Opinion of Gentrification

[Sbane]

Just watched a movie about gentrification in San Francisco and I had to ask.

[minionofmidas]

Ask a specific question and you can get a meaningful answer, then.

[Sbane]

Do you think it is a good thing or not? I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand it makes urban neighborhoods a more desirable place to live and play in but it does end up displacing those who lived there before. Still, should the people who want to move to the city not move there? Many move there because their jobs are closeby...should they really commute in from the suburbs so they don't displace poor people?

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Where's the neutral option?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Gentrification ruins neighborhoods and shuts out the poor.

[Kitteh]

Generally negative but it's a very complicated issue that just "positive" or "negative" don't really fit.

[Sbane]

Generally negative but it's a very complicated issue that just "positive" or "negative" don't really fit.

Yeah, should have included that neutral option. That seems to be the right answer here. Obviously the plight of the people who have lived in these neighborhoods should be taken into account, but people should be free to move wherever they want. Especially if it is done for convenience, such as living close to work, I don't see how one can criticize it. Of course those who work in Silicon Valley, but commute by train from SF everyday are a group that could be criticized.

[traininthedistance]

A whole hell of a lot better than any of the alternatives that actually exist.

[Torie]

We gay boys have a niche doing it. It's bread on our table.

[Del Tachi]

If current trends and rates of Gentrifications (in Washington, D.C. about 12 blocks are "flipped" a year, for example) then the United States could very well find itself in 30-50 years with patterns of urban development completely opposite to what it is today.  As land values increase in the city, then the urban poor may be displaced to where land is cheap and the cost of living low:  today's outer suburbs, especially if energy prices continue to rise and commuting is no longer seen as economically viable.   

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

If current trends and rates of Gentrifications (in Washington, D.C. about 12 blocks are "flipped" a year, for example) then the United States could very well find itself in 30-50 years with patterns of urban development completely opposite to what it is today.  As land values increase in the city, then the urban poor may be displaced to where land is cheap and the cost of living low:  today's outer suburbs, especially if energy prices continue to rise and commuting is no longer seen as economically viable.   

Because housing is easily bought these days by poor, who are just clamoring to get the those houses. The housing market is booming by the way.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It depends what you mean by gentrification and even then it depends a little on the circumstances, but, basically it's a bad thing. It also tends to lead (and quite inevitably) to the creation of banlieues (there isn't a good word for this in English), which is something that middle class people have a strange tendency to forget.

[Kitteh]

It depends what you mean by gentrification and even then it depends a little on the circumstances, but, basically it's a bad thing. It also tends to lead (and quite inevitably) to the creation of banlieues (there isn't a good word for this in English), which is something that middle class people have a strange tendency to forget.

We do need a word for banlieue in English. I can't think of anything that comes close. But there are plenty of places in the US that fit that label already. Here in the DC area (mostly on the MD side) especially.

[traininthedistance]

The alternative to gentrification is bankrupt city governments which are unable to maintain their infrastructure, educate or even keep safe their citizenry, and it is also a continued acceleration of soul- and climate-destroying suburban sprawl.  I recognize that gentrification can be disruptive to incumbent renters, but even for them it is often better than the alternative.  A poor black person who is priced out of Bed-Stuy and has to go live in further-away Canarsie is still able to access the myriad social services that NYC is able to provide because it is in good shape (in large part because gentrification has boosted the area's economy and the city's tax base).  A poor black person in Detroit is SOL.

Gentrification is, and I am not exaggerating, quite possibly the single best development of the past 20 years.  It is doing its level best to save America.

[opebo]

A physical manifestation of oppression, which I suppose goes without saying.

I did enjoy learning about banlieues though.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banlieue

[Torie]

It depends what you mean by gentrification and even then it depends a little on the circumstances, but, basically it's a bad thing. It also tends to lead (and quite inevitably) to the creation of banlieues (there isn't a good word for this in English), which is something that middle class people have a strange tendency to forget.

Why are "slums" more desirable in the inner city, than in an outside ring ala Paris? In all events, it would seem to me to be good social policy ceteris paribus for the lower SES types to have housing near where they work.

[traininthedistance]

It depends what you mean by gentrification and even then it depends a little on the circumstances, but, basically it's a bad thing. It also tends to lead (and quite inevitably) to the creation of banlieues (there isn't a good word for this in English), which is something that middle class people have a strange tendency to forget.

Why are "slums" more desirable in the inner city, than in an outside ring ala Paris? In all events, it would seem to me to be good social policy ceteris paribus for the lower SES types to have housing near where they work.

Well, it's good social policy for everybody to have housing near where they work, for myriad reasons.  To the extent that it forces lower SES types to have longer commutes, that's really the one thing about gentrification that I would consider to be a likely negative.

[Torie]

It depends what you mean by gentrification and even then it depends a little on the circumstances, but, basically it's a bad thing. It also tends to lead (and quite inevitably) to the creation of banlieues (there isn't a good word for this in English), which is something that middle class people have a strange tendency to forget.

Why are "slums" more desirable in the inner city, than in an outside ring ala Paris? In all events, it would seem to me to be good social policy ceteris paribus for the lower SES types to have housing near where they work.

Well, it's good social policy for everybody to have housing near where they work, for myriad reasons.  To the extent that it forces lower SES types to have longer commutes, that's really the one thing about gentrification that I would consider to be a likely negative.

Indeed. But the jobs are not so much in the inner city anymore for the poors. And I do have an aesthetic preference for diversity in neighborhoods, both as to ethnicity, class, and yes belief - provided that they are safe.  This segregation by belief that is getting even more salient now than ethnicity, and yes, even class, and I don't think that is healthy for the polity. Folks tend to  live in their own self reinforcing bubbles.  Breaking out of the bubble requires not only honest intellectualism, but also emotional connections. I have come to appreciate more the importance of the emotional factor from my own now rather long in the tooth life experiences.

[TJ in Oregon]

It depends on what degree it's happening in a city. For instance, in Cleveland only a tiny handful of neighborhoods are gentrified to a large extent and there is no shortage of affordable housing available (if fact the opposite is the main problem...). Cleveland could use a whole lot more gentrification because close to half of the city is abandoned.

I could also see if being a problem in heavily gentrified cities in that rent becomes too high.

[bedstuy]

I don't understand why people get their knickers in a knot about gentrification by itself.  Gentrification is the market working, it's not possible to stop.  If people are willing to pay more money to buy a house or rent in a neighborhood, how or why stop them?  We're not going to have some utopia where everyone can afford to live wherever they want. 

The debate we should have is about housing codes, zoning, economic opportunity and the environment.  People should realize that the current geography of bad/good neighborhoods is largely the product of failed government policy.  For years government has actively subsidized the suburbs, leading to an inefficient use of urban space and undervalued neighborhoods like those in North, central and South Brooklyn.  The goal ought to be, every neighborhood is livable, with a mix of uses and space for different kinds of people, not the status quo for every particular neighborhood.

[minionofmidas]

It depends what you mean by gentrification and even then it depends a little on the circumstances, but, basically it's a bad thing. It also tends to lead (and quite inevitably) to the creation of banlieues (there isn't a good word for this in English), which is something that middle class people have a strange tendency to forget.

Why are "slums" more desirable in the inner city, than in an outside ring ala Paris? In all events, it would seem to me to be good social policy ceteris paribus for the lower SES types to have housing near where they work.

Slums on the outskirts are far more invisible, far more easy to ignore, far more isolated as no one who doesn't live there will ever travel through. (Of course, Americans managed to create banlieues in the middle of cities to an extent, but then Americans are ... special. In the bad way.)

Anyways, we usually use the term "gentrification" mostly for the final phase, when a vibrant mix of urban working class and "creative", bobo types like what I grew up in is destroyed as the last of the working class and the poorer of the original gentrifying bobos are being driven out and the place gets dready posh with bars catering exclusively to yuppies replacing the pizzeria I used to go to as a kid and the drinking holes of my wayward youth. Bornheim I fear for you. There's a little too much council housing to drive out all the working class, admittedly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's a little too much council housing to drive out all the working class, admittedly.

So, basically, for Bornheim read Islington.

[memphis]

We could use a LOT more of it here. Plenty of gritty neighborhoods with "character" for the taking guys. At rock bottom prices too. Come live where Elvis lived.

[traininthedistance]

I don't understand why people get their knickers in a knot about gentrification by itself.  Gentrification is the market working, it's not possible to stop.  If people are willing to pay more money to buy a house or rent in a neighborhood, how or why stop them?  We're not going to have some utopia where everyone can afford to live wherever they want. 

The debate we should have is about housing codes, zoning, economic opportunity and the environment.  People should realize that the current geography of bad/good neighborhoods is largely the product of failed government policy.  For years government has actively subsidized the suburbs, leading to an inefficient use of urban space and undervalued neighborhoods like those in North, central and South Brooklyn.  The goal ought to be, every neighborhood is livable, with a mix of uses and space for different kinds of people, not the status quo for every particular neighborhood.

Agreed 1,000%.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

In Russia gentrification is pretty much being done over dead bodies.