Gentrification

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You all know what this insidious thing is right?

[Nym90]

For those who don't know, here's the definition:

gen·tri·fi·ca·tion
n.
The restoration and upgrading of deteriorated urban property by middle-class or affluent people, often resulting in displacement of lower-income people.

[angus]

I voted not sure.  I have given it a great deal of thought, and have observed its obvious advantages and obvious disadvantages.  Note that it is a constant source of wistful regret among Boston University graduates.  Every quarterly issue of Bostionia, the alumni magazine, that I receive contains at least one letter berating the cleaning up of Kenmore Square.  Sometimes there are even photos.  You wouldn't recognize the place if you haven't been there in ten years.  On the one hand, I missed the days of the Ratskeller and the green-haired crowd with facial jewelery and the constant smell of burning cannabis and urine on every corner of Kenmore Square (which is not square at all, but rather more triangular, or even inverted hexagonal)  On the other hand, the buildings now are nice and folks aren't afraid to walk around there at all hours. 

Tough call, really.

[opebo]

I have a comical experience with gentrification - when I am back home, cruising around St. Louis looking for a pedestrian female, I often find that the areas they were previously to be found are now full of rehabs, gentry, and real estate agents! 

I liked it better before.  Though in the transition period weird things happen - one can pick up someone offering a $20 service in front of a house up for sale for a quarter million.  Doesn't last long though, and the blue-noses drive the more enjoyable people out.

[David S]

Depends how its done. If the government condemns the property and seizes it under eminent domain for development by private firms then its unconstitutional in my estimation, not to mention unfair as hell.

On the other hand if the property is sold by willing sellers to willing buyers then I see no problem with it.

[John Dibble]

Depends how its done. If the government condemns the property and seizes it under eminent domain for development by private firms then its unconstitutional in my estimation, not to mention unfair as hell.

On the other hand if the property is sold by willing sellers to willing buyers then I see no problem with it.

[Storebought]

Anything that tears down abandoned, burnt-out crackhouses, and fills in vacant concrete lots with tax-earning businesses, is a good deal.

Replacing good suburban strip malls with salons is not cool at all.

I guess I favor gentrification when it affects inner city neighborhoods; I don't favor suburban yuppification.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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...

[opebo]

I think it's importent to make a distinction between cleaning an area up and driving out the drug dealers and all that...

Drug dealers are risking their lives fighting for our personal freedoms - they're practically the only Resistance movement we've got. 

[angus]

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.

[Rob]

Mostly negative.

[dazzleman]

Mostly positive, but the displacement of long-term working class residents is a detriment.

It really depends on the situation.  If a neighborhood is a crime-ridden slum, and it begins to attract investment and improve, that is mostly a good thing.

If the new people who move in are too annoying, and the neighborhood wasn't that bad to begin with, then it's probably an overall negative.

It's really irrelevant because it can't be stopped.  Property has a life cycle and neighborhoods move up and down.

The town where I live now used to be poorer than the city to which it is adjacent.  Now, it is significantly wealthier.

The key is owning property.  A working class person who owns even a modest house in a gentrifying neighborhood will make out like a bandit when the neighborhood increases in value.  It is those who chose to rent long term who get screwed.  That's the way it always is, and it will never change.  That's why I tell everybody I know never to choose to live in rental housing long-term.  Always buy, and choose location carefully.

[Nym90]

It depends on how it's done, of course. If an area is crime-ridden and rundown, change needs to happen.

In any event, growth always needs to be controlled to prevent sprawl.

[??????????]

I think it's importent to make a distinction between cleaning an area up and driving out the drug dealers and all that...

Drug dealers are risking their lives fighting for our personal freedoms - they're practically the only Resistance movement we've got. 

That is perhaps the silliest sentence ever written on this forum.

[dazzleman]

I think it's importent to make a distinction between cleaning an area up and driving out the drug dealers and all that...

Drug dealers are risking their lives fighting for our personal freedoms - they're practically the only Resistance movement we've got. 

That is perhaps the silliest sentence ever written on this forum.

I've seen him write that sentence in many different threads.  Would you expect anything different, considering the source?

[J. J.]

Gentrification is very good in areas with minority ownership of houses.  There are a lot of those areas in Philadelphia.

[dazzleman]

Gentrification is very good in areas with minority ownership of houses.  There are a lot of those areas in Philadelphia.

My point exactly, and it doesn't apply only to minorities.  Own in a gentrifying area, and you benefit greatly.  Rent in one, and you're screwed.  It's that simple.

[dazzleman]

Note to some people out there: not all urban neighborhoods that are working class or poor even are filled with drug dealers, hobos etc etc.

Dude, I hope you didn't think that I implied that.

Gentrification can take place at different economic levels, not just poor or lower middle class neighborhoods. 

One reason I chose my town to live in originally was the economic diversity.  I declined to look anyplace that included any number of non-working poor, but I wanted a town in which people earning less than $1 million per year would not be considered "trash."  I settled on my town in 1995 because it had housing for economic classes from the lower middle class to the wealthy.

Since then, things have changed a lot.  Little by little, the smaller houses are being torn down and expanded, and bigger ones put in their place.  Prices have gone through the roof.  There have been many benefits.  The commercial economy is thriving, and once struggling commercial areas are doing well.  Personally, I have benefitted from the increased value of my properties.

But I still don't like the idea that it has reached the point where the person who makes an average living is virtually excluded from living here.  I never wanted to live with primarily rich people who make me look downright egalitarian.

I don't worry too much about it because nothing can really change it.  It's the result of supply and demand, desirability, and economic success.  The strong 1990s economy had a downside, and this is it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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 crap 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...

there's plenty of areas around the Twin Cities that have ended up like you described.

That's why I basically outlawed it in the Republic of Minnesota scenario.

[dazzleman]

Note to some people out there: not all urban neighborhoods that are working class or poor even are filled with drug dealers, hobos etc etc.

Dude, I hope you didn't think that I implied that.

Gentrification can take place at different economic levels, not just poor or lower middle class neighborhoods. 

One reason I chose my town to live in originally was the economic diversity.  I declined to look anyplace that included any number of non-working poor, but I wanted a town in which people earning less than $1 million per year would not be considered "trash."  I settled on my town in 1995 because it had housing for economic classes from the lower middle class to the wealthy.

Since then, things have changed a lot.  Little by little, the smaller houses are being torn down and expanded, and bigger ones put in their place.  Prices have gone through the roof.  There have been many benefits.  The commercial economy is thriving, and once struggling commercial areas are doing well.  Personally, I have benefitted from the increased value of my properties.

But I still don't like the idea that it has reached the point where the person who makes an average living is virtually excluded from living here.  I never wanted to live with primarily rich people who make me look downright egalitarian.

I don't worry too much about it because nothing can really change it.  It's the result of supply and demand, desirability, and economic success.  The strong 1990s economy had a downside, and this is it.

No I didn't.  I know you grew up in Westchester which certainly has its mixed bag economically.  The problem with gentrification is that people have lived in a neighborhood for their whole lives and care about it can be squeezed out of it (due in large part to their neighbors taking the money and running)  I look through the Real estate prices around me and wonder how the hell Ill be able to afford a house.  Oh well.

Dude, I know exactly what you mean.  This situation is nothing new.  Prices first went through the roof in the late 1970s through 1989, and that was with much higher interest rates than we have now.  Then they leveled off for a while, even fell a little (while interest rates also fell, increasing affordability by the mid 1990s), but took off again starting in about 1999.

The huge price increases of the 1980s are what essentially pushed me out of Westchester.  Initially, I had no desire to move to Connecticut.  I lived in a middle to upper middle class section of Westchester, and would have been perfectly happy to stay there.

Now, my old area has gotten all "Bronxed" up, so I wouldn't be too happy with it now.  It's hideously expensive, with astronomical taxes (and fewer amenities than I get here with 1/3 the taxes), and many of the people moving in have hideous taste with what they've done to their houses.  I make enough money now that I could move back there if I wanted to, but I wouldn't.

I know how you feel because at one time, I despaired of ever getting out of my 3 room third floor walkup.  I hated that place and wanted out so badly.  But getting your finances together is like pushing a rock up a hill.  If you make the effort and do the heavy lifting as early in life as possible, you reach the top and once that happens, your finances keep gaining momentum.  It's hard to explain, but keep plugging away, and you will end up getting something good.  The place I live in now is beyond my wildest dreams, and I laugh when I think how desperate I was to get out of my old apartment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Like many things, whether it ends up being good or bad largely depends on how its done.

[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.

[dazzleman]

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.

You're very right.  There's little point in arguing if it's good or bad.  It can't be stopped.  Like any other change, it has good and bad effects.  That's just the way the world is.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

In certain cases, yes that's true. And when it's like that people don't notice so much.
But the worst cases in the U.K (all in the former GLC/current GLA) are not natural... although it's too late to do anything about it

[opebo]

Here's a great story about the ultimate gentrification - the Bowery in NYC is being turned in to high-rises of multimillion dollar condos:
http://villagevoice.com/nyclife/0509,bpress,61613,15.html