Customer Reviews

Hollow City: Gentrification and the Eviction of Urban Culture

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Although Rebecca Solnit writes with a deliberate and sometimes myopic agenda, her style is extraordinarily effective in evoking sympathy. It is elegaic in nature and the entire book reads as a eulogy, a fact reinforced by the shuttered structures and funeral processions presented in Schwatzenberg's photo essays. The digressions into such realms as the origins of Bohemia don't seem irrelevant or excessive but merely an extension of the beauty of the writing and presentation.

Although the issue has become less pressing with the collapse of the fervor of the internet economy, it should be noted the type of mass evictions in favour of live/work lofts is still a common occurrence in San Francisco, and that housing is still beyond the means of many ordinary San Franciscans. Despite the less fervent pace of gentrification, those in the funeral procession presented in the opening pages will not be returning to their homes; the character of their neighbourhood will not be restored.

The work is a mild success. Although somewhat obsolescent, it is still relevant, whether because of its still necessary impressions on the hearts of those who read it, or as a presentation of a historical phenomenon. But furthermore, as a literary work, and as a visual work, it is beautiful both in its prose and photography.

alas, this is not an outdated book. sf has only become more homogenized since its publication (a topic that is crucial to the book, and covered very well in terms of past creative types who've inhabited sf).

the book's overview of sf history is fascinating, and well-presented. solnit did a thoughful, unbiased job of evaluating the housing crisis in sf and its effect on the creative energy of the city. her metaphors are apt, and overarching points are salient.

a highly recommended read to anyone who cares about san francisco history, or who has bemoaned the exodus of its artistic inhabitants.

This book has an interesting subject and lovely photography. I am sympathetic to the plight of gentrification. However, the tone of this feels as though she were a professional complainer. Neighborhoods change, that is a fact of life. The residents who were displaced in this book were undoubtedly not the same residents from the time it was built. You get the sense that the author feels like everything about every neighborhood is worth saving. It isn't. I'm not going to cry about a neighborhood with less crime. And what solutions are offered? Should one never try to improve a distressed neighborhood, so that no one ever has to move? What sort of building *should* be allowed in a city? Ms. Solnit has some very valid points in this book, but she comes off as anti-change and not really offering anything close to a solution, other than fossilizing San Francisco in the "good old days", whenever that was for her.

I was outraged when I read this book... but not in the way you would think.

Published in 2002, this book is already quite dated. Now that it is 2006 and the dotcom boom has become the dotcom bust, this author's hysteria over gentrification and urban renewal in San Francisco-- all blamed on the dotcom phenomenon, mind you-- has been proven to be unfounded. In fact, in relative terms rents are more affordable now than they were back in 2002.

Where to start? This book is simply a long list of gripes and sour grapes about how San Francisco has gotten too expensive for spoiled "bohemians" to live in because they don't want to work. Perhaps most galling is how Solnit puts urban "artists" at the top of her self-righteous hierarchy of those who "deserve" to live in the City. Urban professionals are likened to "dirty old men" who follow around the innocent "schoolgirls" who supposedly are the artists.

The crux of the problem is that in her myopic, NIMBY-istic viewpoint, Solnit fails to acknowledge the fact that space in San Francisco has ALWAYS been severely limited. The city itself is only about 49 square miles and it has ALWAYS been expensive... it has always gone through change, sometimes rapid. Manhattan is the center of a worldclass, GREAT city. How does she think all of those tall skyscrapers got there? When Solnit mourns the loss of an unused, empty lot to development, I have to laugh.

You will find that the author considers herself a "radical" and associates with the originator of "Critical Mass", a regular, planned, and deliberate snarling of local traffic by disgruntled people on bikes. She also is in league with a local carmudgeon in the Mission who, over perceived "gentrification" in the neighborhood, put up fliers encouraging others to vandalize expensive cars on the street.

With an attitude like this, it's not hard to dislike such people as these who arrogantly call themselves "radicals" and "bohemians". All the while they are complaining about the high cost of living in SF (join the club!), they petulantly claim that to get a REAL job would compromise their ideals.

Give me a break.

The author also makes the extremely simplistic assumption that all "true" artists are by nature poor or "downwardly mobile".

I have news for the author-- San Francisco is-- and always has been-- made up mainly of hardworking people. This city was built upon that industriousness, ingenuity, and enterprise. Art has its place, but none of it would be possible without those taxpayers who HAVE JOBS. As a property tax paying citizen of the city I love, I resent her and her ilk assuming that it is their right to inexpensive or free rent in one of the most desirable places to live IN THE WORLD.

The thing that amazes me is the fact she can't see that it has ALWAYS been that way... for decades and decades. I had to laugh at the idea that this book actually mentioned a parody of how, in the height of anti-gentrification hysteria, the last Mexican would soon move out of the Mission.

Guess that was a wrong guess, eh?

Finally, as if it were a suprise, the author in her closing acknowledgments thanks, among a number of other parties, both Critical Mass and "the bar at Place Pigalle" where some of the work for the book apparently took place. I wonder if it ever felt vaguely hypocritical to the author to be condemning urban development and trumpeting the plight of the poor over $8 glasses of Belgian ale?

Extremists on either side are self-absorbed, self-righteous, and unrealistic in the extreme. I strongly disagree with everything George Bush stands for, but at least he doesn't have the gall and arrogance to assume such an air of superiority over the rest of us, especially those of us who actually work for a living. I only agree with the author over one point: idiots who drive big SUVs in the narrow streets of San Francisco are idiots. Other than that, I plan to continue enjoying San Francisco as a San Franciscan who does their fair share to keep this city vibrant, alive, and relevant. Let others stew in their own sour grapes.

Rebecca Solnit's prose is beautiful and Susan Schwartzenberg's photos are visionary as well. Thought provoking. I recommend this book as well as Gary Brechin's Imperial San Francisco and the classic by Jane Jacobs on cities as required reading for urban residents!

The historical journey Solnit takes through the reoccurring demise of San Francisco's bohemian culture only leads to sob stories in the end and does little for her cause. Remember, these now run-down neighborhoods and homes were expensive and new when first built 100 years ago. Yes, it's horrible that in our time the materially rich are pushing the spiritually rich out of the city, but the book only shows that artists will one day come back again. It may not be the same as when we first came, but that's life - nothing stays the same.

Well now that the dot com bubble has burst volume II can be the eviction of gentrification.

THIS SNAPSHOT HAS ALREADY FADED. THERE IS NO ANALYSIS OF GATHERED INFORMATION HERE - RATHER SKEWED JOURNALISM WITH AN AGENDA. IT IS A POOR REPRESENTATION OF THE COMPLEX GENTRIFICATION ISSUE AND I AM DISAPPOINTED.

THE PHOTOGRAPHY IS MEDIOCRE.

THIS SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN A BOOK - PERHAPS A SECTION IN THE SUNDAY PAPER NEXT TO AN ARTICLE THAT ACTUALLY INVESTIGATES THE ISSUE.

I AM A CONCERNED SAN FRACISCAN, A SUSTAINABLY MINDED ARCHITECT, AND AM DISMAYED BY THIS TERSE ACCOUNT. WHAT A WASTE. I USUALLY NEVER WRITE REVIEWS BUT I WAS HONESTLY LET DOWN BY THIS BOOK AND FEEL COMPELED TO SAY SOMETHING.