|
Facebook Aunt posted:I wonder if artists in ohio or arkansas have that problem. Why do starving artists always want to live in the expensive cities? Presumably because, as small as the market for niche art is in San Francisco, it's even smaller in Cowfuck, Nebraska
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
hailthefish posted:Presumably because, as small as the market for niche art is in San Francisco, it's even smaller in Cowfuck, Nebraska Just do cartoon fetish porn commissions over the internet. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:Presumably because, as small as the market for niche art is in San Francisco, it's even smaller in Cowfuck, Nebraska Cowfuck has a booming economy since the early 2000s, I'll have you know, and has the highest per-capita KOA campground concentration in the entire state north of I-80.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Actually if you renovate these places, their value goes up and the poor people can't afford them any more. The main culprit is the property value crisis in california. San Francisco used to have a wealth of artist spaces: almost all of them are just gone, because property owners evicted the cheapo tenants, fixed them up, and then leased them to much nicer businesses that can afford to pay five times the rent. And also because you're not allowed to build a building in San Francisco that's higher than 40 loving feet(*) because the people who already live there prefer having their unobstructed views to affordable housing. (*) - with a few exceptions, like near AT&T Stadium, where you can go to a whopping 240 stories. Tall buildings also aren't allowed to put any city park into shadow for more than an hour before sunset or an hour after sunrise. There are also density limits. It's utterly retarded, density in a city is *good*. Instead SF's response to the housing crisis has been to do things that exacerbate it by disincentivizing building anything new. hailthefish posted:Presumably because, as small as the market for niche art is in San Francisco, it's even smaller in Cowfuck, Nebraska I guarantee you that there are cities with meaningful arts scenes that are nowhere near as expensive to live as SF. Many of them are even in California.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
There are variations in art scenes. Massive ones. Proximity to rich people is also directly related to how much money good art will sell for... and proximity to good art schools and museums is also a key factor. These differences are especially pronounced if you are not a painter (flat, hangable art is the easiest to sell). My wife is a ceramic artist, primarily, and her non-profit studio is only ceramics. The studio offers multiple classes, studio space for about 150 members/locker holders/drop-ins, and firing services for local children's art programs. It could not exist anywhere in California outside the Bay Area or the wider LA area. You can make art in Monterey or Mendocino etc. but it better be about whales to appeal to the tourists, or you are going to be selling your stuff for hobbiest-level prices. There are good, niche schools all over the place, too... but not the concentration of renowned universities and miseums that anchor a diverse and thriving scene that makes contributions to the global art conversation. A lot of SF artists relocated to the east bay, especially Oakland. But Oakland is rapidly becoming too expensive as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:And also because you're not allowed to build a building in San Francisco that's higher than 40 loving feet(*) because the people who already live there prefer having their unobstructed views to affordable housing. "NIMBYs wanted us to limit new development, so we did. NIMBYs also wanted us to limit building heights, so we did. Also we have a hosed up law that encourages all sorts of tomfoolery when buying/selling a house, just so you don't lose that sweet locked-in low property tax. Excuse us while we move in more tech bros and forget that people with lower incomes exist."
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
The main problem is people looking at housing as an investment rather than a basic need, and the government making policy to encourage this. A housing bubble is good for the people who already own, and any policy which might address affordability means your investment might not appreciate as quickly. People make all sorts of excuses about "my community" and "the environment" but it generally comes down to entirely selfish financial self-interest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
I'll note two things here: 1) The enclaves under discussion here aren't/weren't in San Francisco proper. Ghost Ship was in Oakland (across the bay and substantially cheaper, though prices are rising...), and the more recent one was even further from the locus of sky-high real estate properties. I would be very much surprised if there were any "artist studio" locations in San Francisco that weren't specifically catering to rich people with no day jobs. 2) San Francisco's real estate rules have been hosed for decades. This isn't a new problem, it's just more acute now that property is so expensive and not-ridiculously-expensive housing is basically nonexistent. One of the biggest problems with real estate in San Francisco (and actually I believe this is true for all of California) is that real estate values for purposes of taxation are only reassessed when the property is sold. So if you bought a property for $50k 40 years ago, you could still be paying only $100/year (or whatever) in property taxes, even though that same property is worth a couple million today. As a consequence, you get people who have the choice of either staying put in their "starter home" because everything in the area is outside their price range, or being forced to leave the area altogether. This has two effects: first, it locks up a substantial portion of the property market from people unwilling to sell, and second, it promotes NIMBYism as the people in those homes have all the incentive in the world to drive up property values as high as possible. I won't say that the property tax thing is the sole driving factor behind how impossible it is to develop new homes in San Francisco, but it's got to be a major contributing factor. Of course, if taxes were reassessed more frequently, these people would have been driven out long ago due to being unable to afford their property taxes, which would have freed up inventory and removed a major market distortion. And of course it would have sucked for the people involved. Getting a nice payout from being forced to leave your home is a bittersweet pill at best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:
That's a statewide law, but the rest of the state isn't anywhere near as distorted as SF is. Take a look at this map:  Do you want to build a building in one of the yellow zones? gently caress you. 40' maximum height. That's not a city, that's a friggin' suburb. Leperflesh posted:It could not exist anywhere in California outside the Bay Area or the wider LA area. The wider LA area is, again, a lot less expensive than SF. quote:You can make art in Monterey or Mendocino etc. but it better be about whales to appeal to the tourists, or you are going to be selling your stuff for hobbiest-level prices. There are good, niche schools all over the place, too... but not the concentration of renowned universities and miseums that anchor a diverse and thriving scene that makes contributions to the global art conversation. This sounds like a regionalistic snobbery, because there are a bunch of places with renowned universities and museums that anchor a diverse and thriving art scene that makes contributions to the global art conversation. NYC, Philly, Santa Fe, Providence, a bunch more. If the general desire is "I want to make a living as an artist," again, there are a bunch of places you can do that. If the specific desire is "I want to make a living as an artist in San Francisco," then that's going to be a lot harder to do. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Jul 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Given the Millennium Tower sinking and tilting, I'd prefer just not to build there, period.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:This sounds like a regionalistic snobbery, because there are a bunch of places with renowned universities and museums that anchor a diverse and thriving art scene that makes contributions to the global art conversation. NYC, Philly, Santa Fe, Providence, a bunch more. If the general desire is "I want to make a living as an artist," again, there are a bunch of places you can do that. If the specific desire is "I want to make a living as an artist in San Francisco," then that's going to be a lot harder to do. Still, this is happening in most major cities, SF is just the bleeding edge of this problem. NYC is too: when Manhattan got priced out, artists went to Brooklyn, now they're pushed out into Queens/The Bronx or left entirely because only established artists with major backing can afford to live in NY readily. If you're in a second-tier city, culturally, it's still amazing for a resident (I love the DIA, for example), but there aren't enough people buying original artwork to support more than a handful of artists full-time. The name recognition of bigger cities draws buyers in unless it's a very niche thing that a city might have some stranglehold on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Facebook Aunt posted:I wonder if artists in ohio or arkansas have that problem. Why do starving artists always want to live in the expensive cities? Doy, because if you can afford to live there, you're not a starving artist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:There are variations in art scenes. Massive ones. Proximity to rich people is also directly related to how much money good art will sell for... and proximity to good art schools and museums is also a key factor. These differences are especially pronounced if you are not a painter (flat, hangable art is the easiest to sell). My wife is a ceramic artist, primarily, and her non-profit studio is only ceramics. The studio offers multiple classes, studio space for about 150 members/locker holders/drop-ins, and firing services for local children's art programs. It could not exist anywhere in California outside the Bay Area or the wider LA area. Sacramento has had a pretty vibrant arts scene for a while thanks to UC Davis having a kick rear end art department in the 70s-90s and sac state having a peetty decent one. Of course, the rent here is getting too drat high as well, so don't move here please. That said, the location panama pottery is at will never be too drat high because it is hard to access and is wedged between a hugely busy rail lane, a busy street, and a neighborhood with little charm (but a great taco place and a good cidery.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Blindeye posted:Still, this is happening in most major cities, SF is just the bleeding edge of this problem. NYC is too: when Manhattan got priced out, artists went to Brooklyn, now they're pushed out into Queens/The Bronx or left entirely because only established artists with major backing can afford to live in NY readily. All of Washington DC's artists and musicians have fled to Baltimore and Richmond. It's a cultural void there now. Like, at least NYC and SF have *some* underground scene, DC has nothing. There's not even an alternative radio station there anymore. Philadelphia and Chicago are the two major cities that have stayed relatively affordable, not sure if it's due to zoning or more land available or what.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:All of Washington DC's artists and musicians have fled to Baltimore and Richmond. It's a cultural void there now. Like, at least NYC and SF have *some* underground scene, DC has nothing. There's not even an alternative radio station there anymore. Did CPR go off air? That sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Actually if you renovate these places, their value goes up and the poor people can't afford them any more. The main culprit is the property value crisis in california. San Francisco used to have a wealth of artist spaces: almost all of them are just gone, because property owners evicted the cheapo tenants, fixed them up, and then leased them to much nicer businesses that can afford to pay five times the rent. That trend has continued. Gentrification is a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:SF zoning
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
beepsandboops posted:The US's approach to zoning seems so weird, I can't imagine trying to map out the zoning laws across the county. Do other countries let different localities set their own rules? I think most zoning is done on a local level. In Japan though it's done on a national level with a very simple inclusive zoning system which has kept prices sane and let cities more organically adapt/change. Houses there are not seen as a wealth-building investment, rather a more disposable thing like a car that you use up without the expectation of a huge profit. In north america there's an expectation that once a neighbourhood is built it's set in amber to never change and the government to guarantee 5% yearly growth on property values. Zoning, HOA's, deed restrictions and covenants all make sure a neighbourhood can never change. Population increasing in the city? Just build more suburbs because you can't densify any existing land. Unless it's land full of poor people, then it's urban renewal and good and the government makes sure developers can kick everyone out to build condos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
And you can drink outside in Japan. Life can be pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
The entire UK has the same rule around housing revaluation for tax purposes and yet, more than any other factor, house prices are determined by one thing: access to London. London sits on any map of house prices like a rampant infection, a bright red boil with angry tendrils snaking out along transport links.  You would think if house prices rose enough that businesses would no longer be able to afford to pay their staff enough to live close enough to work there, and demand would drop as people move away. There's three factors countering that. 1. The rental market is abhorrent. Lots of housing is built all the time but it's almost always luxury flats bought by foreign investors and rented out to 2 or 3 (or 4 or 5) locals at extortionate rates. The flat I shared in central London had 6 Singapore landlords. Any attempt to tamp down on the rental market to encourage more buyers is rejected. 2. Government initiatives prop up housing prices. There's a schema called Help To Buy where you can provide a 5% deposit and the government will loan you the other 20% on the cheap, allowing you to get rates equivalent to a 25% deposit. Does this help lower income people get the same 25% deposit that richer people put down? No, the richer people just leverage it for bigger mortgages, propping up the bubble. 3. London just keeps getting bigger. Any time that it becomes untenable for white collar workers to live within an hour of the centre they add another high speed transport link. Greater London is officially 600 square miles but I think that needs reviewing. Again the theory is that your 1 hour transit workers can now enjoy 20 minute commutes. The reality is they'll move out to the new 1 hour marker where housing is cheaper, for now. My house is 60 miles from the centre of London and it's rapidly becoming just another gentrified borough of London rather than the lovely country town it once was. House prices rising 9% per year. SF seems to have resisted that spread for longer due to the concentration of megacorps being able to keep their workers nearby, but Oakland is feeling the spread from everyone else and it's resulted in even higher city rents than London. I suspect your allergy to trains is the only thing keeping that mess bottled up right now. Jaded Burnout fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Jul 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I think most zoning is done on a local level. In Japan though it's done on a national level with a very simple inclusive zoning system which has kept prices sane and let cities more organically adapt/change. Houses there are not seen as a wealth-building investment, rather a more disposable thing like a car that you use up without the expectation of a huge profit. In north america there's an expectation that once a neighbourhood is built it's set in amber to never change and the government to guarantee 5% yearly growth on property values. Zoning, HOA's, deed restrictions and covenants all make sure a neighbourhood can never change. Population increasing in the city? Just build more suburbs because you can't densify any existing land. Unless it's land full of poor people, then it's urban renewal and good and the government makes sure developers can kick everyone out to build condos. It's very much a double edged sword... the flipside with Japan (I am guessing you read the same paper as I did) with housing being viewed as consumable is that it's essentially a vehicle of middle class wealth destruction. IIRC the paper even suggested it might be to blame for the economic stagnation of the 90s onward, though they didn't really delve too much into it. Another cool fact I came across reading the article (which I would post if I could find a link easily) is that Japan has more architects per capita than like any other developed country, since people commission more funky, individualistic stuff since they're not as fussed with ~*~rEsAlE vAlUe~*~. Tangental to crappy construction and real estate in general, but there are some really fascinating blog posts on Spike Japan where he goes and visits/writes up places with outlier real estate prices. For example, he goes to Niseko in Hokkaido because that's had a really high growth rate from Aussies buying up ski chalets, and looks at rural/regional places where there's been an exodus as welll. It's very well written and well researched, very pro-read if you're interested in Japan. peanut posted:And you can drink outside in Japan. Life can be pretty good. Hell yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Another cool fact I came across reading the article (which I would post if I could find a link easily) is that Japan has more architects per capita than like any other developed country, since people commission more funky, individualistic stuff since they're not as fussed with ~*~rEsAlE vAlUe~*~. Belgium has to be second.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Another cool fact I came across reading the article (which I would post if I could find a link easily) is that Japan has more architects per capita than like any other developed country, since people commission more funky, individualistic stuff since they're not as fussed with ~*~rEsAlE vAlUe~*~. Don't the Japanese tend to tear down and rebuild their houses at a really high rate? Like, instead of remodelling a kitchen like the West might do, they go 'ewww, it's dirty. Let's tear it down and make a new one'
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
Most of the old houses in Japan are really lovely and it would cost nearly the same amount of time and money to remodel as to rebuild. A wooden house from the 80s can be remodeled reasonably, but a wooden house from the 50s will need a complete floorplan update (because it will either not have a bath, or be a labyrinth of additions.) Source: we tore down great-grandma's 90s prefab and built a new house last year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
My HVAC friend was working on a house today and found this
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Belgium has to be second. Sure as hell not in Bruges, which is gorgeous but would be like living with Satan's own HOA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
peanut posted:And you can drink outside in Japan. Life can be pretty good. I can drink outside in my city and get daiquiris in a drive through 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Hey, I actually have poo poo to contribute now. I live in an upper/lower. Our downstairs neighbors are lovely people. They knew our dog had high prey drive for animals smaller than it, but they decided that they wanted to save like $2/week on eggs. So what do they do? Build a chicken coop out of pallets and get half a dozen chicks from ~somewhere~. I don't have pictures of that, sadly, because it was built onto the side of a shed that no one ever goes into in the back yard, situated so that the coop itself is between the shed and the back fence. The chickens have a ~4ftx~3ftx~4ft chicken wire enclosure to walk around in the fresh air in. Or at least they did, up until we asked the landlord if he was informed about the chickens in this not-right-to-farm neighborhood, like the neighbors said they had done. Of course he wasn't, so he told them to get rid of the whole thing in a month, or they're outta there. The chickens have gone, but the coop's still there. Whatever, we didn't use that section of the yard, and my dog no longer has anything to lunge at when we let her out, so we'll live with it till they do their next stupid thing. Anyway, that's not the story I came here to tell you. No, the story I wanna share is about our next door neighbors. They saw the construction going on and, not one to be outdone, began a project in the evening hours for about a week. They finished it a few days ago. Wanna venture a guess as to what it is?  Did you guess "pool made of pallets"? Congratulations! They had like 10 kids in there yesterday. Yes, that's literally 4 walls of pallets, nailed together, with a tarp liner to keep the water in. Here's another shot from higher up. Sorry about the lovely dirty window, we can't get it open to clean the drat thing.  I also love their cinder block fire pit and... whatever the hell that other thing is. Is it a bench? A storage compartment? Who knows! I can't wait to move out of here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
 oh my thats special.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Guaranteed to not become a mosquito farm because there's a tiki torch. Smart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
I'm trying to think of what you'd do if someone falls in that and ends up face down in the water, and all I can come up with is pulling the corners to catapult them out. That is, of course, assuming you'd see them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Personally, I'm waiting for the weight to get to be just too much and the whole thing blows out cartoon style.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Using pallets for anything other than moving cargo is extremely riff raff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Overheard at a BBQ: "The pool water is clean. It's just cloudy because the kids have been in it all day."
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
DirtRoadJunglist posted:Overheard at a BBQ: "The pool water is clean. It's just cloudy because the kids have been in it all day." 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
I respect the combination of bungie and tie down strap engineering
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
DirtRoadJunglist posted:Overheard at a BBQ: "The pool water is clean. It's just cloudy because the kids have been in it all day."
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 22:23
|
|
i like nice words
|
blugu64 posted:I respect the combination of bungie and tie down strap engineering My fav is the leaning board holding up the back. A close second is the 2x4 along the top edges of the walls to hold the tarp down. Also, waiting for this, basically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pUde2ZkjOc
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:One of the biggest problems with real estate in San Francisco (and actually I believe this is true for all of California) is that real estate values for purposes of taxation are only reassessed when the property is sold. So if you bought a property for $50k 40 years ago, you could still be paying only $100/year (or whatever) in property taxes, even though that same property is worth a couple million today. As a consequence, you get people who have the choice of either staying put in their "starter home" because everything in the area is outside their price range, or being forced to leave the area altogether. This has two effects: first, it locks up a substantial portion of the property market from people unwilling to sell, and second, it promotes NIMBYism as the people in those homes have all the incentive in the world to drive up property values as high as possible. I'll elaborate a bit. You're referring to the Proposition 13 rules. Property values are still assessed by counties on an annual basis. However, for the purposes of taxes that are assessed as a percentage of the value ("ad valorum"), the value is only permitted to rise by a maximum of 2% annually. The result, though, is as you said: your ad valorum taxes do not keep up with inflation, much less the rate at which property values have risen since 13 passed in 1978. However: non ad-valorum taxes are not limited in that way. These days most counties and some cities and other political districts (school districts in particular) raise money through bonds, and asses basically a flat tax on residential property to pay for them; so for example my property taxes are roughly 50% ad valorum taxes and 50% flat taxes. The latter category has no relationship to property values. So, communites are not totally hamstrung purely by prop 13. But on the flip side, the really worst part is: prop 13 applies to commercial real estate as well. And there's much less incentive to sell commercial real estate, since many businesses simply lease it. A property owner can even effectively wash their hands of maintaining commercial real estate; unlike a residential rental unit, a commercial owner can create a lease contract that assigns maintenance and upgrade and repair items to the tenant, and it's quite common for commercial tenants to make major changes to the property to suit their business. The result is that commercial real estate may remain ostensibly unsold forever, while passing through the hands of many different tenants over the decades. This is also common with e.g. apartment buildings, too, of course, but if you ask the typical California voter about prop 13, they know it's supposedly so Grandma's taxes don't rise to the point she has to sell the house she grew up in. They have no idea we've extended the same courtesy to shopping mall owners. Phanatic posted:This sounds like a regionalistic snobbery, because there are a bunch of places with renowned universities and museums that anchor a diverse and thriving art scene that makes contributions to the global art conversation. NYC, Philly, Santa Fe, Providence, a bunch more. If the general desire is "I want to make a living as an artist," again, there are a bunch of places you can do that. If the specific desire is "I want to make a living as an artist in San Francisco," then that's going to be a lot harder to do. With respect: it isn't. This is a matter of degree. We were discussing California specifically, not the entire country; and the Bay Area and LA are the only areas in CA that have a high concentration of art schools, world-class museums (especially modern art museums), wealthy clientele, and the other attributes that create, support, and sustain a vibrant art community capable of feeding thousands of artists. There are excellent art communities all over the country; there are small, highly focused ones in rural areas, too. But only in dense metropolitan areas will you find five good art universities, half a dozen good modern art museums, twenty to fifty active galleries catering to local middle class and wealthy patrons (as opposed to mostly tourists), multiple significant underground art scenes, major art periodicals focusing their journalism on the area, major art exhibitions attracting international artists, and so on. It's not regionalistic snobbery, it's economics. You need a concentrated population and concentrated wealth to support a large art scene. You also need an art tradition, and it really helps if you also have ethnic diversity, plenty of hotel and convention space, and universities with a century or more of operation that can claim to producing many world-famous artists. A lot of a modern art scene is networking and reputation; art is not just the production of art things, it's an ongoing conversation, and being at a conversational locus is a major advantage to an artist. The irony of course is: Liquid Communism posted:Gentrification is a bitch. Cutting out the ability of poor artists to afford to live anywhere near your art scene undermines the art scene itself. The city of San Francisco (as opposed to the whole bay area) hasn't just lost almost all of its affordable studio space; it's lost dozens of galleries, too, as commercial space skyrockets in price. My wife's studio still caters to people with lower incomes, but really only because it's been there for decades and has operating costs well below the norm; on top of which it is a non-profit, aggressively engaging in grant proposals to supplement income from grants. Without those things, they would be forced to increase the costs of studio access to the point that only wealthy people could afford it (and it's already the case that the studio population skews towards older (retired) and wealthier (can afford to live nearby) artists). The city of SF is more expensive to live in than Manhattan, so it's probably the worst case, but the effect is everywhere, and it's ironic that having a thriving, internationally-recognized art scene probably contributes to rising property values and ultimately gentrification that threatens that art scene. Ghost Ship is absolutely an example of that in action. Oakland has been for the last ten years or so the place that bay area artists want to try to live in and work in, because they can't afford SF and it's the next best place. (Oakland art museum is excellent; mills college and CCA both have excellent campuses nearby; it's culturally diverse; there is a long tradition of underground art which lends it a certain cache'; and it's easy to get to the major art events that are still focused on SF proper.) But rents in Oakland have been skyrocketing too, so the only place a normal non-wealthy artist could manage to rent out some space and work is a lovely old factory building owned by a slumlord with oversight ranging from dubious to nonexistent. The situation was definitely exacerbated by several individuals who could have but refused to make basic safety accommodations, and that maybe was atypical... but the typical artist studio space in an expensive inner city location is lovely and below code, as a rule. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Jul 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
just a little off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 23:07
|
|
