Article about this from the Financial times today:
Pro Gentirfication Quote:
|
Quote:
Take the Tenderloin, the most contentious bit of land at one point (the fight there is now largely over and the policies to prevent it gentrifying solid) because of its central location adjacent to the city's premier shopping and tourist zone around Union Square: Quote:
These days, other neighborhoods, especially the Mission District, are attempting to follow a similar course. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hell, by San Francisco standards that's pretty lenient too, considering how many neighborhoods cap development at three stories. |
Quote:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/OT...=w1317-h877-no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashiell_Hammett |
to respond to the OP's question of whether this happens in my city or not:
On the island of Oahu(City & County of Honolulu) nimbys aren't really a concern and I can't recall them ever really blocking a project. Only on the windward side and north shore do they make a lot noise and quite frankly the developments they're fighting are suburban-style projects, the kind that many people on this forum frown upon. The biggest impediments to urban development on Oahu is financing and sewage infrastructure. On the other islands (Maui, Kauai, and Big Island) nimbys wield a lot of political power, but on Oahu they're 100% bark and no bite. I work with a lot of developers and never once have they listed nimby opposition as a concern. From a developers perspective I'd say it's easier to get entitltements for a residential high-rise in Honolulu than it is in any of the west coast cities (SF/LA/Seattle/Portland). |
Quote:
Moving forward, it would be great for the aldermanic system to get replaced with a permissive bureaucratic system that enables plenty of new housing without corruption, but my fear is that the good-government push will just choke off the supply and give us a coastal housing market without the incomes or economic vitality to match. Quote:
Black neighborhoods plagued by vacancy DO tend to be pro-development, to some extent, but developers don't usually see any demand to live in those neighborhoods, perhaps because of racism but also just because the sheer amount of vacancy makes them less livable places. Quote:
|
Whether gentrification harms or displaces existing residents is one thing.
There's also the long-term issue of re-shuffling the geography of affordability. I get the feeling that what's going to happen is that we are taking centrally located high poverty, high crime, low education attainment areas that happened to have great transit, were close to major employment centers and home to businesses with philanthropic activities as well as legacy civic wealth(institutions, cultural and parks facilities, etc) and replacing them with high poverty, high crime, low education attainment areas that are on the exurban fringe and have none of those things. |
I'm seeing this phenomenon a bit in New Orleans. I work in the affordable housing industry myself, but I find it a bit hypocritical to see folks I know in the affordable housing advocacy world that claim to be YIMBY (Yes in My Back Yard) but then totally derail private projects over the affordability issue. Some of those projects will even have an affordable housing component, yet people will derail the project for not having the desired number of affordable units or AMI level. Their grievances should be with policy makers, not private developers.
However, I do think this type of resistance is okay when its a large project that is receiving public money or other large kickbacks. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 5:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.