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

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

"Great Neighborhoods" don't have single digit employment rates, rampant gang activity and third world poverty rates.

The cold politically incorrect truth of gentrification is what is lost was rarely of much value to begin with. Unless your a first-wave hipster raging against your Long Island suburban upbringing/

whose talking about single digit employment rates and rampant gang activity and third world poverty rates?

perhaps you meant to respond to someone else?

[SuburbanNation]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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





now you're on the trolley.

say whaat?

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

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.

I can go and look at the same exact philosophical American doppelganger of a European city anytime I want. It's just that it's physically the reverse, which really is irrelevant!

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Qubert

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.

Omaha has a very nice art scene!

What makes New York so strong in the arts is, like you said, critical mass. I wouldn't confuse that with wealth however. I used to live in Chicago before moving to New York. Chicago has one of the most amazing theater scenes in the world. And the reason it thrives is because of affordability AND critical mass. Actors can afford live there, experiment, get their union cards and then move to L.A. or nYC if they choose to make the next step. New York's scene thrives in large part to tourism. Not some trickle down theory.

Berlin is a powerhouse in art. Galleries the world over represent Berlin artists as they are some of the most talented and cutting edge anywhere. It's been a arts mecca for well over a decade now! Many American artists even live there and it's exactly where I intend to move to after my wife completes her training in nYc.

Originally Posted by Qubert

And secondly, this really is only tangable to the thread in general. Sure, you could argue NY will never "Go to hell",

not arguing it. I just liked the quote. The POV is refreshing.

Originally Posted by Qubert

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?

the goal of a great city is to grow it's middle class and attract them as well. pure and simple. If a particular city believes the best way to succeed is to bring in rich people, they've become myopic.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

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.

I doubt it. Gangs exist because of the desire of young men to find acceptance in a group, display their physical power over others, and of course, get money and sex.

Legalizing drugs would not remove these biological desires from the hearts of potential bangers. They'd find some other racket - protection/extortion, gambling, outright theft, prostitution... the Mafia's been there before, so there are plenty of illegal activities that generate money besides drug-selling. Eliminating the concentration of poverty would be far more effective than legalizing drugs.

[Mr Roboto]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Eliminating the concentration of poverty would be far more effective than legalizing drugs.

Word.

[llamaorama]

If a city wanted to be friendly to the middle class I think the most important thing is just having enough housing to go around.

Here is my layman's perspective based on observations. Places gentrify because they are desirable. Desirable places often have "drawbridge mentality" issues. A lot of NIMBY attitudes thus get manifested as anti-gentrification sentiment. Therefore, I take things critical of the issue with a grain of salt because I question how much is bullshit.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Legalizing drugs would not remove these biological desires from the hearts of potential bangers. They'd find some other racket - protection/extortion, gambling, outright theft, prostitution... the Mafia's been there before, so there are plenty of illegal activities that generate money besides drug-selling. Eliminating the concentration of poverty would be far more effective than legalizing drugs.

eliminating poverty concentration would be a HUGE step in the right direction, the problem is that it seems like an impossible nut to crack. from my observations, people who have money generally don't like to live around or even be in the presence of those who don't. it seems like an ingrained part of human nature to shun the poor. in a free market nation like ours, i don't know how you get around that obstacle.

at the same time, legalizing drugs would take a GIGANTIC chunk of the cash flow away from these gangs. yes, many of the rotten apples would simply shift focus to other nefarious deeds, but make no mistake about it, removing the drug money from the economy of the street would seriously wound gang activity in cities like chicago.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

eliminating poverty concentration would be a HUGE step in the right direction, the problem is that it seems like an impossible nut to crack. from my observations, people who have money generally don't like to live around or even be in the presence of those who don't. it seems like an ingrained part of human nature to shun the poor. in a free market nation like ours, i don't know how you get around that obstacle.

It seems to have worked in Toronto, at least to a degree. The St. Lawrence development of the 80s is the best example of a successful mixed income development. More recently the redevelopment of the Regent Park public housing project has seen rapid sales for the market priced portion. Of course that development has been criticized by activists for "temporarily" forcing original residents into suburban locations far from the services they previously used. And it's impossible to tell how many of the sales will end up being speculatively rented units, though I believe there were restrictions on multiple sales.

Speaking of which, I'm not entirely sure why you are such a proponent of forcing the poor into suburban locales. With a few exceptions the majority of Toronto's poor are housed in suburban apartment complexes and I'd argue that this is far more detrimental than the occasional working class inner-city neighbourhood. The suburban areas are generally far further from services (termed "service deserts") including grocery stores, transit, clinics, work assistance programs etc. They are also isolated in clusters to a far higher degree than you would find in working class neighbourhoods such as, say, Mount Dennis, where there is still a considerable range in income. I don't see how this can possibly be a good thing and would contend it is the sort of environment causing the positive feedback loop of poverty/crime.

Of course, in my example the lower-income suburban residents weren't necessarily directly forced there by forces of gentrification. More likely immigrants effectively priced out of the inner city in the first place. And in this case the best solution isn't relocation, but the redevelopment of the suburban apartment neighbourhoods through the addition of services, employment and ultimately market housing (see tower renewal).

[niwell]

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.

I'm not sure you understand gentrification - and particularly how the process has taken place in Toronto. I don't know what sort of articles you are required to read at Ryerson, but look up some of what Tom Slater has written on municipally managed gentrification in Parkdale and the theories of revanchist gentrificiation. Contrast with what Caufield wrote over 10 years ago. The recent book 'Gentrification' by Slater and Lees is a good (perhaps the best?) overview currently available.

There are multiple identifiable waves of gentrification and the inital ones have little to do with "the rich". It's only the very latter stages where this takes place, stages which in reality rarely happen. Best example in Toronto is Yorkville, where speculation through international investment has made it so land values show a distinct disconnect with what could be expected based solely on location.

Originally Posted by miketoronto

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

Misrepresentation of a history that may never have existed. Or is so far distant it has little to do with current realities.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by niwell

It seems to have worked in Toronto, at least to a degree.

that's good to hear for toronto, but chicago is just such a fundamentally different kind of city with a history of social dysfunction demons that make toronto look like mayberry by comparison. there seems to be a whole hell of lot more mistrust/contempt between chicago's racial and class factions than you see in any canadian city.

[llamaorama]

My bet is that where poorer areas are has more to do with some market filtering of the cheapest areas of housing.

In the early 1980's Houston got lots of apartment complexes built in the suburbs for the yuppies of the day. There was an economic bubble which burst and suddenly these complexes lost value and became low-income housing. Now poorer areas are more decentralized than they were when the principal ghettos were the old numbered wards. But to some degree they are still concentrations of poverty.

It seems like a strategy to disperse poverty would look towards mainstream housing trends first not typical social policy that's always a step behind reality.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's good to hear for toronto, but chicago is just such a fundamentally different kind of city with a history of social dysfunction demons that make toronto look like mayberry by comparison. there seems to be a whole hell of lot more mistrust/contempt between chicago's racial and class factions than you see in any canadian city.

I understand that the social situation in Chicago is far different than in Canadian cities, but I still don't think it justifies the attitude that the poor should just be swept aside. Out of sight and out of mind can easily backfire in time (see: Paris). What worked here can't be directly applied to places like Chicago, but there must be some sort of solution tailored specifically to the city's problems.

While not directly related, Chicago has an industrial employment retention framework that predates and is far superior to pretty much anything else in North America. This tackled a problem that is endemic to many older cities (including Toronto) in a unique way and actually worked. It indicates to me at least that there are other options as opposed to simply deferring to the status quo.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

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.

This is all totally irrelevant.

As I tried to explain in my post right above yours, "affordable housing" funded by a requirement on developers is not at all the same as "public housing" funded by the city. "Affordable housing" in places like San Francisco still sells or rents at what in many places would be quite good amounts--$250K or so for a 2 bedroom condo, $1000/month rent. It is targeted at working people making modest incomes and raising a family (or sometimes at single people in which case units are smaller and cheaper). These people are NOT gang members and have no more connection to gangs or crime than you do. They are the waitress at your restaurant, the clerk at Macy's, the people who clean hotel rooms.

As I already mentioned, San Francisco imposes a citywide "affordable" requirement on most new market rate developments (I believe its' now 15%)--so it is quite workable in the US. The developers can put that percentage of units on site if they want, but typically the money goes into a fund that can be used by non-rpfit developers to build all-affordable housing such as the place whose picture I posted.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

This is all totally irrelevant.

As I tried to explain in my post right above yours, "affordable housing" funded by a requirement on developers is not at all the same as "public housing" funded by the city. "Affordable housing" in places like San Francisco still sells or rents at what in many places would be quite good amounts--$250K or so for a 2 bedroom condo, $1000/month rent. It is targeted at working people making modest incomes and raising a family (or sometimes at single people in which case units are smaller and cheaper). These people are NOT gang members and have no more connection to gangs or crime than you do. They are the waitress at your restaurant, the clerk at Macy's, the people who clean hotel rooms.

As I already mentioned, San Francisco imposes a citywide "affordable" requirement on most new market rate developments (I believe its' now 15%)--so it is quite workable in the US. The developers can put that percentage of units on site if they want, but typically the money goes into a fund that can be used by non-rpfit developers to build all-affordable housing such as the place whose picture I posted.

To add to this, this is also an even more common practice up in Vancouver BC, where if you want to build in that city, there has to be a percentage devoted to affordable housing.

[Mr Roboto]

^See thats all well and good, and I agree with what those cities are doing. But to me, the idea would be to add the requirement to ALL cities. Yes, a federal law. Meaning fed gov regulation, meaning pinko commie bastard-style governance. So yes, it probably is rather unworkable to many.

The reasoning behind it and why it is different than on a municipal basis is that, while a city like SF may have this requirement other cities in the metro may not, and so developers near the fringe areas will simply build in the suburbs in order to maximize their profits and avoid the affordable housing requirement. This would limit its effectiveness, as well as limit development in SF (which being a densley populated peninsula, it may not actually - but think of all other cities without that geographic constraint, density, land values, etc).

See the issue is, our school funding system is essentially inequal and unfair, and the way our housing markets work naturally tends to concentrate poverty. So to fix two birds with one stone, I would prefer to regulate the housing market through government and create this type of law.

Also I agree. It is affordable housing, not public housing (I dont agree with welfare as it is now, and believe everyone should have to work or go to school to receive ANY assistance). Of course other ways to disperse poverty may be through building co-ops, zoning, or some other means. I would simply like to see some broad law instituted to address these fundamental problems in our system.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Mr Roboto

^See thats all well and good, and I agree with what those cities are doing. But to me, the idea would be to add the requirement to ALL cities. Yes, a federal law. Meaning fed gov regulation, meaning pinko commie bastard-style governance. So yes, it probably is rather unworkable to many.

The reasoning behind it and why it is different than on a municipal basis is that, while a city like SF may have this requirement other cities in the metro may not, and so developers near the fringe areas will simply build in the suburbs in order to maximize their profits and avoid the affordable housing requirement. This would limit its effectiveness, as well as limit development in SF (which being a densley populated peninsula, it may not actually - but think of all other cities without that geographic constraint, density, land values, etc).

In no way does it limit downtown development. Housing is so expensive downtown--creating the need for an "artificial" source of "affordable" units--because people want to live there. And the demand by developers for lots and the right to build, in spite of the fees imposed by the city, shows how much people want to live downtown and that the economics of development still work out. What is does do is increase the cost of market rate units even more (because the fees are really paid for by buyers and renters of market rate units) and aggravate the problem, but its just a tough problem to solve.

Cities without the desirability of SF or Vancouver may not need this solution because they may not have the problem. Market rate units in Tucson, for example, seem very affordable to me--to almost anyone with a job.

See the issue is, our school funding system is essentially inequal and unfair, and the way our housing markets work naturally tends to concentrate poverty. So to fix two birds with one stone, I would prefer to regulate the housing market through government and create this type of law.

Also I agree. It is affordable housing, not public housing (I dont agree with welfare as it is now, and believe everyone should have to work or go to school to receive ANY assistance). Of course other ways to disperse poverty may be through building co-ops, zoning, or some other means. I would simply like to see some broad law instituted to address these fundamental problems in our system.

I think in a country like the US or Canada the issues are so different in various places a national law on this issue would be more of a problem than a solution.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by niwell

I understand that the social situation in Chicago is far different than in Canadian cities, but I still don't think it justifies the attitude that the poor should just be swept aside. Out of sight and out of mind can easily backfire in time (see: Paris). What worked here can't be directly applied to places like Chicago, but there must be some sort of solution tailored specifically to the city's problems.

I agree. Chicago and other American cities suffer for a multi-pronged problem where the most dilapidated areas of a city are in a critical state of need. Those needs have been discussed before and we'd pretty much all agree on what the solutions are (more trustworthy police force, sensible drug laws, more productive socializing/education programs for prisoners, stronger family structure, better education systems, producive job training programs, jobs, better outreach in terms of PSAs...).

The problem is the resources don't exist for all of these needs to be met at once. So the next question becomes, which need would best produce stable neighborhoods? Common sense would say that we won't eradicate poverty, but we can erase some of the nasty side-effects associated with poor areas.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

As I tried to explain in my post right above yours, "affordable housing" funded by a requirement on developers is not at all the same as "public housing" funded by the city.

While I agree with your larger point, there really is no difference between public and "affordable" housing. The main difference in perception is that some cities have run their public housing into the toilet.

There are plenty of examples, however, of successful public housing and failed "affordable" (usually inclusionary) housing. The issue is the management and tenancy, rather than some inherent failing in public housing.

My former administrative assistant in NYC paid $1,400 a month for a large public housing unit, and had a borderline six-figure household income. In some cities (not only NYC) there are plenty of middle class folks in public housing, and public housing generally works.

It does seem, however, that NYC, SF, maybe Boston, DC, have (arguably) more successful affordable housing programs because they have a permanent shortage of cheap market-rate housing. This incentives middle class folks to live in subsidized housing.

In a cheaper city, there is no reason for middle class folks to seek out subsidized housing; therefore mixed-income housing fails.

[BTinSF]

error

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Crawford

While I agree with your larger point, there really is no difference between public and "affordable" housing. The main difference in perception is that some cities have run their public housing into the toilet.

There is, indeed, a vast difference in the appeal of public vs "affordable" housing. But there are other differences as well:

1. Source of funds:

Public housing--tax money, federal grants
"Affordable housing"--development fees, bond proceeds, funds raised by non-profit charities

2. Rental/for sale

Public housing--always rental
"Affordable housing"--both, some for rent, some for sale

3. Development

Public housing--built/managed by a city-run housing agency
"Affordable housing"--built/managed by private non-profit developers

"Affordable housing" of the sort I'm talking about is privately built, privately managed, and sometimes for sale. It may also not be in separate structures but incorporated into market rate developments. That's untrue of any public housing.