Gentrification

[muon2]

The right answer is that it is a "natural thing".

Cities are not static entities. They have a history and a futire, and even though the future builds on the past that future will be different. As neighborhoods are initially built they attract particular demographic groups. Over time, the needs of groups within a community change, so the neighborhoods change with them.

For example, late 19th C Victorian single-family housing ofetn occured in the better neighborhoods. By the mid-20th C those neighborhoods may have slipped in economic status as new post-war housing began its boom. Many Victorians were carved into multi-family space to reflect the decline in value. Now 50 years later many of those same neighborhoods have become attractive again due to the charm of the buildings, and frequently due to the proximity to shopping and transportation.

Neighborhoods built on row houses or bungalows can also trace natural cycles. The suburban subdivisions of the 1950s and 1960s are typically in transition today. The direction depends on the size of the housing and its geographic location in the larger community. The gentrified areas of today and their new suburban brethren will see transistions 50 years from now.

One can like or dislike particular instances of gentrification, or any form of demographic change. But to try to stop it is akin to demanding that everyone stop aging and stay exactly as they are today.

[muon2]

I think it's importent to make a distinction between cleaning an area up and driving out the drug dealers and all that... and colonising an area with irritating yuppies, driving out the native population, destroying the areas cultural, ethnic and political traditions and building more coffee shops and cafe's and stuff than is needed in the entire city...

Along with that, the big problem with gentrification is that it doesn't eliminate the problem: it moves it out of sight and out of mind.

Worst example I can think of is South Islington (including the former borough of Finsbury).
A solidly working class area wiped out by yuppies...

okay, I think the Kenmore Square story is better described by the former.

The latter describes what happened in Davis Square in Somerville.  After the MBTA red line expansion from Harvard Square to Davis (two additional stops at great expense), the city of Somerville recognized that the area needed gentrification in order to attract enough commuters to make the expense worth it.  (okay okay that's a gross oversimplification, but...)  After about a decade, old buildings were repainted, an old theatre was refurbished, Four, count them FOUR coffee shops opened up in a few blocks radius (and that doesn't include the Au Bon Pain and other little pastry shops which also settled in!  that's just coffee houses.)  Rents skyrocket.  The yuppies came.  West Somerville became a little sister to North Cambridge.  Gargoyle's restaurant opened.  Now you can get a little order of brazed antelope with a little sprig of parsley on the side for fifty dollars in Davis Square.  It all sounds grand.  In fact, in many ways it was.  West Somerville actually became a destination, of sorts, for folks north of the Charles River.  Problem was, of course, higher rent began to squeeze fourth and fifth generation locals out.  Old ladies began having trouble meeting it.  Hell, the house I lived in was bought for 268 thousand in 1996, and sold for just under 500 thousand in 2000.  My rent went up.  But I had a really sweet deal to begin with and could absorb the increase.  And the place was accordingly improved (a little!) when the rent increased.  Still, it was a burdensome shock to some residents.  Yet, the yuppies did bring their dollars, and their dollars brought in more merchants, and the place did become nice.  Yes, I feel sorry for those who were driven out, just like I feel sorry for those poor bastards in Harlem whose rents skyrocketed after Billy Clinton moved in there, but I must say I have also enjoyed the advantages of gentrification.  As I said, I see the advantages and disadvantages.  It's a tough call to choose whether the net effect is "good" or "bad" for the community.  Thus I voted not sure.  I do take your point about the subtle difference, but you should note that this difference is small, at most, and some would not consider them to be that different.  AFter all, cleaning up a seedy neighborhood just for the sake of making it safer has the same net effect as yuppification:  higher rents for business rentals and for residential rentals.  We all pay a higher price.  And we all look at prettier (and in some, but not all, cases more interesting) environs.

good post angus.

by the way, they are going to expand the green line into somerville and medford.

I'm delighted to hear that. Somerville was a difficult chore to reach on public transit when I lived near Boston in the 80's. I could bike 10 miles to Tufts U faster than I could get there by transit. They talked about extending the Green Line from Lechmere back then, but other projects took precedence. Perhaps its time has finally come.