The Worst Problems Are In The Neighborhoods That Aren’t Gentrifying

[M II A II R II K]

What We Talk About When We Talk About Gentrification


Sep 5, 2021

By Jerusalem Demsas

Read More: https://www.vox.com/22629826/gentrif...egation-cities

.....

Our focus on gentrification might lead people to believe that it is the dominant form of inequality in American cities (our outsized focus on the phenomenon may be due in part to the fact that gentrification scholars, journalists, and consumers of digital media tend to live in gentrifying neighborhoods themselves). But the core rot in American cities is not the gentrifying neighborhoods: It is exclusion, segregation, and concentrated poverty.

- White, wealthy neighborhoods that have refused class and racial integration have successfully avoided much scrutiny as gentrification has taken center stage in urban political fights. On the other hand, predominantly Black and brown neighborhoods often don’t gentrify due to disinvestment and centuries of racist and classist policies. And yet, gentrification captures our imagination, providing the visual juxtaposition of inequality. While stagnant, segregated neighborhoods are an accepted backdrop of American life, fast-changing, diverse neighborhoods and the culture clash that accompanies gentrification are the battlefield where all the disagreements come to the forefront. — All of the problems people worry about when they invoke gentrification, displacement, police action against people of color, lack of investment, predatory landlords are also present in segregated neighborhoods, often even more so.

- Defining gentrification is hard, even for the experts. The Urban Displacement Project, a research and policy group at the University of California Berkeley, defines it as a process of neighborhood change that includes economic change in a historically disinvested neighborhood — by means of real estate investment and new higher-income residents moving in as well as demographic change not only in terms of income level, but also in terms of changes in the education level or racial make-up of residents. While this covers the conceptual ideas, determining which neighborhoods are gentrifying has been difficult for researchers. Not for lack of trying. — The other big issue with defining gentrification is attempting to quantify physical displacement. Widely viewed as the most pernicious byproduct of gentrification, the evidence that gentrification causes physical displacement is a mixed bag.

- Displacement is another phenomenon that is difficult to define. The reasons people move are not cataloged in any database, and poor Americans are notably transient due to financial insecurity. Additionally, defining “forced” displacement is difficult, if someone can afford a one-bedroom apartment in their community but not a larger home, are they being displaced if they have a kid and move to a more affordable neighborhood? People move for a variety of reasons: In 2015, FiveThirtyEight calculated that the average American moved more than 11 times in their lives, indicating that there are very few “longtime residents” of anywhere. — Importantly, research by preeminent eviction scholar Matthew Desmond “found no evidence that renters residing in gentrifying or in racially- and economically-integrated neighborhoods had a higher likelihood of eviction.” But perhaps increasing rents can cause displacement without evictions.

.....

[C.]

A little gentrification is not a bad thing. I'm disappointed when I see areas with tons of vacant properties and in distress. A developer proposes something and the existing residents scream bloody murder fearing in would be a lead way to widespread displacement.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by C.

A little gentrification is not a bad thing. I'm disappointed when I see areas with tons of vacant properties and in distress. A developer proposes something and the existing residents scream bloody murder fearing in would be a lead way to widespread displacement.

The problem though, is that a little gentrification always leads to a lot of gentrification. Then you get the situation faced by cities like Asheville, in which the entire city is more or less turned inside-out, with the gentrification pushing out everyone who isn't rich, white, and predominantly old.

[benp]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

The problem though, is that a little gentrification always leads to a lot of gentrification. Then you get the situation faced by cities like Asheville, in which the entire city is more or less turned inside-out, with the gentrification pushing out everyone who isn't rich, white, and predominantly old.

A bigger problem is that in non-gentrifying neighborhoods neglect and decay don't just fix themselves. The cost of maintenance and improvement, as high as it is, continue to grow over time as age and nature work upon the property, and inflation increases the costs of repair. Whether a property is owner-occupied or a rental, at some point there may be insufficient income to continue to adequately maintain the property, either from employment (for owner-occupied) or from rental income.

The only paths out are increase income of the owner to pay for maintenance, or sell the property to a new owner who MAY have sufficient income or revenue to maintain and/or improve the property.

Or, is often the case, an owner just allows a property to decay, sometimes to the point where the property is no longer habitable or repairable.

At what point do you call the sell/improve activity "gentrification" or not? And whatever you call it, good or bad, it may just be an inevitable part of the cycle homes in cities have experienced for decades if not centuries.

Much of anti-gentrification is just another form of NIMBYism. People don't like change. "Your" neighborhood was someone else's before you moved there, or were born there. In the past, many of those neighborhoods resistant to the creeping changes of "gentrification" would have just been bulldozed under the guise of "urban renewal." These were harsh and immediate transitions, often taking decades (if ever) to recover from the damages to communities. "Gentrification" at least provides a longer smoother path in the transition, and a more natural individual owner-occupant experience.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by benp

A bigger problem is that in non-gentrifying neighborhoods neglect and decay don't just fix themselves. The cost of maintenance and improvement, as high as it is, continue to grow over time as age and nature work upon the property, and inflation increases the costs of repair. Whether a property is owner-occupied or a rental, at some point there may be insufficient income to continue to adequately maintain the property, either from employment (for owner-occupied) or from rental income.

But must the process of maintaining those neighborhoods always involve throwing out the people who are already there?

As I have seen, there is the black of of letting an area decay, the white of improving it while, in the process, tripling the rent and quadrupling the home prices and pushing everyone out... and the gray of an area being maintained, with prices and rents rising slowly and more organically. But nobody ever talks about the gray. The choice is always presented in black and white, with the accusation that if you're not happy with the white, you must be advocating for the black.

[benp]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

But must the process of maintaining those neighborhoods always involve throwing out the people who are already there?

As I have seen, there is the black of of letting an area decay, the white of improving it while, in the process, tripling the rent and quadrupling the home prices and pushing everyone out... and the gray of an area being maintained, with prices and rents rising slowly and more organically. But nobody ever talks about the gray. The choice is always presented in black and white, with the accusation that if you're not happy with the white, you must be advocating for the black.

The thing is there is very little gray area if the repairs needed are a new roof, new siding/painting, new furnaces, etc. Those may cost several times a monthly rent or mortgage payment, which can be impossible for those living paycheck to paycheck. It is a cumulative process, and the costs will come due eventually to all. It is expensive to maintain a house, and can be especially so in older areas where homes are predominately 60-80-100 years old or greater.

[Pedestrian]

San Francisco's Tenderloin is the classic example of these issues.


https://www.quora.com/What-streets-d...-San-Francisco

Historically, it was a neighborhood of older apartment buildings (1920s/30s and earlier) and "single room occupancy" hotels renting rooms by the month, often with common bathrooms down the hall and no cooking facilities in the rooms (except maybe a microwave if the tenant bought one). But these weren't necessarily slums. Hauntedheadnc like to rag on older people and actually that's who these building served in large part--people like retired seamen and single blue collar workers, living on modest pensions or social security.

But the area borders directly on the Union Square shopping district where one finds the likes of Cartier and Gucci and Saks and Nieman's and their brethren. So it's packed with tourists and hotels serving them and the area began to expand outward into the Tenderloin in the mid 20th century.

San Francisco's response, in order to preserve the housing for low income people (who at that time were not so much "homeless" as long as they had these homes nor were they drug users for the most part though many spent a lot of time in the area's still-interesting "dive bars"), was to pass a couple of ordinances, one limiting heights in the area to 8-12 floors and another banning conversion of hotels renting room by the month to ones renting rooms by the night. That pretty much ended the invasion of the area by new high rise tourist hotels.

But then the city did something bad: It started locating nearly all soup kitchens, drug rehab centers and eventually homeless shelters in the neighborhood, converting it ultimately from a stable low income neighborhood to a "combat zone".

However San Francisco also has ordinances that require new market rate development to include "affordable" housing, on or off site or for the developer to pay into a fund for the city to develop low income housing. So there continued to be lots of funds for new lower income housing and a lot of it was spent in the Tenderloin, on both new buildings and rehab of old ones. So the area today has a surprising number of new or nicely rehabbed buildings in spite of having streets crowded with homeless tents and lounging people with needles protruding from their arms. It's something of a paradox. And the city continues to put all the sorts of facilities its richer citizens don't want in their neighborhoods there.


https://www.law.com/therecorder/2020...20210816171031

Here's an example of the sorts of new "low income" housing being built in the Tenderloin:





and these are renovated buildings:

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

But must the process of maintaining those neighborhoods always involve throwing out the people who are already there?

As I have seen, there is the black of of letting an area decay, the white of improving it while, in the process, tripling the rent and quadrupling the home prices and pushing everyone out... and the gray of an area being maintained, with prices and rents rising slowly and more organically. But nobody ever talks about the gray. The choice is always presented in black and white, with the accusation that if you're not happy with the white, you must be advocating for the black.

It’s always presented as black and white because the loudest voices are late-stage gentrifiers against gentrification. Meaning students and professional activists- the people most able to secure affordable housing in a different neighborhood or city.

Gentrification IS a process that takes decades. In Chicago, articles about Pilsen gentrifying have been written since the 1980s

Nobody protests the early stages when the gang members are being evicted. Once that happens, working class people compete among themselves to live in the safe, stable neighborhood. Then hipsters discover the place exists, and they attempt to use the government to eliminate competition.

Gentrification happens because the lower middle class and poor are extremely mobile even when prices are rock bottom (especially because prices are rock bottom as iis the maintenance) Gentrification mostly prevents their reentry into a particular neighborhood.

[the urban politician]

You gotta love all of the hypocrisy around here. On one hand so many people here glorifying insanely gentrified New York and starting thread after thread about “which city has the most high net worth people” or “which city has the most tech billionaires” and then on the other hand feigning a disdain for the “problem” of gentrification.

Which one is it? We either like investment in cities or we don’t. You don’t get investment without gentrification. Shit costs money, and nobody is going to drop $200,000 renovating a building so that low income people who may or may not pay their rent will live there. Period. Get over it.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You gotta love all of the hypocrisy around here. On one hand so many people here glorifying insanely gentrified New York and starting thread after thread about “which city has the most high net worth people” or “which city has the most tech billionaires” and then on the other hand feigning a disdain for the “problem” of gentrification.

Which one is it? We either like investment in cities or we don’t. You don’t get investment without gentrification. Shit costs money, and nobody is going to drop $200,000 renovating a building so that low income people who may or may not pay their rent will live there. Period. Get over it.

No need to ax grind, lol. It doesn't have to be or the other...

[Segun]

The biggest innovations in fashion, music, art and food usually come from the low-income to middle income demographic, so there's always been this take from and take over relationship when it comes to gentrification. I think there's some Karmic forces at work when high crime occurs in gentrified areas.

[SFBruin]

Delete.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You gotta love all of the hypocrisy around here. On one hand so many people here glorifying insanely gentrified New York and starting thread after thread about “which city has the most high net worth people” or “which city has the most tech billionaires” and then on the other hand feigning a disdain for the “problem” of gentrification.

Which one is it? We either like investment in cities or we don’t. You don’t get investment without gentrification. Shit costs money, and nobody is going to drop $200,000 renovating a building so that low income people who may or may not pay their rent will live there. Period. Get over it.

The first part makes it sound as if the same individuals are simultaneously making contradictory arguments. But different people holding incompatible/opposing views from one another is not hypocrisy just because they use the same website.

The second part ignores the possibility of different kinds of investment. Like there's no such thing as investments that are applied better than others such as a developer building condos local residents can't afford vs a business offering the locals jobs. But we don't say that about any other aspect of urban design. We don't say, "Either skyscrapers are constructed or they aren't and with no such thing as a good or poor design, so there can be no criticism of a skyscraper projects because existing or not existing are the only options"

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I think that the biggest bummer with gentrification is that, it seems that the existing population in a neighborhood doesn't really benefit, or sometimes even gets hurt.

Ideally, you would want a neighborhood to improve by having the fortunes of the existing residents improve.

I know the irony of posting this as a white dude living in North America, but, ya know, you gotta start somewhere.

That's what it really comes down to which is typified in the prior post. The assumption seems to be that since low income people don't have much money, the only option to improve cities or communities is to replace low-income people with people who have more money. And of course that's literally gentrification in a nutshell. It would be like if you lost your job and were desperate to find a new one so you could pay the rent and your friend says, "Good news, I found a perfect solution. I met this guy who has a stable job and who's looking for an apartment. He'll be happy to take over your lease as long as you can be out by the end of the months so you don't need to worry about paying rent now!" And you're like, "Well that's great but where am I going to live?" and he says, "Wait, you just said you were worried about the rent getting paid and this guy will pay it, ensuring the apartment remains occupied and in good condition. An unemployed person who may or may not pay their rent is not a suitable tenant. Period. Get over it."

I mean, that sounds absurd, but it's no crazier than an approach to urban development that cares about investment for the sake of the built form and the appearance of health to outsiders, and addresses problems by replaces the people who are experiencing the problems with new residents who aren't. It benefits the built form and the new residents when it's the existing residents who have the problems that need solving.

I agree with the story headline though. The worst problems probably are in nabes that aren't gentrifying because the ones that have fewer problems are the ones that are the most appealing to outsiders. I also agree that we shouldn't let gentrification gain disproportionate importance while ignoring other issues.

[Don't Be That Guy]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

The problem though, is that a little gentrification always leads to a lot of gentrification. Then you get the situation faced by cities like Asheville, in which the entire city is more or less turned inside-out, with the gentrification pushing out everyone who isn't rich, white, and predominantly old.

Asheville is a city where Whole Foods and Trader Joe's are surrounded by single-family homes. It has insanely restrictive zoning laws that preserve the character but makes it expensive. I remember reading an interview with Angel Olsen where she talks about loving her neighborhood in Asheville, but lamenting how she bought what she could afford but how much it's "changed." Like, have some perspective. you bought into a very expensive museum, and the price of admission is gonna go up without some expansion.

[Segun]

Has there been any examples of so-called "bombed out" neighborhoods that have been gentrified into thriving areas outside of NYC? I can't think of any in Chicago. In Chicago, there's areas where they've removed a significant portion of rubble and trash, perhaps replaced wild growth with grassy fields, replaced broken sidewalks and streets with new infrastructure, and built the occasional new development, but it's nothing on a large scale.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by Segun

Has there been any examples of so-called "bombed out" neighborhoods that have been gentrified into thriving areas outside of NYC? I can't think of any in Chicago. In Chicago, there's areas where they've removed a significant portion of rubble and trash, perhaps replaced wild growth with grassy fields, replaced broken sidewalks and streets with new infrastructure, and built the occasional new development, but it's nothing on a large scale.

Whether or not you would count Lincoln Park, and West Loop is up for debate how well they fit the “bombed out” part. I think University Village/UIC, South Loop/Near South Side, Cabrini Green area, Douglas/Oakland/Bronzeville all fit and are all on their way if they don’t already count as vibrant. Woodlawn not far behind. If we’re following in NYC’s footsteps then there are a lot more to come.

[kingkirbythe....]

Alamo Heights neighbors protest proposed apartment building, fearing student influx

https://sanantonioreport.org/alamo-h...therine-court/

A review board for the City of Alamo Heights voted Tuesday to recommend the demolition of four structures on a picturesque street in the suburban town, a setback for residents who oppose a proposed development.

Shabby from neglect, the multifamily structures on Katherine Court are decades old but not historic. The owner wants to raze them to make way for a modern two-story apartment building that would span the four lots.

But the residents of this tree-lined street don’t want it and in recent months have banded together to fight what they fear will become housing for college students, changing the quiet and quaint character of the neighborhood.

Blue signs reading “Save Katherine Court!” have popped up in yards. One resident set up a website to keep everyone informed, and another, a former developer, hired an architect to render an alternative design for the development.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Segun

Has there been any examples of so-called "bombed out" neighborhoods that have been gentrified into thriving areas outside of NYC? I can't think of any in Chicago. In Chicago, there's areas where they've removed a significant portion of rubble and trash, perhaps replaced wild growth with grassy fields, replaced broken sidewalks and streets with new infrastructure, and built the occasional new development, but it's nothing on a large scale.

There are a good number in London. Even Notting Hill was pretty dangerous back in the 70s and 80s. Police would apparently avoid parts completely.

This is an area that was largely developed in the mid-1800s with enormous townhouse villas, but there was an economic crash right afterwards and so they were never occupied. Instead they were broken up into “bedsits” (rooms rented by the week, shared bathrooms, etc). That was a large part of the housing for 100 years until the area became popular, that housing stock was really desirable, and people with enough money put them back together into enormous (and I mean enormous) SFHs.

You can even see one of them being done in Streetview:
https://goo.gl/maps/ukJQ4VDGNYjWZTwW7

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Segun

Has there been any examples of so-called "bombed out" neighborhoods that have been gentrified into thriving areas outside of NYC? I can't think of any in Chicago. In Chicago, there's areas where they've removed a significant portion of rubble and trash, perhaps replaced wild growth with grassy fields, replaced broken sidewalks and streets with new infrastructure, and built the occasional new development, but it's nothing on a large scale.

If you look at pictures of San Francisco in the 1950s and early 1960s, a good bit of it looks kind of "bombed out" with the Victorians covered in peeling paint and rather delapidated. I've always suspected that it was because rent was cheap in places like the North Beach, Haight-Ashbury and Mission Districts that first the "Beat Generation" and then the "Summer of Love" happened.

Then those awful gays came to town and started renovating. The coup de grace, of course, was the development of computers and their software.

San Francisco also once had its own "Skid Row" along Third St South of Market. In that case, though, it wasn't renovated, it was bulldozed. Now it's high rise hotels like the St. Regis and W and the SF Museum of Modern Art.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Segun

The biggest innovations in fashion, music, art and food usually come from the low-income to middle income demographic, so there's always been this take from and take over relationship when it comes to gentrification. I think there's some Karmic forces at work when high crime occurs in gentrified areas.

God, your post reeks of envy and revenge.

Middle income people move in and are victims of crime, you celebrate?

This group identity crap is making normal humans really inhumane.