Really though, it would be interesting to investigate how gentrification and gang violence co-exist in the mission. And their is room to advance an argument that the existence of certain kinds of upscale bakeries or eateries (whether they sell cupcakes or not) are an index of X or Y and that these are related to Z.

But an argument would need to say something about which kind of businesses are related to what kind of behavior. The approach taken does make for a cute graphic, but is that what is called for in this situation?

What do these businesses have in common? Baked goods? How does that bind them to each other? And how does that relate them to the ongoing violence?

This article doesn’t advance any kind of argument or provide any information other than that people still go to high-end eateries in the mission even if their is violence there. Is that news? I could just walk past Humphrey Slocomb and see that (or know about other instances of urban gentrification .

Perhaps the authors and the creator of the map would do better to “reinterpret” their data or perhaps more accurately collect sufficient data to construct a coherent and compelling argument.

Mission residents *do not* ignore the violence because they can’t. They can’t ignore the sirens coming down from the police cars on 17th street. If this map was made by someone who actually LIVED in the mission, it would be quite different. Danya Al-Saleh should stick to the ivory tower in Berkeley and make a map of that.