20181215.0430

On 12 December 2018, Gilbert Garcia's "City Council Tries to Make Sense of the Decade of Downtown" appeared in the online San Antonio Express-News. In the article, Garcia reports on recent San Antonio City Council efforts to amend former mayor Julián Castro's plan to revitalize downtown San Antonio. Of note is that the plan succeeded at its stated goals, but it has done so at the seemingly unforeseen cost of gentrification and over-increase of housing costs. In the amended form, the plan for downtown will work to address issues of housing segregation by restricting the area covered by the plan and differentiating its intended impacts by the areas addressed thereby. While there is not unanimity on the council regarding the emendations, they do look to be moving ahead, however uncertain the results may be.
The initial idea of the plan, as reported, seems a common-sense thing--with the caveat that common sense is a misnomer because of the first word. Businesses will come in where people are, so making an area vital should focus initially on bringing people in; the rest will follow, as seems obvious when pointed out and as appears to be the case. But setting up a situation that brings people in necessarily creates more demand for what is an ultimately limited quantity, so prices rise, and those who had been already present find their presence less tenable. Such gentrification tends to promote a homogenization of local cultures, which is a particular problem for a place like San Antonio that has a historically thriving culture of its own, albeit one that is not necessarily associated with the kind of material wealth that gentrification obliges.
For a revitalization, then, gentrification is a matter of concern. Bringing something back cannot happen if those who had it are not included in the return, after all, and bringing in those from elsewhere to do the work of vitalization leads to an unfortunate change to what was, either because it is undone entirely or because the version of what was that emerges is not one that has continuance with what was, but is instead only a shallow, superficial version of what was. Areas that were vital and have become less so run the risk of becoming but pallid imitations of themselves, veneers of easily exploitable difference laid thinly over structures of similarity that pander to a bloc of people who would rather not be challenged or shown what is not familiar, but who will consider themselves enlightened and aware because they, too, have seen the carefully curated versions of things others--and still not those others who would know--have decided to show them.
That such things are to be avoided should be clear. That the council appears to be taking steps to avoid them--at least, if I have read things aright--is a good thing, then. That does not mean there are not more steps to take, of course; things being right is a goal that ever recedes, however rapidly or diligently approached. But that does not mean progress towards it is not to be desired.