What's Wrong With Gentrification? (The Displacement Myth)

[Mr Roboto]

Originally Posted by 10023

Solving the problems of inner city slums is a separate issue. The point is that a gentrified neighborhood is a better place than it was pre-gentrification.

In the grand scheme of things then, who cares? If moving around poverty is all thats happening, well, thats not saying alot then is it.

[vid]

Originally Posted by 10023

Solving the problems of inner city slums is a separate issue. The point is that a gentrified neighborhood is a better place than it was pre-gentrification.

And some other part of the city becomes a worse place because of it.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Mr Roboto

In the grand scheme of things then, who cares? If moving around poverty is all thats happening, well, thats not saying alot then is it.

well, i prefer the european model of healthy inner cities and ghetto suburbs compared to the reverse american model. sure, it'd be great to get rid of all crime-ridden underclass ghetto shitholes, but i honestly just don't ever see that happening, so the lesser of two evils is to keep those areas as far away from the city center as possible.

[Policy Wonk]

And like most other urban redevelopment issues we invariably get back to this: The Onion

[vid]

"Poor people in slums don't stand up against things they oppose enough, so read this satirical piece mocking how poor people in slums always stand up something they oppose."

[brickell]

Originally Posted by vidilicious

And some other part of the city becomes a worse place because of it.

So what's the solution? Should municipalities purposely let neighborhoods rot just so poor people have a place to live? Should they congregate the homeless and addicts in one spot so only the poor have to deal with them?

How many people living in ghettos really want to do deal with all that?

[Policy Wonk]

Okay, so where are we then?

The line of thought appears to be that these areas are horrible, but because some non-criminals occupy the area they should be allowed to fester permanently so as not to displace anyone?

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Gentrification leads to Chipotle, Jimmy John's, Godiva, Starbucks, Jamba Juice, and Barnes & Noble on every friggin corner, and it's starting to get kind of lame.

If gentrification didn't come with the chain mentality, I wouldn't mind.

The following ballot initiative is now law in San Francisco (since Nov 2006--previously, something similar had been done in certain areas on an ad hoc basis):

Proposition G is an ordinance that would amend the City's Planning Code for NCDs (Neighborhood Commercial Districts) where formula retail (defined as any business having more than 12 outlets) use is currently permitted to require a Planning Commission hearing for approval of a conditional use authorization before an establishment can proceed. Proposition G would also allow the Board of Supervisors to adopt more restrictive criteria for conditional use authorization for formula retail or to prohibit formula retail in any NCD.

In other words, national chains need Planning Commission/Planning Dept. approval which requires a hearing at which public input is invited--and in SF often loud and outspoken--and the Planning Commission decision can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors which is notoriously anti-chain store.

The effect has been that new chain stores have mostly been limited to large-scale new developments and downtown (in other words, not "neighborhood") locations.

Any city can do something similar.

[Marcu]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

The following ballot initiative is now law in San Francisco (since Nov 2006--previously, something similar had been done in certain areas on an ad hoc basis):



In other words, national chains need Planning Commission/Planning Dept. approval which requires a hearing at which public input is invited--and in SF often loud and outspoken--and the Planning Commission decision can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors which is notoriously anti-chain store.

The effect has been that new chain stores have mostly been limited to large-scale new developments and downtown (in other words, not "neighborhood") locations.

Any city can do something similar.

I'd rather mandate sufficient density, urban form, and retail frontage where chains and local stores can coexistent, rather than turn the fairly simple process of commercial space rental over to a NIMBY controlled city agency that will essential revert to class descrimination in its selection of chains in an indirect attempt to increase land valuesand push out undesirables. (eg Whole Foods=good, Aldi=bad).

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by brickell

So what's the solution? Should municipalities purposely let neighborhoods rot just so poor people have a place to live? Should they congregate the homeless and addicts in one spot so only the poor have to deal with them?

How many people living in ghettos really want to do deal with all that?

SF has done precisely that in the Tenderloin with decidedly mixed results.

First they stopped the gentrification that was occurring in the form of replacement of midrise SRO ("single room occupancy" hotels, better known as "flop houses") by modern high rise hotels and market rate condos. They did this by instituting: (1) a 9-story height limit and (2) a ban on conversion of hotels renting rooms by the month (or longer) into so-called "tourist hotels" renting rooms by the day.

Then, they made it MUCH easier to put new programs providing services to the poor, substance abusing, and crazy in the Tenderloin and virtually stopped allowing them anywhere else.

Finally, when programs for new construction of subsidized "below market rate" housing came along (paid for by both a city bond issue and by fees on developers of market rate housing, better known as new luxury condos), they located most of that housing in the Tenderloin. Some of the new construction thus produced is very, very attractive--among the city's best looking new midrise construction, because while everybody in town feels free to bitch about the design of new market rate buildings and thereby "mediocratize" them, new BMR buildings in the Tenderloin seem to get built unnoticed or are above criticism since the developers are non-profit. And, by tearing down some of the most egregiously derelict T-loin buildings and replacing them with these nice new buildings, they have kept the place looking pretty nice--almost "gentrified" in a way--in spite of all the other things they are doing to it.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Marcu

I'd rather mandate sufficient density, urban form, and retail frontage where chains and local stores can coexistent, rather than turn the fairly simple process of commercial space rental over to a NIMBY controlled city agency that will essential revert to class descrimination in its selection of chains in an indirect attempt to increase land valuesand push out undesirables. (eg Whole Foods=good, Aldi=bad).

First of all, you have the outcome backwards. In SF (a "people's republic"), while the level of affluence is high and the BMW seemingly the most common vehicle after the Prius, "rich people" are condemned and the proletariat esteemed. Therefore, there has been an ongoing battle for years over locating a new Whole Foods in the Haight, for example. A lot of people shop there, but an equal number are willing to fight a new one coming into a location. What most really want is a restoration of something like Falletti's, a formerly beloved independent grocer that had, within its walls, also separately owned and operated butchers, poultry sellers, cheese sellers, bakers and so on with Falletti itself selling mainly non-perishables like canned goods.

Second, this is not about "urban form". Its about the retail ambience of a place being unique which it is decidedly not, even if the McDonalds is forced to have Victorian architecture and bay windows.

[Zerton]

I'm all for trash neighborhoods being taken over by rich people. It's very annoying especially here in Chicago seeing beautiful old homes on wide boulevards being completely trashed. I don't understand how people can let such nice buildings fall into disrepair. How expensive is mowing the lawn? Or not throwing trash out your window? It's a shame.

[10023]

Originally Posted by vidilicious

And some other part of the city becomes a worse place because of it.

Not necessarily.

Maybe there's a neighborhood that's completely emptied out. A rundown, but crowded, neighborhood sees gentrification. Some portion of the residents move away (while many more, apparently, stay and see the benefits of lower crime, improved amenities, and higher property values), into this emptied out neighborhood. The empty neighborhood remains poor, but incrementally better off as the additional population improves amenities and ultimately starts it on a path that results in it, too, becoming a more attractive place to live for "urban pioneers" that will eventually gentrify it as well. More importantly, some of the concentrated social elements that caused the now gentrified neighborhood to be a dangerous place to live are more widely dispersed, lessening their impact.

Gentrification is a process by which pockets of concentrated poverty become less so. It is a good thing.

And ultimately, like Steely says, we'll never get rid of poverty. That's impossible because poverty is a relative concept. Just look at government statistics on "poverty" - it's defined as "less than [ ]% of the median income". The poor in the U.S., generally speaking, are infinitely better off than the poor in other parts of the world, and infinitely better off than the poor in the U.S. were a century ago. If you had central heating, a 10-year old car and could eat McDonald's three or four times a week in Victorian London, you'd be a rich man. Our definitions of what constitutes affluent, middle-class, or poor will continually shift over time. So don't conflate what's good or bad for a particular neighborhood with the broader social issue.

[niwell]

It's interesting how the majority of people on this site seemingly assume gentrification only occurs in shitty burned out neighbourhoods with a high proportion of vacancies and propensity for criminal activity. If you only look at these cases then gentrification is generally a positive force. Though it should be pointed out that reinvestment can occur without the speculative drive that comes along with cycle gentrification.

Of course, things are far from that simple. Gentrification can just as easily occur (perhaps more easily) in solid working class and/or middle class neighbourhoods. Areas that are relatively safe, have few (if any) vacant storefronts and a solid occupied housing stock. This is particularly the case in Canadian cities which never really had large swaths of blighted inner city and comes along with the revanchist myth of "retaking the neighbourhood". Problem is, lots of these areas have been working class for a century and manage just fine. And what happens after the initial wave of gentrification? Yes, the artists and independent businesses are great for an area, but what happens when they are priced out? The last area I lived in is currently experiencing an influx of art galleries that can no longer afford to operate in areas they were credited with gentrifying in the first place.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

And like most other urban redevelopment issues we invariably get back to this: The Onion

One of my favorite onion articles ever:

WASHINGTON—According to a report released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, the recent influx of exceedingly affluent powder-wigged aristocrats into the nation's gentrified urban areas is pushing out young white professionals, some of whom have lived in these neighborhoods for as many as seven years.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_nations_gentrified

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by niwell

It's interesting how the majority of people on this site seemingly assume gentrification only occurs in shitty burned out neighbourhoods with a high proportion of vacancies and propensity for criminal activity. If you only look at these cases then gentrification is generally a positive force. Though it should be pointed out that reinvestment can occur without the speculative drive that comes along with cycle gentrification.

Of course, things are far from that simple. Gentrification can just as easily occur (perhaps more easily) in solid working class and/or middle class neighbourhoods. Areas that are relatively safe, have few (if any) vacant storefronts and a solid occupied housing stock. This is particularly the case in Canadian cities which never really had large swaths of blighted inner city and comes along with the revanchist myth of "retaking the neighbourhood". Problem is, lots of these areas have been working class for a century and manage just fine. And what happens after the initial wave of gentrification? Yes, the artists and independent businesses are great for an area, but what happens when they are priced out? The last area I lived in is currently experiencing an influx of art galleries that can no longer afford to operate in areas they were credited with gentrifying in the first place.

I was going to post something similar. Most of the "gentrification wars" in the Bay Area really deal less with resident displacement and more with certain uses being displaced (which can certainly lead to residents being displaced, but that's generally a secondary effect). For example, PDR (production, distribution, repair) uses being converted to residential, SRO hotels being converted to other housing or hotel uses, etc, etc.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Gordo

I was going to post something similar. Most of the "gentrification wars" in the Bay Area really deal less with resident displacement and more with certain uses being displaced (which can certainly lead to residents being displaced, but that's generally a secondary effect). For example, PDR (production, distribution, repair) uses being converted to residential, SRO hotels being converted to other housing or hotel uses, etc, etc.

Toronto is very similar in the conversion of "Employment Areas" to residential uses. Generally industrial areas that are perceived as underutilized or a blight to the city and directly converted through renovation or outright demolished and rebuilt. This is arguably true, but given the tax structure of Toronto it is actually economically detrimental to the city's overall finances. Also the argument coming to light that these areas are in fact vital to a city and should congruent with "smart growth" ideals.

Not strictly gentrification in the classical sense but follows the same basic process of land economics.

[Reggae Boyz Ja]

Black folks get kicked out of their houses cuz rich white people start looking for cheap houses. Like Atlanta, Dc, Brooklyn and san fran. But it's all good i like diversity.You get many different type of women.

[volguus zildrohar]

Originally Posted by Londonee

In Philadelphia, gentrification does not lead to this chain mentality at all. Neighborhoods like Old City, Northern Liberties, Fishtown, Grad Hospital all have undergone gentrification within the last decade--some more than others. What this spells for those neighborhoods is more pubs, bars, restaurants, local shops, art galleries and cafe's--but nothing even close to what you are talking about with chains moving in. Most, if not all, of these new businesses are locally owned and run--most are green-minded, environmentally friendly, and active in the community. Obviously, housing costs have increased as has QOL in those neighborhoods, but it's definitely not as cliched and chain-minded as you suggest.

This is quite true and it's something I hear occassionally complained about as a result of gentrification. Surely it may not sound all that uplifting but the truth is the average fourth or fifth generation, working-class Philadelphian - of any race or background - will find little use for a wine school or an artisan bakery or a yoga studio in their neighborhood. In the case of Fairmount, where I have worked for several years, many longtime residents complain about the lack of simple amenities in their neighborhood - a large supermarket, a regular bakery, a nail salon. What exists aren't options that are totally unlike those things - it isn't as if you can't buy a loaf of bread there - but the options that do exist clearly cater to a market that longtime neighborhood residents don't belong to.

I think that gentrification carries a particular stigma in Philadelphia's case because this city's strong neighborhood identifications. In some parts of town it transcends issues of race and class - it isn't that people on a particular block don't want to be around folks of a different color or economic class - they don't want to be around anyone that isn't from the neighborhood.

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned the situation that arose with the Westrum development in Brewerytown and I believe the same situation applies. Good or bad, people in this city can be fiercely territorial of where they live - the pride can come from the senior citizens who, though they'll swiftly acknowledge when their neighborhood has gone to pot, will nonetheless feel an attachment to the place where they bought their first home and have lived for 3, 4 or 5 decades. The younger generation subscribes to an almost tribal territorialism which I personally find amusing at times. Teenagers from Roxborough or Point Breeze or Olney will be proud to tell you where they grew up because their identity, their entire life is wrapped up in that neighborhood, for better or for worse.

Again, it's more an issue of perceived intrusion by general outsiders that gives the idea of gentrification the problems it encounters in Philadelphia moreso than any actual changes it makes.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Reggae Boyz Ja

Black folks get kicked out of their houses cuz rich white people start looking for cheap houses. Like Atlanta, Dc, Brooklyn and san fran. But it's all good i like diversity.You get many different type of women.

What do you mean when you say that is happening in San Francisco? Are you referring to mid-century "urban redevelopment?"