Gentrification

[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.

[bedstuy]

God, this thread.  If I was feeling uncharitable I could deluge each and every post here.  Bedstuy's post is probably least awful but even it is really kind of simplistic and blinkered.  You can't disentangle active government policy from the housing market, no matter how hard you try, it's one of the least amenable segments of our economy to that approach.

Gentrification is a... terribly complex issue.  As far as it represents a retreat from, and attempt to repair the damage of, the racist and wasteful mid-century paradigm of white flight, suburban sprawl, and urban disinvestment, it is a Good Thing and these developments should be cheered by anybody and everybody everywhere.  But we shouldn't pretend that it's "just the market working" or that there isn't a real human cost that cries out for sympathy and mitigation, as well.

I will say that attempts to freeze neighborhoods in amber, and to pull up the drawbridges on anybody, is counterproductive and doomed to failure and really kind of an ugly impulse if you ask me.  The only acceptable solution is to make room for old-timers and newcomers alike, with a range of prices and housing styles and services for as many people as practicable. 

I think you missed my point.  As a matter of public policy, prices aren't the problem, they're the symptom of a variety of factors including government policy.  Complaining about the prices or attempting direct control of prices through things like rent control is thus pointless.  Price control is never going to work.  What should a house or apartment cost?  Who should be able to live where?  The government can never settle those questions better than a market.

Maybe the disconnect is just what we mean by gentrification.  Not enough supply in many urban areas?  Not enough middle class jobs in urban areas?  Racial disparities?  Urban planning/land use policy?  Those are some of the underlying issues that turn gentrification into an issue for people.  We ought to be talking about those issues.

[bedstuy]

The trouble with that argument is that the housing market isn't like other markets; the modern city, after all, is the creation of the state* and not the other way round (and 'the city' in this context now extends to cover most of the countryside). Planning applications must, after all, be approved by a branch of the state.

Though I would agree that there needs to be more clarification as to what is meant by the term before it's possible to actually debate the issue.

_{*And, of course, some very famous examples of gentrification were/are literally cases of the will of the state imposing itself on (and above) the local housing market, so to speak.}

Right, what is the definition? 

Let's say there's a 2 bedroom house in a suburban neighborhood that is worth $100k in the year 2010.  But, last year Google opened a new office in that suburban town with 1000 high paying jobs.  Now, that house is more desirable if it were to be sold on the open market.  Would you object to someone paying $120k for that house or would you prevent someone who worked at that office from buying the house because they're an outsider?  Or would you oppose housing being a commodity at all?  Should the government own all housing and assign each person some sort of dwelling according to some formula?

[bedstuy]

God, this thread.  If I was feeling uncharitable I could deluge each and every post here.  Bedstuy's post is probably least awful but even it is really kind of simplistic and blinkered.  You can't disentangle active government policy from the housing market, no matter how hard you try, it's one of the least amenable segments of our economy to that approach.

Gentrification is a... terribly complex issue.  As far as it represents a retreat from, and attempt to repair the damage of, the racist and wasteful mid-century paradigm of white flight, suburban sprawl, and urban disinvestment, it is a Good Thing and these developments should be cheered by anybody and everybody everywhere.  But we shouldn't pretend that it's "just the market working" or that there isn't a real human cost that cries out for sympathy and mitigation, as well.

I will say that attempts to freeze neighborhoods in amber, and to pull up the drawbridges on anybody, is counterproductive and doomed to failure and really kind of an ugly impulse if you ask me.  The only acceptable solution is to make room for old-timers and newcomers alike, with a range of prices and housing styles and services for as many people as practicable.  

I think you missed my point.  As a matter of public policy, prices aren't the problem, they're the symptom of a variety of factors including government policy.  Complaining about the prices or attempting direct control of prices through things like rent control is thus pointless.  Price control is never going to work.  What should a house or apartment cost?  Who should be able to live where?  The government can never settle those questions better than a market.

Maybe the disconnect is just what we mean by gentrification.  Not enough supply in many urban areas?  Not enough middle class jobs in urban areas?  Racial disparities?  Urban planning/land use policy?  Those are some of the underlying issues that turn gentrification into an issue for people.  We ought to be talking about those issues.

I think you're trying to draw a distinction that doesn't actually exist here.  I mean, sure, price controls tend to be counterproductive and it's not like the government is directly setting rent levels for the most part.  But to set off "a market" as something distinct from government policy is pretty much just gibberish when it comes to housing– the whole system of deeds and titles, building codes, zoning, utilities and infrastructure, FHA loans, etc.– there simply wouldn't be a housing market in any recognizable way without government action and regulation.  Also, even if prices are a "symptom" that doesn't make them any less of a problem.  Obviously it would be preferable to deal with them through indirect measures such as increasing supply (and in some cases, perhaps subsidies), but where was I arguing otherwise?

Same with the issues you suggest as an alternative- they're the right issues to talk about, of course, and it's good to get specific with symptoms and remedies (as I said, things are terribly complex), but I'm not sure exactly what makes you think they're so qualitatively opposed to an approach that acknowledges the market-creating role that government necessarily has in real estate.  I mean, in particular what is land use policy if not that?

It's an issue of putting the cart before the horse to focus on the fact that prices are changing.  What should be the price of any particular dwelling?

I could deal with something like, "prices are too high."  That makes sense to me.  Prices for X neighborhood should stay the same that they were in 1985, that doesn't make sense.