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

[Policy Wonk]

The population who lived there didn't care enough to stand up to decade after decade of crime and decay. Or in many cases was highly transient to begin with.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by McBane

all cities should strive to make their neighborhoods as nice as possible. the push to make gentrification something sinister is just an excuse i think; people think they are entitled to live in their neighborhoods for life and that their neighborhoods should revolve around their demographic (i.e race, religion, economic status) forever; when in reality, history shows that external factors constantly change a neighborhoods character, and subsequently those who live in these neighborhoods are forced to leave.

Let's not forgot that many poor neighborhoods - gentrifying or otherwise - were not always poor neighborhoods. black neighborhoods were not always black neighborhoods, hispanic, jewish, chinese, irish, etc. etc. anyone here remember white flight? anyone remember riots that destroyed neighborhoods?

do you think harlem, for example, was built specifically for poor blacks? it was a wealthy, rural waspy area that urbanized and gave way to irish, jews, italians, and eventually blacks and hispanics. if harlem gentrifies and poor blacks are priced out then so what? it would be just another chapter in harlem's history. and it wouldn't be the first time that a popular nyc ethnic enclave has become history (see little italy).

people want an end to all the things that make their neighborhoods crap - like drug dealing and crime, abandoned homes, empty, trash- and weed-strewn lots, crumbling homes, and a lack of retail - but still want to maintain the low property values that are a direct result of the crime and blight. sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

i hate to be a dick about things, but shouldn't we be more concerned about nice neighborhoods going down the drain than blighted areas becoming revitalized?

This is an incredibly old trend. White flight has been occurring since the 1840s. Streetcar suburbs, picturesque suburbs, auto suburbs, and planned suburbs we usually associate with the (relatively) unplanned suburbs of the postwar Levittowns and the style of housing construction they spawned. In all these, the area being evacuated--subject to "white flight"--has always been the innermost urban ring not associated with the CBD.

Gentrification in Philadelphia seems to be largely an expansion of the CBD and a revival of the picturesque suburb of Chestnut Hill. It seems to be a sociological phenomenon--the movement of people--manifest in the built environment, and it also seems like the people who inhabit gentrified districts (hipsters, yuppies) are post-suburban, meaning they are trying to crunch as many suburban amenities as possible into the urban world, seeking to escape the problems associated with the postwar and post-postwar suburbs (a variation of this is what drives exurbanization, too), meaning that gentrification, in effect, is a white flight from the postwar suburbs to the CBD (and exurbanization a white flight from the postwar suburbs all the way to the urban-rural interface). Interestingly enough, since streetcar suburbs are the first wave of suburbanization and thereby the suburban districts closest to the old city, they are the targets of gentrification now as the industrial CBD has become fully urbanized. University City is, after all, Philadelphia's largest streetcar suburb, and there are clearly streetcar-suburban forms throughout Lower North and upper South Philly.

Also interesting: it was the demolition of the MLK project towers and their reconstruction as rowhomes that spurred, in part, Hawthorne's renaissance. 777 South Broad, in fact, is adjacent to some of the new MLK rowhomes, and so you have the interesting situation where luxury condo rowhome-esque construction meets post-project rowhome construction. One of the odder situations in Philadelphia, methinks.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by 10023

Existing businesses like pawn shops, liquor stores and check cashing places? I don't think that's a different thing at all - displacing these in favor of a real grocery store and a nice bistro or two is exactly the kind of positive change I'm talking about. Oftentimes these new businesses are much needed and appreciated by the current residents, there just needed to be some gentrification to get the neighborhood over the hump of becoming economically compelling for such businesses to set up shop.

You are right on with your opinion about gentrification. Unless a city is hemorrhaging population gentrification will always be a sign of a healthy city. Many people don't realize that cities are organic and filled with many different parts that have ups and downs do to all the reasons stated in in the discussion so far. I was heart broken when I finally figured out it was no longer economically comfortable to stay in Lake View. But I would visit it as much as possible....moved up to Bud Long area, which I use to call the suburbs and found out there is a hell of alot to like up here. We don't go to Lake View as often as we did, because we are within easy reach of several great neighborhood areas....

One thing though...I believe overall it is in the health interest of the entire city to make sure there is economic diversity in all neighborhoods. San Francisco was pricing people out......our receptionist was driving 30 miles to get to Bart in Durbin then taking Bart into the city....and there was once an editorial in one of the San Francisco's papers saying.....so the working class moving out of SF not your problems? Who is going to serve you Staarbucks and wait your tables? So we do need to make sure the city supports and encourages all economic levels (well...we do need to eliminate the poverty level once and for all).

[Steely Dan]

i'll take latte-sipping dog walkers over gun-toting gangbangers every single time. i know the options aren't always that extreme, but in a city as racially and economically polarized as chicago, that often is the reality, unfortunately.

[eternallyme]

Could it be possible to make a "conservative enclave" (such as a religious-dominated area) and do gentrification at the same time?

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Rent-controlled housing and public housing are both obviously non-market, so the relative level of neighborhood gentrification is irrevelent, and no one will be displaced. There are many rent-contolled and public housing units in even the poshest Manhattan neighborhoods.

Not every middle and lower income resident of the city lives in public housing or rent-stabilized apartments. While it's true gentrification works very differently in NY than anywhere else in this country, displacement is still very pertinent. I know a kid from Queens whose family has been shuffling through apartments there and in Brooklyn as every neighbourhood prices them out, usually averaging about 2 apartments a year. Right now they are not sure if the next one will even be in the city proper, where the family has lived for four generations.

While I realize this is merely anecdotal evidence, I wish I could say it's a lone example. This kind of story is what gave Bill Thompson tremendous support late in the race for his 'pro-renter' stance. Displacement is definitely a huge issue here, if not only exacerbated by the presence of public housing and rent control.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

The population who lived there didn't care enough to stand up to decade after decade of crime and decay. Or in many cases was highly transient to begin with.

Perhaps the population that lived there existed within a system that pitted every force of government and economy against their success? And even considering crime, one way in which this condition was addressed, less than 1% of the population of any given 'ghetto' is engaging in it?

To say 'the population who lived there didn't care' is remarkably ignorant to the causes, ramifications and culture of slums.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by CGII

Perhaps the population that lived there existed within a system that pitted every force of government and economy against their success? And even considering crime, one way in which this condition was addressed, less than 1% of the population of any given 'ghetto' is engaging in it?

To say 'the population who lived there didn't care' is remarkably ignorant to the causes, ramifications and culture of slums.

I have had much too close a look at too many American slums to buy that,

Start at "stop snitching" and work your way down,

Woman gunned down on door step in daylight on a saturday afternoon by a man on foot and "nobody saw nothing" and you want me to believe entire communities don't buy into the gang mentality?

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I have had much too close a look at too many American slums to buy that,

Start at "stop snitching" and work your way down,

Woman gunned down on door step in daylight on a saturday afternoon by a man on foot and "nobody saw nothing" and you want me to believe entire communities don't buy into the gang mentality?

Do you think the population that lives with these gangs feels they have any power to speak up and act against gang violence? Do you believe it's as simple as 'tell the cops what you saw' to fix the problems with a bad neighbourhood? Do you think the cops give two shits about the neighbourhood in the first place?

Again, less than 1% or the population of a slum in this country participates in violent crime. If you really believe that majority of people living in slums in this country love living the thug life, then you're out to lunch.

That people are ready to generalize huge demographics as gangbangers and murderers is very troubling.

[Policy Wonk]

And what percentage of those in the mafia orbit were full time hitmen?

Organized crime is an ecosystem and you can't pretend the community isn't part and parcel of it.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

And what percentage of those in the mafia orbit were full time hitmen?

Organized crime is an ecosystem and you can't pretend the community isn't part and parcel of it.

So then, according to you, if you lived in a building rundown by the mafia, or owned a business that was extorted by the mafia, it was your fault the mafia even existed?

[Policy Wonk]

It isn't your fault the mafia existed - it is your fault for not engaging law enforcement and just accepting the situation as part of the community.

That is the problem, the gang activity is just accepted and not only accepted but nurtured through a community that either out of fear or misplaced solidarity will not engage the law.

[llamaorama]

There are way too many personal risks and few benefits for an individual to speak up. Something from the outside has to come in to change that.

This is why I'm not necessarily against those proposed networks of gunshot mics/cameras. Though they should have some kind of electrified cage or cowling to prevent vandalism to be effective.

[flar]

Standing up to a gang or the mafia or whatever involves a great deal of personal risk. Gangs rule by fear and intimidation because it's very effective.

Every population is ruled by some power that is ultimately backed up by force. You can't hold every individual responsible for the power structure they are subjected to.

[Policy Wonk]

That is part of the reason gentrification is positive, it introduces to the community people outside of the influence of the gangs and less likely to have an adversarial view of law enforcement.

Organized crime isn't just about the criminals, but those in their orbit either through solidarity or fear. Outsiders probably aren't going to cower in fear at nobodies they have never heard of or be terribly interested in the power dynamics.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

There are way too many personal risks and few benefits for an individual to speak up. Something from the outside has to come in to change that.

I agree that the risk just appears to be too great for many people to make "snitching" an option. In SF for example, like most other cities, it's not uncommon for snitches to be killed...last year an SF store owner witnessed a robbery at his store. He was cooperating with the police and told them everything he knew...then several days later, the perpetrators followed him home out of the city, to Novato, and shot him to death in his own home. That's just one example, but it's even worse if you're stuck living in a bad neighborhood, where policing is often not very effective (residents not trusting police, police not trusting residents..also, the revolving door justice system is going on big time in SF), and the people you fear are right outside every single day. The best looking choice to protect yourself and your loved ones might be to keep quiet, as sad as that is. I do understand why so many people don't come forward.

This is why I'm not necessarily against those proposed networks of gunshot mics/cameras. Though they should have some kind of electrified cage or cowling to prevent vandalism to be effective.

We had those gunshot detectors installed in SF a couple years ago, and apparently theres tons of gunfire in certain SF neighborhoods that never gets reported. On the topic of mics/cameras getting stolen...that reminds me of a story i read in the news a couple years ago too, in which some people tied a chain to the bumper of a car, and then tied the other end to a camera on a project building in SF. Then they drove away and ripped the camera off of it's mounting.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by alex1

oh my. Trickle down, trickle down.

Obviously Wall St. created a lot of wealth which helped spur gentrification in Manhattan but let's not be too simplistic about it. Healthy cities are more then just wealth. Great neighborhoods the world over are teaming with immigrants irregardless of corporate power. Those neighborhoods create a symbiotic relationship with the rest of the city in different ways which are not predicated on corporate wealth or Wall St. Sometimes these neighborhoods become islands within the city at large. Or micro economic systems that exist on their own. At best, this is a model that creates wealth and distributes it within the community at large. Obviously, some groups are better at the distribution aspect of things compared to others. It's not a topic that can be debated well in written form.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't refute my argument at all. Wealth begreats immigration and lower-class industry. Why is it London became a global mecca during the British Finance boom? Why do cities like LA, Chicago, Houston, and Atlanta draw immigrants by the boatload, despite costs and QOL burdens while Cleveland, Detriot and St Louis get virtually passed over? People don't uproot themselves and everything they know and hold dear to move halfway around the world for someplace that doesn't offer immense economic and social oppertunites.

at the macro level, New York City was always going to be fine due to it's higher education institutions that brought in the brightest and best. It's renowned art culture also attracted an insatiable amount of actors, artists and other creatives from all over the world to help power the largest ad agencies and help produce Broadway plays and art galleries which in turn brought in the tourists in throngs.

“New York has always been going to hell but somehow it never gets there” - Rober Persig quote.

This is a chicken or egg argument, first off. The reason there isn't a "Broadway" in say, Ohama, is becuase a particular city must have the critical mass of well-off people who have the means and time at their disposal to devote themselves to arts. Again, NY has this critical mass by the ish-load, hence it's an artistic mecca. If a few college kids with paintbrushes was all it took to create economic/global powerhouses, then why hasn't Berlin regained the status it had pre-WWII? NY is what it is becuase of it's oppertunity for those of artistic talent to access a wide pool of buyers and sponsers.


And secondly, this really is only tangable to the thread in general. Sure, you could argue NY will never "Go to hell", but there is nothing stopping well-heeled residents from pulling up stakes and retreating to leafy enclaves in CT, Westchester or NJ. It's not like there aren't millions of people who already go into and out of Manhattan for work and pleasure only to actually reside outside the 5 boros. Millions of middle and upper class people packing into ever more disgusting sprawl surrounding burned-out outer boroughs doesn't sound like a NY I myself want to live in. Isn't the goal of this entire site to get said successful residents inside the cities?

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That is part of the reason gentrification is positive, it introduces to the community people outside of the influence of the gangs and less likely to have an adversarial view of law enforcement.

Organized crime isn't just about the criminals, but those in their orbit either through solidarity or fear. Outsiders probably aren't going to cower in fear at nobodies they have never heard of or be terribly interested in the power dynamics.

Gentrification doesn't magically solve the problems of inner city slums, it moves them.

[CentralGrad258]

Gentrification is a very complicated topic, and I don't think it's productive to look at it as only positive or only negative. To me, the best angle to is to look at it from a supply/demand perspective. The reason why well maintained inner city neighborhoods are so expensive is because the demand for such neighborhoods outstrips the supply. That's why the pressure exists to create more such neighborhoods by gentrifying poorly maintained inner city neighborhoods. The best way avoid the worst effects of displacement is by creating so many well maintained urban neighborhoods that supply meets demand and developers can no longer charge unreasonably high prices.

Now this may not work in a few cases like New York and San Fran, where the supply of available blighted neighborhoods has simply run out, but in most American cities that is not the case. It's clear that there is a pent-up demand in American home buyers for walkable, transit accessible neighborhoods. Instead concentrating on suburban new-urbanist developments, perhaps the focus should be on expanding the number of desirable neighborhoods in existing urban cores, where most of the infrastructure is already in place.

[10023]

Originally Posted by CGII

Gentrification doesn't magically solve the problems of inner city slums, it moves them.

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.

[Londonee]

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. If gentrification, for example, meant rich people wearing tophats & monocles and driving Rolls Royces while saying things like "Egad, what foolhardy people are these!" while looking at the scum around them then that would be kind of cool. But instead, gentrification consists of people wearing gym pants while eating burritos at Chipotle after an evening sitting and staring at their laptops on a couch at Barnes & Noble.

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.