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

[CGII]

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.

But the very fact that you can say gentrification has 'made a neighbourhood a better place than it was pre-gentrification' you must have the conviction that some greater good has happened here. There seems to be this notion that 'good' neighbourhoods with 'good' housing stock are occupied by 'bad' people that can be bullied around and displaced to make the neighbourhood 'better' by the placement of 'good' people when the 'bad' people that could've benefited by the betterment of the neighbourhood can now no longer afford to live there and are put into further economic troubles by the need to relocate.

I'm not necessarily for or against gentrification; the fact is it's a natural growth system for cities. I do, however, take issue with the idea that it makes things 'better' when all it does is reorganize problems.

[10023]

^ The fact that the neighborhood is "better" is self-evident if some prior residents can no longer afford to live there. Things that are more desirable (i.e., "better") cost more.

You are confusing "fixing a problem" (urban poverty) with the much simpler question of whether a gentrified neighborhood is a better place to live. The answer to the latter question is a simple "yes".

And based on some actual research that seems to indicate that few people are, in fact, "forced out" of neighborhoods by gentrification in most cases, your supposed downside would appear to be overblown anyway.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by CGII

I do, however, take issue with the idea that it makes things 'better' when all it does is reorganize problems.

Can you give an example of how gentrification reorganizes the civic problem of crumbling infrastructure? It's not as if reinvestment in one area automatically robs another area of its existing value.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by CGII

But the very fact that you can say gentrification has 'made a neighbourhood a better place than it was pre-gentrification' you must have the conviction that some greater good has happened here. There seems to be this notion that 'good' neighbourhoods with 'good' housing stock are occupied by 'bad' people that can be bullied around and displaced to make the neighbourhood 'better' by the placement of 'good' people when the 'bad' people that could've benefited by the betterment of the neighbourhood can now no longer afford to live there and are put into further economic troubles by the need to relocate.

I'm not necessarily for or against gentrification; the fact is it's a natural growth system for cities. I do, however, take issue with the idea that it makes things 'better' when all it does is reorganize problems.

Exactlty! Sometimes prices are determined less by "how much" something is desired than by whom it's desired by. If a neighbourhood once highly desireable to working-class families suddenly becomes desired by professional singles and DINKs, the former will quickly be out bid, and the change made by the new residents may not be apealing to the old. Therefore, the place hasn't become better or more valued, it's just become valued by people with deeper pockets.

[Nouvellecosse]

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'm glad someone finally said this. So far most of the discussion has largely focused on blighted, bombed-out nabes being made safer and more liveable and ignoring cases where perfectly safe and liveable places are made less liveable by high costs, lack of community focus and chain store invasions.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm glad someone finally said this. So far most of the discussion has largely focused on blighted, bombed-out nabes being made safer and more liveable

Up until very recently, that was the nature of US gentrification--there were so many bombed-out neighborhoods to choose from after the post-war rush for the exits.

and ignoring cases where perfectly safe and liveable places are made less liveable by high costs, lack of community focus and chain store invasions.

You seem to be equivocating here, using the word livable to mean two different things in the same sentence.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by fflint

Up until very recently, that was the nature of US gentrification--there were so many bombed-out neighborhoods to choose from after the post-war rush for the exits.


You seem to be equivocating here, using the word livable to mean two different things in the same sentence.

Livability is relatave, and "more livable" can mean lots of different things. Few people would find a blighted, high crime area liveable, so few would consider the results of gentrification in such a case to be a detriment to livabiliy. When it comes to comfortable, modest, and affordable areas, many would find them more liveable than either the blighted or gentrified nade.

[someone123]

I think part of the problem with gentrification is not so much the process itself, but the fact that the new supply of desirable urban neighbourhoods is so artificially low. Building infill is like pulling teeth in most lower density residential areas and sprawled suburbs are basically a non-starter, so rather than building larger urban districts to fill demand we just see prices spike in very specific areas. It would be better if there were just more functioning quality urban neighbourhoods of the kind that are in growing demand.

[LSyd]

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.

-

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm glad someone finally said this. So far most of the discussion has largely focused on blighted, bombed-out nabes being made safer and more liveable and ignoring cases where perfectly safe and liveable places are made less liveable by high costs, lack of community focus and chain store invasions.

the idea of a "perfectly safe" working class neighborhood in chicago is downright laughable. ALL working class hoods in chicago experience gang activity and gang violence. i see gentrification of inner city hoods as a generally positive force because it leads to significantly less gang activity in those neighborhoods.

now, some here have argued that gentrification doesn't solve the problem of street gangs, it just moves the problem somewhere else. and i'd generally agree with that in the case of chicago, but i still see it as a good thing because i choose to live in the central city and i'd (selfishly) rather have all of the gang-banger fucktards of chicago living as far away from me as possible.

gentrification also generally leads to neighborhoods with very, VERY low levels of teenagers, and who the hell wouldn't love that? teenagers are idiots.

[McBane]

when talking about middle/working class neighborhoods that have gentrified, again what is wrong with that? philadelphia has vast areas full of middle/working class neighborhods. philly also has experienced decades of losing population and is among the most violent big cities and has among the lowest rates of residents with college degrees. philadelphia has long been perceived as "uncool", dreary, and not youthful.

20 years ago, manayunk, philadelphia exemplified all of this. it was run down, but not bombed out. homes were occupied but main street storefronts were sitting empty. it's residents were working class but they didn't have degrees. now i'm NOT saying that these people are bad or don't belong. but manayunk wasn't a desirable place to be. manayunk was a satisfactory neighborhood for working class residents who grew up there, but if you were young and got a degree - you left. it typified the kind of run down (think a little worn or rough or around the edges - not blighted or ghetto) east coast city that fueled the sunbelt's growth. it was not a place you moved TO, it was a place you moved FROM.

a city can't be expected to grow and thrive if manayunk is the typical neighborhood. a city needs trendy areas. it needs desirable areas. it needs places that attract college graduates - not makes them run away.

manayunk was never a "bad" neighborhood, but today it's a much better place. it's a better place to live and it's good for the city as a whole. where there was empty storefronts on main street 20 years ago, today people circle around blocks looking for a spot or pay for valet parking. people - particulary young people with degrees - even from out of state - WANT to live in manayunk. true, it's easier to buy a $500 pair of shoes on main street than a gallon of milk, but isn't that preferable to empty storefronts?

how can you say that a neighborhood like this isn't good? philly has grown in recent years and its neighborhoods like manayunk that are the reason why. philadelphia still ranks low in % of residents with college degrees. but manayunk can help the city turn this number around. philly can now count another neighborhood that attracts people - smart people - people who make lots of money and contribute good revenue to the city's coffers.

so, yes even a solid middle class neighborhood can gentrify and it's still not a bad thing. if a neighborhood isn't desirable, it doesn't just mean that people don't want to move in - it usually also means that those who live there want out. and if you add up these neighborhoods across a city, then what does that say about your city as a whole? if its neighborhoods are undesirable and people aren't moving in, then chances are your city is undesirable and people are moving out. gentrification is the opposite of that. it's a sign of vitality and growth. it's a good thing.

[miketoronto]

Another thing about Gentrification is that people are not as rich as they are always made out to be.

The neighbourhood my sister lives in for example is considered to be full of gentrification, and yes the incomes are higher than normal, but overall the family income levels are around 100,000-120,000 a year per family, which is equal to that of the suburbs, where the so called middle class live.

All gentrification is, is the return of the middle class to the city.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the idea of a "perfectly safe" working class neighborhood in chicago is downright laughable. ALL working class hoods in chicago experience gang activity and gang violence. i see gentrification of inner city hoods as a generally positive force because it leads to significantly less gang activity in those neighborhoods.

Well, nothing is ever "perfect", thats an unrealistic criteria even if you lived in Mayberry. However, I think a lot of working class hoods/inner burbs in Chicago arent as bad as they're typically made out to be. I spend a lot of time in Cicero, which by all accounts is a pretty high crime area, but the neighborhoods themselves are pretty livable on a day to day basis. You'd just better know Spanish .

[Steely Dan]

^ sure, everyone has their own level of comfort as to where they feel "safe". i'm just making the connection between more inner city gentrification = less degenerate sub-human gang-banger animals who live near me = a beautiful and wonderful thing.

i'm not saying that gentrification is an unmitigated force for good throughout the universe without any single adverse side effect or drawback, i just happen to really, REALLY fucking hate gang-banger shit stains. they ruin far too many chicago neighborhoods.

[vid]

And what better way to get rid of something you don't like than simply pushing it aside for someone else to deal with!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by vidilicious

And what better way to get rid of something you don't like than simply pushing it aside for someone else to deal with!

precisely. the farther those animals are from downtown chicago, the healthier the city will be.

gangs should be a suburban problem, just like the setup they have in europe.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

precisely. the farther those animals are from downtown chicago, the healthier the city will be.

gangs should be a suburban problem, just like the setup they have in europe.

bangers should die

growing up in the city I had my fair amount of fights with them as a kid

if they all just suddenly dropped dead those oxygen thieves wouldn't be missed by anyone

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Another thing about Gentrification is that people are not as rich as they are always made out to be.

The neighbourhood my sister lives in for example is considered to be full of gentrification, and yes the incomes are higher than normal, but overall the family income levels are around 100,000-120,000 a year per family, which is equal to that of the suburbs, where the so called middle class live.

All gentrification is, is the return of the middle class to the city.

I think what constitutes the middle class is highly skewed by many on this
forum

for instance 120K for a family is substantially above middle class





FAMILY SIZE
STATE






1 EARNER 2 PEOPLE 3 PEOPLE 4 PEOPLE *
Alabama $36,870 $46,647 $53,093 $63,951
Alaska $49,325 $71,550 $72,079 $91,754
Arizona $43,397 $57,620 $62,002 $71,867
Arkansas $33,623 $45,435 $48,909 $56,822
California $49,182 $65,097 $70,684 $79,971
Colorado $46,765 $65,668 $70,838 $78,905
Connecti $57,505 $70,827 $85,315 $103,408
Delaware $46,187 $60,747 $77,174 $79,006
District DC $42,340 $72,724 $72,724 $72,724
Florida $42,468 $53,939 $60,162 $71,124
Georgia $40,760 $54,054 $61,959 $71,554
Hawaii $52,784 $66,227 $73,187 $88,863
Idaho $40,910 $51,946 $54,633 $66,939
Illinois $47,355 $60,049 $68,730 $81,184
Indiana $41,697 $53,169 $61,164 $70,518
Iowa $41,381 $54,628 $63,888 $74,047
Kansas $41,004 $56,146 $63,245 $74,626
Kentucky $36,628 $45,474 $55,391 $65,520
Louisiana $36,945 $46,741 $52,628 $66,634
Maine $40,618 $52,065 $64,342 $69,714
Maryland $55,543 $73,947 $84,952 $103,719
Massac $54,842 $66,437 $83,104 $100,280
Michigan $44,703 $53,575 $63,339 $76,312
Minnesota $47,592 $62,073 $75,603 $87,634
Mississippi $32,348 $41,934 $46,470 $55,759
Missouri $39,563 $51,612 $58,473 $70,363
Montana $39,484 $52,796 $52,796 $65,175
Nebraska $37,803 $53,453 $62,814 $72,179
Nevada $48,194 $60,557 $65,783 $74,735
New Hampshire $55,766 $65,751 $77,008 $93,186
New Jersey $57,120 $69,853 $85,397 $103,034
New Mexico $35,913 $48,708 $53,018 $56,009
New York $46,523 $57,006 $67,991 $83,036
North Carolina $38,478 $52,355 $57,301 $70,134
North Dakota $38,226 $53,389 $67,644 $71,751
Ohio $42,458 $52,922 $62,251 $74,234
Oklahoma $38,244 $51,322 $54,494 $62,049
Oregon $45,176 $56,317 $61,046 $72,735
Pennsylvania $44,688 $53,011 $67,262 $78,780
Rhode Island $46,466 $59,314 $72,809 $91,415
South Carolina $38,728 $50,823 $54,834 $65,974
South Dakota $35,533 $51,068 $58,135 $69,002
Tennessee $37,702 $48,729 $55,190 $64,615
Texas $38,545 $54,908 $57,053 $66,400
Utah $48,832 $56,816 $63,796 $71,919
Vermont $40,876 $58,480 $64,312 $75,938
Virginia $49,689 $65,342 $73,191 $85,769
Washington $50,656 $63,521 $69,577 $82,445
West Virginia $38,706 $42,865 $50,997 $59,762
Wisconsin $42,816 $57,657 $67,103 $77,760
Wyoming $46,265 $60,442 $68,568 $80,405

[vid]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

precisely. the farther those animals are from downtown chicago, the healthier the city will be.

gangs should be a suburban problem, just like the setup they have in europe.

Gangs should not be a problem. Period.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by vidilicious

Gangs should not be a problem. Period.

but they always will be.

and if the brainless gang-banger turds have to exist somewhere, i'd prefer that it be far away from me. gentrification helps achieve that.