39 RELATED TRANSPORTATION PLANS……………………………………………………… 41 EXISTING TRAFFIC FEATURES……………………………………………………………… 44 STUDY ISSUES ………………………………………………………………………………… 47 CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………………………… 55 CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………………… 57 APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………… 58 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report is a compilation of work conducted by the Bay Area Rapid
    [Show full text]
  • Plan Downtown August 30, 2016 Plan Alternatives Report Comments
    Plan Downtown August 30, 2016 Plan Alternatives Report Comments Name Affliation Source Topic Date Comment Parking lot on 8th Street should not be converted into a pocket park as it could be used to increase density in the area, and would establish a continious retail Adam 11 West Partners-Old Economic fabric that currently exits in the rest of the area. Maintain the character of the 1 Email 4/6/16 Goldenberg Oakland Development neighborhood. Parking lot on 10th Street should include higher densities and make 10th street more attractive for pedestrians. AC Transit's core concern is that the plan does not provide for a network of transit-focused streets in Downtown Oakland. lf these streets are not managed and improved appropriately, the result will be greater unreliability Robert del Connectivity & 2 AC Transit E-mail Attachment Letter 4/6/16 of services, greater delays, and loss of ridership. These streets do not all Rosario Access necessarily need dedicated bus lanes, but they all need to be managed with transit as the first priority. As a planning concept, we propose that streets with bus routes within the Downtown Specific Plan area be. considered part of a powntown Oakland Transit Priority Zone. We have proposed this concept in the Major Corridors Study. Within this Zone, the City would work with AC Transit to facilitate fast, Robert del Connectivity & frequent, reliable, attractive transit. Designating a network of transit 3 AC Transit E-mail Attachment Letter 4/6/16 Rosario Access riority/preferential streets is a best practice in today's transportation planning, being implemented by San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, Washington, and the city of Alameda, among others.
    [Show full text]