It helps that you self-select for the audience by who can afford the building, just like they've done the same with their neighbourhood.
While I was able to find nice things to do and my neighbors have done nice things for me in the Excelsior, the Mission, Glen Park, and the Sunset none of those places had the frequency and scale of this civil interaction.
And certainly my life in the TL was characterized by gladness for lack of negative interaction than by constant positive interactions.
My experience in SF is that some neighborhoods experience greater pro-social behavior than others.
I do see a tie to perceived threat - people who feel they are in danger don't want to risk interactions. First, a rule of the street is, 'don't get involved'. Second, you don't know if the person next to you is crazy.
But few places are that dangerous; if you do get to interact, the only varient seems to be the seemingly arbitrary subculture of that particular neighborhood.
Heavens forbid we have to break bread with one of the poors.
Did you mean to imply that you only prefer to associate with people that have around as much money as you?
But boy howdy have I been to a lot of them in working class areas.
That's actually even worse than I thought.
Working class neighborhoods already have stuff like this happening. Cookouts and block parties are pretty common! I'm not sure why it would be more difficult if the people were poor.
If you have to move every 6 months, work second and third shift, and are constantly having vehicle problems and other emergencies, you are going to have a way harder time. Obviously. Let's not create a mythos of the working class that obfuscates reality.
Describing that as a "mythos of the working class that obfuscates reality" sounds detached from reality, honestly.
>What the original commenter is saying - and they are correct - is that, when you can afford to live in a place, you have way fewer obstacles to starting/maintaining community.
I really don't think that's as big of an issue as you - or the original commenter - are making them out to be.
> Describing that as a "mythos of the working class that obfuscates reality" sounds detached from reality, honestly.
No, what is detached from reality is asserting lived experience as universal experience. In response to someone benignly acknowledging that their material conditions ease satisfying their social needs, you made an assumption, rather abrasively, that they don't wish to associate with poor people and that they think poor people are incapable of creating/maintaining community.
> I really don't think that's as big of an issue as you - or the original commenter - are making them out to be.
Of course not, your lived experience doesn't allow you to see it that way. But there are experiences other than yours, such as the person in the part of my comment which you didn't quote: they are often stuck building their safety and security in the hierarchy of needs. If your mythos of the working class only includes your experiences rather than a culmination of varying experiences, it obfuscates reality.
How do you think they do that?
It isn't through rugged individualism, lol