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

[blockski]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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.

Gangs thrive on turf they can control. And that happens when you have extreme concentrated poverty in certain neighborhoods. To the extent that gentrification brings the middle class back to these neighborhoods and allows them to diversify more in terms of the economics - that eliminates the places that those gangs can successfully operate.

[Via Chicago]

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.

That opinion is mean spirited. No one (suburbanite, city dweller, or country farmer) should have to live with the fear of gang violence. The built environment someone chooses to live in, or their economic means, should have absolutely nothing to do with the situation. And this isnt some either/or scenario. Gangs exist everywhere, and their actions affect society as a whole. Your attitude feels very elitist...akin to "as long as the problem is swept under some other poor mope's rug, then I don't care"

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by lawfin

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

The government and the flawed "war on drugs" is as much to blame as the gang bangers themselves. Neither would exist without the other. Seeing as how profitable the illicit drug trade is, I dont see that side surrendering any time soon (sure hasnt had any progress since the Nixon era). The government needs to admit its failied policy and move towards decriminalization...it would solve a whole lot of problems. Of course, thats not a politically popular stance to take, so the status quo will continue.

[fflint]

We don't want to move a problem around or be an elitist, so let the inner-city brownstones and victorians and schools continue to rot until they collapse or are torn down, and the land reverts to open prairie--thereby dispersing the residents *and* the gangs to those other areas anyway?

I just don't see how the existence of a citywide gang problem (or of poverty or of crime) becomes a compelling argument against preserving the long-term public and private investment in urban infrastructure and housing stock.

Sure is a good thing this neighborhood here wasn't gentrified--because gentrification just pushes poor people and crime into other areas! Ooooooops....

http://thisisprobablyaninterestingblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lost-neighborhood.jpg

[vid]

Yeah, that happens everywhere.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

That opinion is mean spirited. No one (suburbanite, city dweller, or country farmer) should have to live with the fear of gang violence. The built environment someone chooses to live in, or their economic means, should have absolutely nothing to do with the situation. And this isnt some either/or scenario. Gangs exist everywhere, and their actions affect society as a whole. Your attitude feels very elitist...akin to "as long as the problem is swept under some other poor mope's rug, then I don't care"

not elitist, just realist. given our free-market economic system that ensures that there are winners and losers, i'm of the belief that some of the losers in that equation will always morph into antisocial sub-human animals. and given that i feel cities have much more inherent value than the auto-centric suburban cancer that has consumed our american civilization for the past half century, i would rather that the gangs infest and destroy those places of lesser value.

and gangs affect the neighborhoods that they terrorize FAR more than they affect society as a whole. you see it in chicago plain as day. the city knows it'll never get rid of the gangs and gang-culture, so they've taken a policy of containing that idiocy to the best of their abilities. not terribly dissimilar from the US's containment policy during the cold war.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by fflint

We don't want to move a problem around or be an elitist, so let the inner-city brownstones and victorians and schools continue to rot until they collapse or are torn down, and the land reverts to open prairie--thereby dispersing the residents *and* the gangs to those other areas anyway?

My elitist comment was directed at those who seem dont care about solving the gang problem itself, but rather just shifting it to those who have lawns and single family homes...as if that itself is a solution.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

not elitist, just realist.

It IS elitist. You advocate a European city model where wealth is concentrated in the core and radiates out in ever decreasing rings of prosperity. Whatever. But to say that those in the hinterlands who cant afford to live in the yuppified Disneyland playground deserve to live in violence and have their communities destroyed simply because they drive cars, shop in strip malls, and live in houses that look different than those of your ideal is most certainly elitist. Youre treating this like some game, using the words winners and losers. Well, the losers are the same people who have always lost. You're not concerned about the underclass or their hardships, you're just concerned about passing the buck so your favorite buildings dont get run down. Thats damn shallow.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Youre treating this like some game, using the words winners and losers. Well, the losers are the same people who have always lost.

so be it. that's life in america, for better or worse.

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

You're not concerned about the people or their hardships, you're just concerned about passing the buck so your favorite buildings dont get run down.

now you're on the trolley.

[fflint]

Absent gentrification, poor people and gangs oftentimes still get pushed out of dying neighborhoods (along with everyone else) as buildings collapse or are demolished, as blocks become abandoned, as services are cut off, as all life withers away. Dispersion and movement of intractible social problems is inevitable in the long-term flux of city life, is it not?

So if it's all the same either way--if poverty and gangs are here to stay--then let's choose to preserve our massive investment in urban infrastructure and housing stock anyway. That way, in the future, even though there will be poverty and gangs, there will also be an intact cityscape and each generation won't have spend its time and money building and rebuilding the whole fucking world.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

now you're on the trolley.

Im not "on" anything of the sort. If you are, so be it, pathetic as it is.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by fflint

So if it's all the same either way--if poverty and gangs are here to stay--then let's choose to preserve our massive investment in urban infrastructure and housing stock anyway. That way, in the future, even though there will be poverty and gangs, there will also be an intact cityscape and each generation won't have spend its time and money building and rebuilding the whole fucking world.

I dont agree with your assertion that those things are here to stay. Poverty, perhaps. But as far as gangs are concerned (which is the supposedly the real point of contention), as I have already mentioned their existence is enabled by the illicit drug trade. Legalize the market, and suddenly theres no reason to fight over territory and distribution. You dont still see people running around bootlegging booze, do you? Of course not, because its not profitable to do so, since it is produced on a mass scale and regulated. If drugs were legalized and placed into a regulated market tomorrow, 90% of gangs' power would be instantly removed. And guess what, that would improve neighborhoods in itself and not simply shift the issue to some poor suburbanite.

[Steely Dan]

^ i would fully support the decriminalization of illegal drugs, i just don't see that as a politically viable option in this nation. far too many people have bought into the mental/political frame of the "war on drugs".

so that being a reality that's a long time coming, if ever, gentrification, and the way in which it helps push gang-banging stupidity to the periphery, is the city's only hope to have better inner city neighborhoods.

[fflint]

I do think there will always be poverty. That said, I'm really just taking points and insinuations others have made in this thread and assuming their truth for the sake of argument.

IF it is true gentrification fails to solve deep-rooted societal problems like poverty and crime, and only moves those problems around--that is still not a good argument against gentrification.

Bad social policy, poverty and crime are not supposed or expected to end if only we renovate and preserve existing housing stock and infrastructure for future generations of city dwellers. Today's societal and political problems exist regardless of gentrification, and so obviously require solutions unrelated to gentrification per se.

[Mr Roboto]

It would be great if all cities everywhere would institute a minimum 5% affordable housing portion (some 20-50% below market rate) of developments exceeding 20 units, or of a developers total units (aggregate). Affordable housing developments could be mixed in with market rate areas as well. Model citizens considered poor could then live in nicer areas. This would nullify the disparity in school funding, as well as help reduce the need for police to be concentrated in certain areas. Crime rates would certainly drop drastically. Social problems would be reduced.

But then again, im a commie socialist, so I would be for this type of shit. Regulating the market is evil, or something like that. Income disparity is absolutely necessary, and must be increased.

[vid]

I've proposed something similar: abolishing the high density, low income city-owned slums in many Canadian cities, selling off that land to developers, and then using the proceeds from that sale and additional government funds to buy housing units throughout the city to house low income people in the general population, to avoid the high concentrations that foster criminal activity, and with a programme whereby those dwelling in the units have the option to pay an interest-free mortgage on that unit so that they eventually own it (similar to Habitat for Humanity, but with existing stock).

As if that will ever happen! :\

[brickell]

I honestly don't see how the war on drugs has any bearing on gentrification.

As long as we live in a free society, people will get to live where they want (and can afford to). It's a messy, sometimes dirty process, but it's still the best one we have in my opinion.

I think I asked it before, but what mechanism do those against gentrification propose to stop it?

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Mr Roboto

It would be great if all cities everywhere would institute a minimum 5% affordable housing portion (some 20-50% below market rate) of developments exceeding 20 units, or of a developers total units (aggregate). Affordable housing developments could be mixed in with market rate areas as well.

The Peoples Republic of SF does 15% as I recall--it can be on or off-site but there have been some real problems (as you might expect) putting it on-site so these days it's more commonly off-site.

Originally Posted by vidilicious

I've proposed something similar: abolishing the high density, low income city-owned slums in many Canadian cities, selling off that land to developers, and then using the proceeds from that sale and additional government funds to buy housing units throughout the city to house low income people in the general population, to avoid the high concentrations that foster criminal activity, and with a programme whereby those dwelling in the units have the option to pay an interest-free mortgage on that unit so that they eventually own it (similar to Habitat for Humanity, but with existing stock).

As if that will ever happen! :\

It can definitely happen. Again in SF, the high density, high rise public housing has been just about all torn down and replaced with "garden apartment style" units with separate entrances (no elevators or long hallways full of gang members and crack dealers) using "Hope" money from the federal government (HUD). But this is a somewhat different issue from "affordable housing", at least as we define it. Public housing is owned by the government and rented at rents (or sells--both kids are being built) based on income to the poorest of the poor. "Affordable housing" is owned by non-profits who are certified to participate in a city program using both bond money (city and state) and the funds extracted from developers mentioned above. The non-profits develop, build and manage the units, again at rents the tenants are deemed to be able to afford. But the target tenant is not the "poorest of the poor" (such as those who don't work and often never have) who lives in public housing, but rather the "working poor": people raising kids on a minimum or near-minimum wage job for example. They are the sort of people who might be able to afford a small unsubsidized apartment in many places but not in high cost SF.

Here is an example of the sort of places I'm talking about that is just about to open:


Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/...arendt_and_his_house_at_850_broderi.html

This one's a bit different in that it's for low income seniors (living on Social Security I imagine), not families. The units, therefore, are smaller, consisting of 47 studio apartments. The developer is the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, a non-profit that uses the funding sources I described and has built all sorts of "affordable" housing all over town.

[tablemtn]

It would be great if all cities everywhere would institute a minimum 5% affordable housing portion

That's not necessarily workable in the US, though, since many people really don't want to be forced to mix with that sort of "element" - particularly if they have children. No sane person wants to live in a building where known gang members also congregate.

Gangs in the US choose to arm themselves and engage in a rather horrendous level of violence, compared to gangs in other developed countries. It's quite a shame.

But as long as certain communities choose to devalue education, bear close to 80% of children out of wedlock, and engage in rampant criminality, what can really be done?

Ending the drug war would be nice, but it's a political impossibility.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Qubert

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.

it's not as simple as you'd like to believe it is. Even so, some of the fastest growing areas in this country are rural southern towns and small cities with heavy immigration inflow. Just look at Central Cali, southern Texas, Georgia...

the idea that trickle down is somehow an impetus for immigration is again wrong. Don't equate trickle down with trickle up. Cheap labor can be really good for your bottom line. Even so, that's only one small sliver of the truth, as immigrant communities contain their own micro-economic environments that can be very insular and independent of the Wall Steets of America.