Gentrification, Yay or Nay

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ensis Ferrae**

sebster wrote:
It seems to me the problem people mention with gentrification is that it does nothing for the poor. Which is true in many cases, but that strikes me as an issue that is fundamentally about poverty, not the changing face of an inner city area.

If poverty were made less harsh, it seems to me that many of the issues with gentrification would no longer exist. Whereas if gentrification were stopped, I think it would do next to nothing to help people in poverty.

Honestly, reading articles and seeing things online coming from many of the Scandanavian countries, especially in regards to education, would do far more for "poverty" in the US...

And I disagree with your second statement... If poverty were made less harsh, we'd just breed a new standard of poverty. If we stopped gentrification, the areas currently inhabited (or uninhabited as it were) by urban poor would still be just as they were. As you pointed out in your first statement: gentrification "helps" the buildings and areas, but rarely does anything for the people who are poor.

**sebster**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And I disagree with your second statement... If poverty were made less harsh, we'd just breed a new standard of poverty. If we stopped gentrification, the areas currently inhabited (or uninhabited as it were) by urban poor would still be just as they were. As you pointed out in your first statement: gentrification "helps" the buildings and areas, but rarely does anything for the people who are poor.

You may then set a new, higher standard for poverty, but people have still been raised above the old standard - their lives are actually materially improved.

And there's plenty of suburbs in Perth that were built for the working class, really basic weatherboard homes that a couple of generations were no longer on the outskirts of the city, but thanks to growth were now inner city. Because a basic rate of pay was still reasonable, most of the people still living in those old homes owned them, and they were sitting on million dollar pieces of land. What might have been a basic retirement on a small superannuation and the pension became a sea change in to a mansion in the South West region.

But when a basic working class income is enough just to rent and not own, well then what I just described can't happen.

**Sasori**

Are we going to get one of these topics every time Hostsauce man gets a new topic in his class....

**Frazzled**

Sigvatr wrote:
My wife and I prefer the company of people with a similar social status as us and want our child to grow up in a safe social environment. Therefore, we're in favor of gentrification and all processes going along with it.

Selfish? Yes. But honest.

What exactly is "wrong" with gentrification? Please explain the negative of having a bunch of law abiding citizens who want to be invlved in the community moving into a deteriorating neighborhood. Oh Noes my property values are going up! Oh noes I'm not worried about drive bys from those hipsters at the street corner. The whole concept is derpy derp derp.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
Wages don't go up... People are still paid minimum wage to serve these establishments... the Chipolte in the renewed 'town center' doesn't pay more than the Chipolte in a cheaper part of town. All it does is force the people who work there to drive farther to get to work.

And often the rent goes up drastically because they evict whole buildings, tear down 30-year old apartments and replace them with condos. Rent goes up 3-5 times the original amount, not 50 bucks a month.

Some mom and pops who are lucky enough to own get to enjoy the new income... but almost no one anywhere OWNS their building. Commercial real estate is pretty depressing. In my area, like 2 major firms own 90% of the properties. They literally own everything. Anyone who DID own probably cashed out to developers during the rebuilding of the area and is no longer running a business. Those who rent simply either get skyrocketing commercial rent, or the landlord refuses to renew the lease.

And people are not complaining about their taxes going up. Most areas have 'homestead' taxes which limit property tax increases for residents who live in a house. It is the renters (which almost all of the low income are) being instantly displaced by closing an entire building for extensive renovations or demolishing, or house rentals which go through the roof.

Here is an example in my area right now. I bought my house in 2000 for 100k. My mortgage payment was like 500$ When I bought it, a 3-bedroom townhome in this neighborhood was renting for 800$ a month.

When I sold in 2011, my neighbor was paying 1850$ a month and was leaving because it was going up 250$ the next lease.

Around the corner, they are building 600k townhomes which mean these older townhomes are being flipped and rented for obscene amounts. A 1 bedroom apartment down the street is now 1700$.

All it has done is push everyone who can't afford another 10 miles out from DC, or sideways in the festering ghetto called PG county. And all the people being displaced get no vote because once you are out of your house, you are not a voter in that area anymore.

I own my home. I make out like a bandit. There are a helluva lot of people who are not even being given a chance and are basically being economically cleansed from the area. You are basically throwing crabs in boiling water and saying "learn to adapt!"

A lot of it is 'people at the top' don't like to see or interact with 'people at the bottom'. I have been to school board meetings where people were upset about having to be bused to a holding school during renovations because "they don't want their kids, in that part of the county associating with those types of people". They also blocked government housing for government workers (police, teachers, firemen, county employees) because 'those' types of people are not what they want in their areas. They sue for soccer and basket ball courts to be torn out and replaced with horse parks and tennis courts. They are using their money and legal maneuvering to not just gentrify but eradicate what they have deemed 'unwanted elements' which boils down to poor minorities.

You can do urban renewal without ethnically cleansing the poor.

The only reason why 'hipsters' are being talked about was the other thread, Durham is becoming the 'Austin' of the east coast and is basically being flooded by hipsters.

Thats great and all, but whats the opposite of gentrification?

Detroit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
I just bought a house near an area of town with rundown homes, smaller trailer parks, and low-income housing. I think gentrification would do wonders for my property value. I'm not wishing the low income housing to go away but the trailer parks and run down homes definitely need razing.

Racist! How dare you! Where will the tornadoes go without trailer parks?

**kronk**

So, is gentrification where they tear down crack houses and dubious apartment complexes, build expensive homes and condos (Town Homes, for you youngsters), and bring in businesses? Reducing crime and violence in the area? Making the area look nicer than it was. A place that people can be proud of?

That's a bad thing?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sasori wrote:
Are we going to get one of these topics every time Hostsauce man gets a new topic in his class....

Probably.

**Frazzled**

Sasori wrote:
Are we going to get one of these topics every time Hostsauce man gets a new topic in his class....

Yes! They are decent topics. It beats the usual gun/religion/where's my beer thread.

Be glad its not my boy. The topic would be about new equations he found on the internet, and general bitching about programming the computer properly to compute the variables. I just nod and go "un huh"

Quietly, Malfred steals all our socks.

**Captain Fantastic**

I like gentrification. It's amusing to me. Richmond and Washington D.C are two places that have become fairly gentrified in the time that I've been alive to observe it happening. Everything around the stadium is still horrible, but the cleveland park/ NWU crowd seems to have moved farther and farther into what used to be crack dens and brothels.

**cincydooley**

kronk wrote:
So, is gentrification where they tear down crack houses and dubious apartment complexes, build expensive homes and condos (Town Homes, for you youngsters), and bring in businesses? Reducing crime and violence in the area? Making the area look nicer than it was. A place that people can be proud of?

That's a bad thing?

.

The former tenants have to go somewhere.......

**kronk**

K. So?

Plenty of just-as-crappy apartments to go around.

**Frazzled**

cincydooley wrote:
kronk wrote:
So, is gentrification where they tear down crack houses and dubious apartment complexes, build expensive homes and condos (Town Homes, for you youngsters), and bring in businesses? Reducing crime and violence in the area? Making the area look nicer than it was. A place that people can be proud of?

That's a bad thing?

.

The former tenants have to go somewhere.......

So in essence your answer to rotting urban centers is...let them rot?

**hotsauceman1**

Sasori wrote:
Are we going to get one of these topics every time Hostsauce man gets a new topic in his class....

I wouldnt have made this a topic if it didnt come up in the gun thread.

**cincydooley**

kronk wrote:
K. So?

Plenty of just-as-crappy apartments to go around.

And this is the attitude of the hipster gentrifier. As long as I don't see them anymore, I don't care where they go. But that doesn't change the fact that they have to go somewhere.

Heres a story about it from today's paper:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/26/public-housing-slated-demolition/9602943/

**Frazzled**

So whats your remedy Cincy?

**cincydooley**

Frazzled wrote:
So whats your remedy Cincy?

feth if I know, especially with the federal housing budget shrinking.

The solution seems to be that people that are able to move out of "gentrification overflows" do, and those overflows become the new shitholes. Gentrification doesn't actually fix a proble; it simply moves it.

I guess the naive, idealized, college student/professor response is to teach people in gentrified areas to care for their property and community, get them jobs in the new restaurants and shops, and make them a part of the gentrification process. But that ain't gonna happen.

The funniest thing to me is that all these hipsters living in gentrified areas want to claim to be living in the community. What they don't tell you is that all their gentrified housing is gated, heavily secured, and as apart from the "surrounding community" as it can possibly be.

Though I must admit I love most of the new restaurants in OTR.

**Raven911**

Here is my experience with so called "low income" neighborhoods. I own a condo located in the county between charlotte nc and mint hill nc. It was an older neighborhood with condos and town homes, and mostly older folks or young families with kids, nice quiet and peaceful. Brand new town homes were built right behind us and we thought , hey great, it will increase our property value. Every single one of them was turned I to section 8 homes, and literally, over night, we had homes and cars gettig broken into, shots beig fired off in the middle of the night, drugs being sold in the open, and thugs prowling around acting like animals all over the place. I was walking my dog and got to watch the CMPD swat team hit one of the new homes. Our property value plumetted to the point that I still can't afford to sell it.

They people there would actually throw bags of garbage into the creek between the developments, and they had to walk past a dumpster to do it. Fething animals.

Anything that moves out the section 8 garbage from the people who actually try to work and take care of their area should be imbraced. Even if I hate hipsters, they are better than thugs.

**chaos0xomega**

kronk wrote:
So, is gentrification where they tear down crack houses and dubious apartment complexes, build expensive homes and condos (Town Homes, for you youngsters), and bring in businesses? Reducing crime and violence in the area? Making the area look nicer than it was. A place that people can be proud of?

That's a bad thing?

If you understand that it means that the existing criminal element and/or underclass are displaced as a result of the new development, and thus forced to relocate to a new area which they will then cause to decline, and you understand that this results in a vicious cycle that doesn't actually serve to improve or rehabilitate people, merely one area at the expense of another, then yes, it is a bad thing.

Frazzled wrote:
So whats your remedy Cincy?

Well, MY solution would be to push for 'urban renewal' programs. It does all the same things that gentrification does, except you help create jobs and opportunities for the people that already live there, rather than importing yuppies and hipsters from Brooklyn, Portland, etc. in to do it and displace the existing population. I mean, of course some new people will show up, and some old people will move out, but we're talking about a fraction of the population (as opposed to places like Brooklyn, where entire neighborhoods don't have any residents that can claim to have been there for more than a handful of years).

**cincydooley**

Raven911 wrote:
Here is my experience with so called "low income" neighborhoods. I own a condo located in the county between charlotte nc and mint hill nc. It was an older neighborhood with condos and tow homes, and mostly older folks or young families with kids, nice quiet andpeaceful. Brand new tow homes were build right behind us and we thought , hey great, it will increase our property value. Every single one of them was turned I to section 8 homes, and literally, over night, we had homes and cars gettig broken into, shots beig fired off in the middle of the night, drugs being sold in the open, and thugs prowling around acting like animals all over the place. I was walking my dog and got to watch the CMPD swat team hit one of the new homes. Our property value plumetted to the point that I still can't afford to sell it.

Anything that moves out the section 8 garbage from the people who actually try to work and take care of their area should be imbraced. Even if I hate hipsters, they are better than thugs.

I think you misunderstand.

The gentrification of urban centers results in exactly what happened to your neighborhood.

Forced mixed-income communities aren't the solution.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chaos, we are on the same page.

**hotsauceman1**

cincydooley wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
So whats your remedy Cincy?

feth if I know, especially with the federal housing budget shrinking.

The solution seems to be that people that are able to move out of "gentrification overflows" do, and those overflows become the new shitholes. Gentrification doesn't actually fix a proble; it simply moves it.

I guess the naive, idealized, college student/professor response is to teach people in gentrified areas to care for their property and community, get them jobs in the new restaurants and shops, and make them a part of the gentrification process. But that ain't gonna happen.

The funniest thing to me is that all these hipsters living in gentrified areas want to claim to be living in the community. What they don't tell you is that all their gentrified housing is gated, heavily secured, and as apart from the "surrounding community" as it can possibly be.

Though I must admit I love most of the new restaurants in OTR.

so you shouldn't try too Teach the poor to fend for themselves to get out of poverty?

**daedalus**

hotsauceman1 wrote:

so you shouldn't try too Teach the poor to fend for themselves to get out of poverty?

I think the common opinion here is that they're supposed to figure it out themselves.

**cincydooley**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
so you shouldn't try too Teach the poor to fend for themselves to get out of poverty?

Never said anything of the sort.

What sounds right and just and ideal in a classroom or in a hypothetical doesn't necessarily work in the practical.

**Frazzled**

Well, MY solution would be to push for 'urban renewal' programs. It does all the same things that gentrification does, except you help create jobs and opportunities for the people that already live there, rather than importing yuppies and hipsters from Brooklyn, Portland, etc. in to do it and displace the existing population. I mean, of course some new people will show up, and some old people will move out, but we're talking about a fraction of the population (as opposed to places like Brooklyn, where entire neighborhoods don't have any residents that can claim to have been there for more than a handful of years).

You have to show evidence its ever worked first.
Criminals are not going to change. They will destroy your urban gentrification just as much as their old slum.

**cincydooley**

It's hard to teach people to fish that would simply prefer to be given a fish everyday.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Well, MY solution would be to push for 'urban renewal' programs. It does all the same things that gentrification does, except you help create jobs and opportunities for the people that already live there, rather than importing yuppies and hipsters from Brooklyn, Portland, etc. in to do it and displace the existing population. I mean, of course some new people will show up, and some old people will move out, but we're talking about a fraction of the population (as opposed to places like Brooklyn, where entire neighborhoods don't have any residents that can claim to have been there for more than a handful of years).

You have to show evidence its ever worked first.
Criminals are not going to change. They will destroy your urban gentrification just as much as their old slum.

Of course they aren't. But they don't destroy the gentrified areas because they've been displaced. It's those "gentrification overflows" they destroy.

**Raven911**

Forced mixed-income communities aren't the solution.

Tell that to the local governments. They are mandating it through zoning.

As far as teaching the "poor" to fend for themselves, why should they do that when they can sit on their collective arses and get a check every month? The best motivation to get out and find a job should be the choice between eating or not eating. I'm sick of my family getting screwed so that I can subsidize everyone else. They don't want to work? Fething you then, starve.

**chaos0xomega**

Frazzled wrote:

Well, MY solution would be to push for 'urban renewal' programs. It does all the same things that gentrification does, except you help create jobs and opportunities for the people that already live there, rather than importing yuppies and hipsters from Brooklyn, Portland, etc. in to do it and displace the existing population. I mean, of course some new people will show up, and some old people will move out, but we're talking about a fraction of the population (as opposed to places like Brooklyn, where entire neighborhoods don't have any residents that can claim to have been there for more than a handful of years).

You have to show evidence its ever worked first.
Criminals are not going to change. They will destroy your urban gentrification just as much as their old slum.

Renewal is not generally practiced on a scale that you can provide conclusive evidence one way or another as to its success. The small scale attempts at renewal (usually small neighborhoods no more than a few blocks in size) that have been made however indicate that it is possible on SOME scale. And yes, you're right, the criminal element won't necessarily change, but the hope is that the rest of the community either forces them to fall in line (it happens) or they are the element that is forced to relocate (which, while not necessarily ideal, does have an advantage in that they will not typically have the means to continue criminal activities until some time after they relocate, creating a sort of 'cool down' on their behavior).

cincydooley wrote:
It's hard to teach people to fish that would simply prefer to be given a fish everyday.

Not entirely accurate. Yes, generally speaking if they are given the option to receive a free 10lb bluefish every day at no cost or effort to them, or to learn how to catch a 10lb bluefish every day which will take approximately 8 hours of their lives, daily, to accomplish, they will gladly take the free fish over the lessons... if you teach them to catch a 20-40lb snapper though... then they might be more interested. Sorry, but giving people the 'opportunity' to get a minimum wage job, is not really giving them any opportunity at all, especially not when slinging crack or heroine is more profitable and (oddly enough) less degrading/insulting to someones self worth and dignity. I recall reading a study performed that found that reforming criminals was actually possible/successful when the criminals were given the opportunity to perform work that paid above a poverty line standard and which served a function to allow them to feel as though they were doing something meaningful... bringing in a mcdonalds and a walmart generally doesn't meet those criteria.

**Jihadin**

Move out to the country and not move into the city. Then again you might be considered racist for not wanting to meet diversified people like some Whack Chick from Fox said

**Raven911**

Bull. I deal with a lot of these people on a daily basis at work. They don't want to learn anything. Most of them are happy to wallow in their squalor and blame whitey. They don't want to improve anything unless it's another free handout or obamaphone. There are victims and there are volunteers. These are volunteers.

**cincydooley**

Raven911 wrote:
Bull. I deal with a lot of these people on a daily basis at work. They don't want to learn anything. Most of them are happy to wallow in their squalor and blame whitey. They don't want to improve anything unless it's another free handout or obamaphone. There are victims and there are volunteers. These are volunteers.

It's not a race thing, so let's not make it one. The attitudes of the impoverished in urban centers are no different than those in trailer parks and backwater hovels. Hipsters just don't want to live in trailer parks.

**Frazzled**

To the urban gentrification. If the urban area begins to improve wouldn't that make it attractive to outside parties? Wouldn't that be the spark that starts the gentrification process?

As an aside, Frazzled is actually somewhat in this position. Frazzled’s workweek abode historically was in the sticks of the sticks outside of Houston. However that there Progress has been continuously moving towards me. Curse you Civilization!
My two lane country road has been widened into a nice four line bifurcated street (for a few feet on my side to give the false impression it goes further) and now connects to a new subdivision with McMansions springing up. Little do they know they are moving in next to houses with wandering chickens and 18 wheelers parked in front.

**cincydooley**

Frazzled wrote:
To the urban gentrification. If the urban area begins to improve wouldn't that make it attractive to outside parties? Wouldn't that be the spark that starts the gentrification process?

You'd think, but it doesn't seem to, and that's perhaps due to the perceived safety. Gentrification only works if they can bring people with money in to the are to eat and participate in commerce. As much as I despise hipsters, I think they're considered pretty "safe."

As an aside, Frazzled is actually somewhat in this position. Frazzled’s workweek abode historically was in the sticks of the sticks outside of Houston. However that there Progress has been continuously moving towards me. Curse you Civilization!
My two lane country road has been widened into a nice four line bifurcated street (for a few feet on my side to give the false impression it goes further) and now connects to a new subdivision with McMansions springing up. Little do they know they are moving in next to houses with wandering chickens and 18 wheelers parked in front.

That, my fine frankfurter friend, is sprawl. While not unrelated, it doesn't always tie into gentrification.

**Raven911**

cincydooley wrote:
Raven911 wrote:
Bull. I deal with a lot of these people on a daily basis at work. They don't want to learn anything. Most of them are happy to wallow in their squalor and blame whitey. They don't want to improve anything unless it's another free handout or obamaphone. There are victims and there are volunteers. These are volunteers.

It's not a race thing, so let's not make it one. The attitudes of the impoverished in urban centers are no different than those in trailer parks and backwater hovels. Hipsters just don't want to live in trailer parks.

Actually it is. I deal with trailer parks as well. Those people generally do work, and while not the kind of people that you would want to invite over for dinner, at least tend to take care of themselves. You're inner city projects are going to be mostly black, thats not making it a race thing, that is a simple fact.