I’m not a big fan of Kotkin, but I have no reason to disagree with his observation that:

“Neighborhoods go through what you call a sweet spot,” said Joel Kotkin, author of “The City: A Global History,” who is a critic of some forms of gentrification. “It’s safe, it’s a nice place to live, it still has unique shops and hangouts.”

But this mix rarely lasts forever. “The ecosystems of these neighborhoods are very fragile,” Mr. Kotkin said. “Over-stimulation, and, in a recession, under-stimulation, and you have dangers.”

This is the problem at the center of what I think is the most common form of urban gentrification (it takes other forms in different types of communities), the kind where the old guard are forced out by rising prices and by a so-called “artistic” class with enough cash to set up funky, off-beat retail and service businesses, catering primarily to other members of their class.  In some sense, this is a good thing, because the old guard can be a high-crime area, or an area with significant blight that, after a few years and a few million gallons of sweat and paint, becomes a nice place to live again.  But not for the people who were cornerstones of the neighborhood and who know the neighborhood’s history (I would argue that knowing a place’s history is an important part of really living there, which is why I’ve always felt more at home in Sacramento, even though I spent the first 15 years of my adult life in Portland.)

In Sacramento, the symbol of this kind of gentrification is the gallery.  In article after article about urban renewal you will see phrases like “galleries, restaurants, and retail.” People seem to forget that galleries are not museums, they are retail establishments, and, like any retail establishment, they need customers.  Art galleries have a very small customer base to begin with and, in a recession, the people who want to patronize art because it’s the cool thing to do no longer have money to do so. I’m afraid we’re going to see some closures, unless all of the galleries are owned by people with trust funds. Now that would be interesting.

This kind of gentrification is ephemeral because it is based on the whims of a relatively mobile class of person (young, generally childless, urban professionals with higher than median incomes and/or assets) and a class that is very sensitive to recessionary pressures.  A job that paid high-five figures a few years ago may well be going for a lot less today, and there will be a line out the door of people wanting it. So these people do one of two things: they retreat to their homes and seek entertainment from Netflix and food from grandma’s cookbook, or they move. Neither is good for the funky businesses that depended on their funky clientelle.

Which leads me to a plug for what I think might be a new (renewed?) model for face-to-face social interaction. Today’s Bee had an article about the Sacramento Institute of Fun, which has events about once a month based on the idea that people can get together, have fun, and learn something (and drink).  The price tag may seem high at first, around $25-$30/person for each event, but when you consider that a typical night out at a nightclub, which is a lousy place to be social anyway, will cost easily twice as much (the cab ride home will cost as much), it’s a good deal.

And it’s different.  Maybe my impression is colored by the fact that the instigators are my friends. Maybe it’s because I don’t think of them as bourgeois hipsters (though they are certainly hip). Or maybe it’s because it’s something that hasn’t really been tried before, at least not in this laid-back, non-institutional format (the name notwithstanding). In some sense what the IOF is trying to do is reinvigorate the idea of the salon, but in a much more accessible way. It’s a lecture series for the masses.

The photo was also used at the 2005 State Fair.

The thing that I find interesting is that this seems ominously similar to another proposal floated a few years ago by Cambridge Homes — they even went so far as to have a neighborhood meeting on the topic, wherein about two dozen people stood up and whined about all the usual NIMBY problems — flood protection and traffic — and one person stood up and said we needed more infill if we were going to improve the region (and no, it wasn’t me).  The Cambrige Homes page for that development says the project is “on hold” while the owner explores other uses for the property. It looks like that other use has been found, and even the Greek Church stays.

Has Angelides taken into account all of the potential push-back he will get from East Sacramento when he tries to develop a way into and out of that neighborhood? I hope so.

The fact that Corti Bros. must relocate is a done deal. But hopefully the sheer outpouring of support from the community will:

1. Ensure that Corti Bros will survive far into the future in a new location and
2. That location will continue to be relatively close to where the action is.

Margaret started a new blog at http://savecortibros.blogspot.com/ to chronicle the institution’s impending move and, hopefully, phoenix-like ressurection as well as, no doubt, the attempt to boycott Corti’s nouveau replacement.

Besides, they’re going to give me heartburn every time I watch Alton Brown.

Why do they miss the point? Because Boards of Directors are supposed to support the organizations they direct. In the non-profit world, the Board of Directors is supposed to be a cheerleader for the organization, with members speaking on behalf of the organization, advocating for it, and raising money.  As I see it, this also means the Board must have an intimate understanding of the organization it directs and, in the case of Regional Transit, this means riding the bus.  Not just light rail either. Ride the bus. And it means standing up for transit in their respective chambers or, as RT rider put it, “take transit back to their ‘day’ jobs.”

But unlike a non-profit Board, RT’s Board is made up of elected officials, no doubt because RT’s charter insists that they be there. That means that, for each city council or county board of supervisors involved, somebody has to draw the short straw and serve.

If RT’s Boardmembers aren’t willing to experience the services RT provides, then perhaps they should step aside for others who do care.

Or maybe RT should consider a change to its charter. It might be time to include non-elected officials on the Board.  It might be time to include a few RT consumers on the Board or even *gasp* create an elected Board of Directors.

Back in the day, around 2002 or so, I wondered aloud whether anyone knew of any Starbucks that had actually closed.  I was walking through the Financial District in San Francisco at the time and one of my companions said he saw where one had closed but another one opened around the corner. “That’s just moving,” I said, “and it doesn’t count.”

But apparently even the relatively inelastic demand of our nationwide caffeine/sugar combo fix can’t postpone the announcement that Starbucks will be closing 600 stores, most opened recently.  Even more interesting, the article mentions an “internal watch list.” Starbucks has been keeping an eye on its unprofitable stores without actually closing them:

They were not profitable, not expected to be profitable in the foreseeable future, and the “vast majority” had been opened near an existing company-operated Starbucks, Bocian said.

In other words, Starbucks bizzare strategy of competing with itself backfired. As usual when a company announces that it is scaling back operations and kicking employees to the curb, SBUX gained in extended hours trading.

The article did not get specifc to Sacramento, but it did get me to wondering which Starbucks locally would could be the target of a closure.  There are about 20 Starbucks within two or three miles of the Capitol.

My nominations of ones likely to get the axe (in no particular order, and not necessarily ones I think should close):

J Street and 26th. I love this Starbucks. When I lived in East Sac it had just opened and I’d always stop in on my way in to work (walking) downtown. It’s long and narrow, it’s cramped, and it’s virtually hidden among all of the other businesses along J Street. Blink and you might miss it. Which is its problem. There’s another one just seven blocks west that is far more popular.  I’ve never seen this one crowded, except maybe around Christmas.

717 K Street. This Starbucks at the light rail stop right before the train turns south, by the Westfield Mall, has an interesting mix of state workers, attorney-looking types, and their clients. It is an unfortunate Starbucks in a very unfortunate location. Given that there is another at the other end of the mall, as well as a very popular one on 9th between I and J, I’d put this one high on my list of closures.

Safeway at 19th & S. C’mon, there’s a Peets at the other end of the parking lot for God’s sake. You don’t even have to cross a street.

Which ones do you think (dear reader) are likely targets for closure? Any in the ‘burbs?

• Shallow: Recycling.
• Deep: Using less crap.
• Shallow: Buying a hybrid.
• Deep: Giving up your car.

I bring this up because of an article I read today on Yahoo! (via CNN Money): “One Way to Handle Gas Prices: Move” The article describes a school teacher who gave up her quaint farmhouse 62 miles from work and rented a place in town.  Granted, the move was motivated by economic, rather than ecological, factors, but it had the added bonus of reducing her “carbon footprint” (to use the cliche of the day) in a somewhat deep manner: she redefined what she needed to live the life she wanted.

If gas were still a buck fity a gallon she never would have made that choice.

I don’t know how big a trend this is — and the article does mention that the people making these choices tend to be renters because its easier to break a lease than sell a home.  Still, if I were in the housing market right now (wait, I am), I’d pay a premium for a home that enabled my wife and I to minimize our commuting and ideally, ensure at least one of us wouldn’t need to drive to work. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

Gas prices may even drive people to buy some of the over-priced, underselling properties in the greater-downtown area. I still think they’ll need to lower their prices, but it could happen.

Maybe gas prices will renew interest in super high-density living in Sacramento. And maybe this time they’ll plan to build to a scale more suited to the area.

Fremont Park was an important, if somewhat underutilized, part of my childhood, so I’ve always looked at it and its chronic problems with crime and homelessness (problems that are probably blown a little out of proportion) through rose-colored glasses.

So if you’re the kind of person who believes that the downtown/midtown residential districts should be vibrant places to live as well as to cruise through on your over-priced one-speeds as you try to look cool and groan about Starbucks, you owe it to yourself to attend.

I’ll be there if I can juggle work and family commitments:

Wednesday June 11th, 6:00pm at William Land Elementary School (12th & U)