My San Francisco is a series of posts that describes my own personal relationship with The City. My San Francisco pieces might be photo essays; they might be life stories or they could be commentaries. They might be a combination of some or all three. My impressions won’t necessarily be paeans to San Francisco; it’s a beautiful city that often dons an ugly mask. These pieces will always have one common theme; they are my expressions of my personal San Francisco experience.
It was nearly a year ago, March in fact, that I wrote a piece in which I described my love/hate relationship with San Francisco. At the time The City and I were back on good terms. It was just after the Chinese New Year celebration when Cora and I had spent some afternoons enjoying the festive atmosphere. Chinatown is one of my favorite places in The City, not for cheap trinkets or for schmoozing with the multitudes of tourists but for the food, walks through historic alleys and the general feel of the place. And then there’s a long ago personal history that I have with Chinatown, back before I was married.
Now, ten months later, I find myself revisiting the whole notion of love and hate in San Francisco. Not because we’ve had another falling out; things have been just ducky between us. It’s a movie, The Last Black Man in San Francisco that’s sent me back to rehash that old piece and review my fickle relationship with The City.
The Last Black Man in San Francisco is a hybrid of drama and real life but then that description can mean almost nothing. How many times have I seen a World War II movie that opens with the credit, “Based on true events,” and then come away feeling like the only true event that the movie recalled was a big war in which a lot of people got killed.
The details of what is true and not true in The Last Black Man, are unimportant to this piece. The story revolves around a young black man, Jimmie Fails (played by Jimmie Fails) and his good friend Montgomery Allen ( Jonathan Majors). The two men share cramped quarters in a single garage turned bedroom in San Francisco’s Bayview-Hunter’s Point District. The district, the poorest and most neglected of The City’s neighborhoods is geographically isolated from the rest of San Francisco and located near the old Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard which the Navy abandoned in 1974. As a not so friendly parting gift The Navy left The City and its residents with a toxic dump, something that is not lost on the angry residents of the area.
The two men, particularly Fails, see the garage and the blighted neighborhood as temporary digs until they can move into Fails’ old family home, a stately wood panelled Victorian located in San Francisco’s Fillmore District; a section of town which during and after World War II became a largely African American district (the home that was used for the shoot actually sits on South Van Ness Avenue in a district called SOMA ).
Early in the movie the two men periodically show up at the house to make minor repairs, touch up the paint and envision what Fails sees as their future in the old home. All this is to the chagrin of the white couple who occupy the house. It’s the twenty first century and money and gentrification are pushing the original residents out and the Fillmore is starting to take on a distinctly WASPish flavor.
Further into the film the white couple is forced to move out and the home, left vacant, is ripe for the two men to become squatters. Jimmie’s plan is to establish his residence in the home and take possession but the plan hits a snag when the home is put up for sale. Fails visits a real estate agent who informs him that the house is worth seven figures, about 6 figures more than Jimmie can lay his hands on.
The film is rife with nuance. It’s able to deliver a message without hitting the viewer across the face with it. The closest that we come to a villain is the real estate agent who takes on the role of metaphor for all that’s going wrong with The City. Without a mention we know that the evil geniuses are the tech companies, the techies and the investors who trade real estate like kids trade baseball cards. Free of flashbacks the film delivers a sobering dose of nostalgia without being maudlin.
For me there was one striking scene in the movie.
Towards the end, when things have not turned out well, Jimmie finds himself seated in a Muni bus next to a pair of millennial women, clearly transplants (probably from L.A.) who are dissing San Francisco.
“I’ve been saying for months, let’s just move to East LA. This city is dead,”
“Seriously, fuck this city.”
Jimmie interrupts “‘Scuse me? You don’t get to hate San Francisco.”
Jimmie and one of the women spar a bit before Jimmie plunges the dagger,
“You don’t get to hate it unless you love it.”
It’s the most memorable line of the movie and Jimmie delivers it at his own lowest point; a point when hate should be trumping love. He’s been spurned by the city that he loves yet there he sits, chivalrously defending San Francisco’s honor against the two outsiders who would besmirch it.
That line is the essence of the film and the moment it was delivered I was struck by it’s personal significance. It was as if the filmmaker had pulled that line from somewhere in my soul and the souls of those who live or have lived in San Francisco and lament all of the changes.
San Francisco can be dirty, depressing, crowded and hectic. But what city isn’t? For every fault, every wart and flaw I still find myself drawn to The City by all of the beauty and vibrance and diversity and cosmopolitan flair and downright quirkiness. I even love the middle finger that The City waves at Trump and his lackeys on an almost daily basis.
When I was younger I feared San Francisco; feared it for being different, for being an unknown, for it’s crowds and indeed for the diversity that couldn’t be found in the suburban hills of San Mateo. And then I worked and lived in The City and it wasn’t long before I fell in love. I was first smitten at a place where I worked, Downtown, a little patch of The City that I call the confluence. Soon I became comfortable and had no qualms about going anywhere in The City and I mean anywhere and sometimes it might have been with a lack of good judgement.
The Last Black Man is indeed an adaptation of Fail’s real life experience but in the larger sense it’s a story that laments the gentrification of San Francisco with a subtlety that keeps the movie from becoming a blatant shriek of protest.
Yes there are those times when I hate San Francisco but I get to hate it because I have loved it. That periodic hate is not for the city itself but for the people who are ruining it. The tech companies, the investors and their camp followers, the newly monied. They make the hollow claim that they want to protect the diversity of San Francisco but in reality they don’t care a fig about the collateral damage they’re causing. It’s capitalism run amok and those who are supposed to be in charge, The City’s caretakers, are failing it. They publically bemoan the gentrification and the stratospheric cost of living yet all the while they seem to be giving a nod and a wink to those interests who are bankrupting San Francisco’s cultural richness.
Gentrification is killing the city’s diverse flavor. Certainly The City welcomes people of all races, cultures, orientations and religions but more and more they’re welcome as visitors only. As gentrification continues the neighborhoods are losing the ethnic identities that have given The City it’s diverse, worldly fame.
A few years ago I tried to divorce The City. I’d had enough; enough of crowds, enough of traffic, enough of all of it. I hated San Francisco as much as I’d once loved it. But The City doesn’t beckon us back; we simply waiver and then cave. And so a few short months later I’d fallen in love again. That’s how it goes. It’s love/hate/love. The City makes two timers of us. Truth is that while I talk longingly of moving to the mountains of Montana I’d rather move back to San Francisco and I’d do it in a heartbeat if I could afford it and I would go all in and move to Downtown.
I used to live in the Sunset District and then the Outer Richmond District, neighborhoods on The City’s western edge, near the ocean and far removed from Downtown. They’re pleasant neighborhoods but they’re what I would call “urban light.” They bear more resemblance to the suburbs than they do a city. I rarely visit those areas unless I have a specific place in mind to visit or I want to wax nostalgic on my days living there. Unless I have pressing business in one of those areas I head downtown . When I visit San Francisco I’m not looking for pleasant, I’m on the hunt for San Francisco’s passion, excitement and vigor.
It’s that downtown confluence that pulls me. The place that stole my heart and continues to captivate me. It captures the essence of The City, an essence that’s in danger of being wafted away by the winds of greed and gentrification.
Next up: The confluence.
19 thoughts on “My San Francisco: You Don’t Get To Hate It…”
I love that quote: “You don’t get to hate it unless you love it.” It can apply to so many different things and situations.
True that. It struck me as soon as I heard it. It’s one that’s going to stick with me.
“You don’t get to hate it unless you love it” – Perfect. Sometimes I feel the exact same way about LA! 🙂
As the previous commenter said, it’s kind of a multi-purpose sentiment.
“You don’t get to hate it unless you love it.” It occurs to me to ask if it’s blasphemous to raise the same thought about God?
That’s an interesting proposition. Rhetorical? Tongue in cheek? In any event I’ll take a run at it.
Before you can feel an emotion about something, that something has to exist. Since god is supernatural you have to believe that god exists; have faith. It seems reasonable to me that if you’re going to go to all the trouble of having faith in a deity the ensuing emotion would be love.
Hate doesn’t seem compatible with faith.
I suppose that one could believe in god, love god and then when tragedy strikes believe that god as the dealer dealt that person a bad hand. If/when that person gets over it, then he/she could conceivably go back to loving god.
Of course if you believe in god you likely believe in satan. That throws a wrench into the whole proposition doesn’t it? Because if you believe in god then it follows that you probably love god and if satan is the protagonist then how in the devil can you love satan before hating him?
But then what if you happen to be of the satanic persuasion? Then the whole notion gets flipped around.
So to answer your question –
For god’s sake hell if I know. 😕
Thanks for reading though.
I certainly agree with your assessment of “based on true events”. All too often I’ll see a movie or read a book “based on true events” and at the end really have to ponder the question – “what part was meant to be true?”
I’m don’t know if you saw the movie. If not I highly recommend it.
This particular piece that I wrote was originally part of another that is yet unpublished and got far too long and unwieldy (I’m cleaning it up and will probably publish this weekend). As I was putting together this part I did some research and found that the true part of Jimmie’s story (Jimmie Fails retains his real name in the film) is that he fell victim to San Francisco’s gentrification when he was young and living with his father. They eventually were forced from the family home and bounced around, living out of a car for a time. The movie could be based on volumes of similar San Francisco stories.
Really like this post. Interestingly, although I am not a fan of SF (I like it with my mind, not with my heart) I think I can feel what you feel. I am a chicagoan; I love this city to death, love it as a whole, will all its’ beauty and ugliness. For me love is always an action. There are many things in my city which can be better, which can be fixed. And I am actively helping thing to become better. Working with homeless is a big part of it; supporting schools, advocating for schools improvement, as another big part. And just giving to organizations, which help to make the city better.
Thank you Hettie. I don’t think that a love/hate relationship with one’s city is a rare thing. There are some things that you necessarily have to hate in order to initiate positive change. Change is always a necessary thing because there are rarely permanent fixes and even in those rare instances we find other things that need a fix. Unconditional love for a city is something of a blind love.
I like this piece very much and agree that love/hate relationships apply to most cities we know well. We love it when the city and its landmarks provide the backdrop for our good memories, then we hate it when the landscape changes, effectively pushing our memories farther into the past. It’s a stark indication that nothing stays the same, right?
San Francisco sounds like a vibrant city with a unique character. For me, that’s definitely worth a visit. 🙂
I had to reread this post in order to comment. Actually I like it too, although like most of my posts it is awfully long.
What’s killing San Francisco’s reputation is the gentrification and the crime.
It used to be known as a very diverse city and the chamber of commerce is still trying to push that reputation. But in truth money is pushing out diversity. Lacking equal opportunities people of color are not able to afford The City; the movie referenced in my post being case in point.
Older people and longtime residents are finding it hard to survive the new San Francisco economy and are being forced out. Others have simply gotten disgusted or frustrated and moved out.
The character of the population is changing. Techies and hipsters. Some would say there is no character.
When Cora and I lived in The City we were paying $500 dollars (utilities included) for a third floor flat with an ocean view. You could hear the barking of the seals at night. Today you couldn’t get a closet for $500 dollars.
I don’t know how people who work in the service industries can survive. They must be living outside of The City and commuting. And so with the shrinking of the middle class the diversity dilutes even more.
When I visit The City I have to first remove everything, EVERYTHING, from my car; even empty shopping bags and spare change. Otherwise I’m inviting a smash and grab.
It all seems pretty bleak and I imagine that it’s much the same in many if not most cities.
Still I can’t stay away.
Do you love/hate Toronto?
WAAAAH! I just composed a response and it disappeared into the ether! I’m typing this short one as a test and will re-compose a bit later.
Well your test worked. I have two words for you. Google Docs and Copy and Paste.
Okay then that’s six. Now you know why I majored in history.
I won’t tell you how much I cursed your blog in the past few hours.
I wrote a brilliant response and it’s lost, and now I’ve had to recreate this second-rate comment, which isn’t as perfect as the first one, but it’s as close as I could get it. $%^$&%$!#^^%%
Ok… here goes …
I understand about gentrification. It’s happening here in Toronto as well. For some neighbourhoods, it’s an improvement. There was an area not far from me – it was primarily Vietnamese clubs, karaoke bars, crime-ridden, underground gambling houses with a history of gun violence. That area is much better since all those clubs shut down, new housing, restaurants. It’s a great street to visit now.
The biggest problem with Toronto is that it’s a young city, but we have some historical buildings and areas. This creates issues for builders who have a ‘knock-down and rebuild’ mentality. It’s cheaper to demolish everything than to integrate into an existing structure. As you can imagine, these opposing goals create problems and every building project takes longer.
I once heard an American comedian describe Toronto this way: “It’ll be a great city once they finish it.”
Still, I do like Toronto. It’s a city of diverse neighbourhoods, vibrant downtown areas, numerous festivals, and for the most part, it’s safe and clean.
I wouldn’t have to remove everything from my car anyway. That does sound bleak. 😥
So the above is all I can remember … I will definitely type elsewhere and do a copy and paste in the future, especially since I write long responses to you.
Hope you’re having a restful weekend. The days are getting longer, finally. I’m exhausted. 😆
Good morning Eden,
Cursed my blog eh?
You probably should’ve cursed WP (which I do on a regular basis) because guess what I found in my spam trap.
Your response got me interested in gentrification v. revitalization v. displacement. I did some digging and found an interesting article. The link is at the bottom. It won’t hurt my feelings if you don’t read it.
The smash and grabs are a real problem in The City. Thieves look for rental cars, out of state plates and visible items in the car. I’ve seen forlorn tourists standing in the broken window glass of their cars while the police make a report.
Interestingly when we were at a winery in the Eastern Provinces a fellow engaged us in conversation and warned us of a thievery problem. The thieves sit in their cars and use a device that can intercept the signal that the key fob sends to lock the car door. When the person leaves, the thieves unlock the car door and help themselves.
It’s still early here. I think I’ll have some eggs and SPAM 😁 🍳
Have a wonderful day.
How did I end up in your junk? I mean your spam, you know what I mean. 😀
Thank you for the article; it was comprehensive and interesting. I think the example from my neighbourhood is a good model for gentrification, without displacing the residents. None of the long-term residents were pushed out, and actually housing was built where rundown businesses used to stand. I’m not sure of the cost of the housing. It might have been priced low initially to attract people to an area that was not desirable at one time. I imagine the low-rent paying residents who stayed will probably need to move out eventually if the neighbourhood continues to thrive.
There is no doubt that housing costs in Toronto are ridiculous and unaffordable.
I’ve not heard of that car theft scam, sounds pretty sophisticated, You were in the east-coast provinces? You mean in Canada?
You’d have to ask WP about the spam thing but I don’t think you’d get any satisfaction. This isn’t the first time a comment from an approved reader has ended up in spam.
Yes the car theft conversation was in Canada just outside of North Hadley. I told the man how to beat the scam. Don’t use the fob. Lock the car using the lock on the inside of the door. There’s your PSA for the day.
So why is it that with men it’s “junk” and with women it’s, well, a “cat.” You can consider that a rhetorical question 😀
I think you’ll find this interesting if you’re a logophile like me.
Re: “junk” … not sure of its origin, but it sounds like another harsh monosyllabic 4-letter word for men’s privates.
As for the “cat” comparison, I much prefer it over the other 4-letter C-word.
If there’s one thing I hate to be called is cute.
Ok, I’d better do some serious writing today! 🤣🤣🤣