Is Gentrification a Bad Thing?

Seth wrote:
Malor wrote:
Either way, how do you define "pushed"?

Well, I'd define it this way: if you're an owner, you're probably not getting pushed, you're voluntarily selling (probably at a huge profit) and moving somewhere else.

If you're a renter, and you can no longer afford the rent, you're being pushed.

Exactly. And it's this second example that recent research is saying doesn't happen, or happens very rarely. While we don't know exactly why, the theory is that given the increase in services and jobs that come with gentrification, poor people are both more willing and more able to pay increased rents as compared to non gentrifying neighborhoods.

From what I have noticed in my, granted anecdotal, but considerable experience with blighted areas in Inner City Baltimore, poverty is expensive. More to the point, living in an area without adequate services is VERY expensive. And though rents might go up as areas gentrify, so much other stuff gets a great deal cheaper as things like supermarkets, banks, and discount retailers move in.

I think that's a really good point, Paleo. People with cars that rarely break down don't really understand the cost inherent in travel when its reliant on weather, public transit, or an old car needing repairs. I didn't until I spent a few months last winter relying on the bus for travel.

But: there's a counterpoint to my previous article claiming gentrification is a myth.

Seth wrote:

I think that's a really good point, Paleo. People with cars that rarely break down don't really understand the cost inherent in travel when its reliant on weather, public transit, or an old car needing repairs. I didn't until I spent a few months last winter relying on the bus for travel.

But: there's a counterpoint to my previous article claiming gentrification is a myth.

I get the idea that blacks have historically moved more slowly up the social mobility ladder, but I would add to that that part of what drives that movement is the combination of income opportunities and services that make wealth creation and retention possible. Leaving neighborhoods blighted benefits no one. Least of all the poor.

Yes, certain neighborhoods in Brooklyn were one of the three or four tiny areas nationwide that the article mentioned this was happening in.

Seth wrote:
Malor wrote:
Either way, how do you define "pushed"?

Well, I'd define it this way: if you're an owner, you're probably not getting pushed, you're voluntarily selling (probably at a huge profit) and moving somewhere else.

If you're a renter, and you can no longer afford the rent, you're being pushed.

Exactly. And it's this second example that recent research is saying doesn't happen, or happens very rarely. While we don't know exactly why, the theory is that given the increase in services and jobs that come with gentrification, poor people are both more willing and more able to pay increased rents as compared to non gentrifying neighborhoods.

Except that in more urban areas, like Brooklyn, often times the owners have tenants, who get pushed out when they decide to sell. It's happened to me twice in a 2 year period in a neighborhood that was being quickly gentrified.

And depending on local rent control laws, when a tenant moves out, the owner can jack up the rent considerably for the next tenant.

My experience with anti-gentrification has mostly been about local check cashing places and jack-the-poor "convenience" stores blocking supermarkets and box stores from coming into neighborhoods because they would "affect their livelihoods".

Yeah -- mine has been with mid range and upscale restaurants pushing out dive bars that only exist because they were grandfathered into every health code since 1970, and a century old Polish/German community dealing with 1) replaced by PoC over the course of 50 years and 2) facing an influx of young white millenials. (It's a fun game to figure out who the old families hate more, the PoC or the millenials). Gentrification seems to have utterly different looks depending on the neighborhood.

Seth wrote:

Yes, certain neighborhoods in Brooklyn were one of the three or four tiny areas nationwide that the article mentioned this was happening in.

Considering this thread was predicated on Spike Lee's initial rant about his childhood neighborhood in Brooklyn, I'd say it's relevant.

nel e nel wrote:
Seth wrote:

Yes, certain neighborhoods in Brooklyn were one of the three or four tiny areas nationwide that the article mentioned this was happening in.

Considering this thread was predicated on Spike Lee's initial rant about his childhood neighborhood in Brooklyn, I'd say it's relevant.

Definitely relevant to you. Apologies if my tone was dismissive -- it was exasperated considering you clearly haven't been reading the last few pages.

Your experience is both completely valid to your neighborhood and wholly irrelevant to the vast majority of the country, especially the area between the coasts. Which is what I think Paleo and I have been discussing; gentrification looks completely different in different areas.

Something to keep in mind: if Brooklyn were its own city, it would be the fourth largest city by population in the U.S. (and one of those cities would be the rest of New York, anyways). If Brooklyn were a state, it would be the 36th largest state by population in the U.S. Not to say population is everything, but it is *something* when it comes to determining what the 'vast majority' of a country really is.

Also, speaking of Spike Lee and gentrification, people interested in this thread might also be interested in this: Brooklyn Boheme (I don't think it's been mentioned yet--if so, my bad!)

I figured as soon as I posted that someone would bicker about "vast majority" meaning population or square miles.

Seth wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
Seth wrote:

Yes, certain neighborhoods in Brooklyn were one of the three or four tiny areas nationwide that the article mentioned this was happening in.

Considering this thread was predicated on Spike Lee's initial rant about his childhood neighborhood in Brooklyn, I'd say it's relevant.

Definitely relevant to you. Apologies if my tone was dismissive -- it was exasperated considering you clearly haven't been reading the last few pages.

Your experience is both completely valid to your neighborhood and wholly irrelevant to the vast majority of the country, especially the area between the coasts. Which is what I think Paleo and I have been discussing; gentrification looks completely different in different areas.

I don't think you're being insensitive, rather I think both you and Paleo have either missed or lost sight of the finer nuances that Spike was bringing up, and that this thread was trying to discuss:

it's not that gentrification is bad writ large, it's that it largely is tied to economic factors, which in America is largely tied to racial factors, and that it's kind of f*cked up that it takes rich white folks moving in to get basic municipal services to a neighborhood that is underserved.

Neighborhoods 'getting nicer' is pretty much something most people agree on, when that change is primarily tied to richer whiter folks moving it (or Latinos as per your article), then it's problematic, because it implies that poor colored neighborhoods aren't worth the city's effort.

your linked article wrote:

Harvard sociologists Robert Sampson and Jackelyn Hwang have shown that neighborhoods that are more than 40 percent black gentrify much more slowly than other neighborhoods. The apparent unwillingness of other ethnic groups to move into and invest in predominantly black communities in turn perpetuates segregation and inequality in American society.

The bolded is specifically the issues that Spike was ranting against.

Poor people NOT moving out of gentrifying neighborhoods is also misleading, as generally it's harder to raise rents - or raise them significantly - on tenants that have already been living there. Sure rents rise, but it's usually when a NEW tenant moves in.

Seth wrote:

I figured as soon as I posted that someone would bicker about "vast majority" meaning population or square miles. :)

I did not know square miles could have experiences, valid or not.

nel e nel wrote:

Neighborhoods 'getting nicer' is pretty much something most people agree on, when that change is primarily tied to richer whiter folks moving it (or Latinos as per your article), then it's problematic, because it implies that poor colored neighborhoods aren't worth the city's effort.

your linked article wrote:

Harvard sociologists Robert Sampson and Jackelyn Hwang have shown that neighborhoods that are more than 40 percent black gentrify much more slowly than other neighborhoods. The apparent unwillingness of other ethnic groups to move into and invest in predominantly black communities in turn perpetuates segregation and inequality in American society.

The bolded is specifically the issues that Spike was ranting against.

Spike ranted about neighborhoods only getting adequate city services once enough white people moved in. That's a completely valid complaint, though one that's exceptionally difficult to solve since it's based on so many underlying things: outright racism, the lack of political influence because of historically lower voter turnout by blacks, that poorer neighborhoods generate less tax revenue for the city, and many more issues.

But Spike also ranted against new residents not respecting the history of a neighborhood and changing its culture.

That presents a bit of a problem for anyone who might want to invest in a neighborhood. Will opening a cafe or trendy bar be viewed as an investment in the neighborhood or will it be viewed as disrespecting the neighborhood's history and changing its culture?

OG_slinger wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

Neighborhoods 'getting nicer' is pretty much something most people agree on, when that change is primarily tied to richer whiter folks moving it (or Latinos as per your article), then it's problematic, because it implies that poor colored neighborhoods aren't worth the city's effort.

your linked article wrote:

Harvard sociologists Robert Sampson and Jackelyn Hwang have shown that neighborhoods that are more than 40 percent black gentrify much more slowly than other neighborhoods. The apparent unwillingness of other ethnic groups to move into and invest in predominantly black communities in turn perpetuates segregation and inequality in American society.

The bolded is specifically the issues that Spike was ranting against.

Spike ranted about neighborhoods only getting adequate city services once enough white people moved in. That's a completely valid complaint, though one that's exceptionally difficult to solve since it's based on so many underlying things: outright racism, the lack of political influence because of historically lower voter turnout by blacks, that poorer neighborhoods generate less tax revenue for the city, and many more issues.

But Spike also ranted against new residents not respecting the history of a neighborhood and changing its culture.

That presents a bit of a problem for anyone who might want to invest in a neighborhood. Will opening a cafe or trendy bar be viewed as an investment in the neighborhood or will it be viewed as disrespecting the neighborhood's history and changing its culture?

Right there with you.

Not sure how I solve the former seeing as, except for Martin O'Malley's 8 years, Baltimore has had exclusively black mayors since 1987.

As for the latter, I am not sure much of that matters. The businesses that objected to the Target moving in said they did so because the spot they picked was a "historic" church that had been abandoned by its owner and an operating shooting gallery for 20 years. They managed to get Target to agree to keep the architectural features at great expense, but revealed that it was never the real issue when they continued to object once all their initial demands were met.

Okay, thank you nel. That makes a lot of sense and I'm right there with you.

In terms of bad anecdotes: no less than three individuals whose money was made in development or finance have used a very close paraphrase of the sentence "God I can't wait for this street to gentrify" to me in the last month. This is what I would consider a racist attitude, as the street in question has become home to majority PoC, and they were directly referencing two new converted warehouses close by bringing "market rate domiciles" to the area.

Btw I've learned that "market rate" can be a very loaded term when discussing housing. You can almost hear the disdain people have for rent controlled or Low income Housing when they use it.

I've noticed that at least in Austin, "fair market", "real market", or "market rate" all mean "Please would someone let the needless price inflation my developer buddies and I are trying to cause eventually happen."

OG_slinger wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

Neighborhoods 'getting nicer' is pretty much something most people agree on, when that change is primarily tied to richer whiter folks moving it (or Latinos as per your article), then it's problematic, because it implies that poor colored neighborhoods aren't worth the city's effort.

your linked article wrote:

Harvard sociologists Robert Sampson and Jackelyn Hwang have shown that neighborhoods that are more than 40 percent black gentrify much more slowly than other neighborhoods. The apparent unwillingness of other ethnic groups to move into and invest in predominantly black communities in turn perpetuates segregation and inequality in American society.

The bolded is specifically the issues that Spike was ranting against.

Spike ranted about neighborhoods only getting adequate city services once enough white people moved in. That's a completely valid complaint, though one that's exceptionally difficult to solve since it's based on so many underlying things: outright racism, the lack of political influence because of historically lower voter turnout by blacks, that poorer neighborhoods generate less tax revenue for the city, and many more issues.

But Spike also ranted against new residents not respecting the history of a neighborhood and changing its culture.

That presents a bit of a problem for anyone who might want to invest in a neighborhood. Will opening a cafe or trendy bar be viewed as an investment in the neighborhood or will it be viewed as disrespecting the neighborhood's history and changing its culture?

Exactly. The historical argument is - I agree - a largely subjective one, and will hold different weight for different people. In Spike's particular instance, however, I do think there is a bit of reacting to the perception that blacks are often subjected to an attitude of "know your place" from whites. In this case, a white lady moving into a neighborhood that had - for generations - been home to musicians and artists, and then calling the cops on them because she was being inconvenienced. A privilege that many blacks don't also enjoy.

Seth - regarding your 'market rate' comments: when I first moved to Brooklyn, I lived in primarily black or latino neighborhoods. One of my best friends who had been living here for years lived on the Upper East Side. One time when visiting her, I commented on how 'quiet' her neighborhood was compared to mine: in mine, folks hang out on the stoop, kids are running around playing, etc. In her neighborhood the only people out were going to and from wherever they were going, no 'social' activities outside of prescribed venues. She moonlighted in real estate for a bit, and she flat out told me that one of the reasons 'black neighborhoods' are valued less is because of that particular quality of people hanging outside their homes. /anecdote

In Bodymore, Murdaland, we used to have the $1 row home. That pretty much created livable neighborhoods around Mount Vernon. We should bring it back.

A specific example from yesterday of the "property owner might do things without the consent of the people occupying the property" thing:

East Austin Piñata Store Owners: Store Demolished Without Our Knowledge
(Russell Wilde, TWC News Austin, 2015-02-12)

For the past eight years, Jumpolin owners Monica and Sergio Lejarazu have been selling piñatas and other party supplies from their shop on Caesar Chavez.

Tuesday morning, Sergio Lejarazu drove by and saw the crews tearing down the business – with everything still inside.

“I don’t know what happened because we don’t receive any information about the demolition,” Monica Lejarazu said.

On the one hand: they can sue the sh*t out of people for this. On the other hand: that was their livelihood, and their property was destroyed with the building. And on the gripping hand: The property owner will probably make far more money from whatever new use the land is being put to than they will pay out in fines and damages from any civil suit. This is an area of Austin that is rapidly gentrifying, so I'm sure the Lejarazus' lease involved payments significantly less than the property owner felt they could make by using the land for other purposes.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/15/gentrification-san-francisco-manifest-destiny-culture

I like the line about losing a panedria and gaining a Panera. I love density, but I think this is part of what bothers me. A large number of people I meet in Portland are coming here from New York. And they're bringing with them the things they think Portland should be, not appreciating what it actually is. I saw a comment on a blog the other day that Southwest Portland is Portland's Portland. i.e. The last part of the city that's authentically weird. Sad, but true.

DSGamer wrote:

And they're bringing with them the things they think Portland should be, not appreciating what it actually is.

What Portland (and any city for that matter) should be is a reflection of it's inhabitants. As it's inhabitants change, a city should change to reflect that.

I'm making no judgement about better or worse with that statement.

Think about that for a minute. If you were to move to New York, you'd lament the things that it lacked that Portland had. For the sake of argument, let's pick poutine food carts. If poutine food carts started to spring up in the Big Apple, you'd be pleased, right? You might even consider that a bonus. Meanwhile, the old jewish guy down the street would be lamenting how he can't find a decent bagel shop like in the good old days.

That's the essence of gentrification, though. The people with more money get to decide how the city changes and what it changes into. If you read that article there's a good line about "losing panadería and gaining a Panera".

Of course a city should reflect its inhabitants. It's just a bummer if you're in the losing voting block who would prefer not to have a Whole Foods on every corner.

DSGamer wrote:

That's the essence of gentrification, though. The people with more money get to decide how the city changes and what it changes into. If you read that article there's a good line about "losing panadería and gaining a Panera".

Which only happens if the demographics of the neighborhood shifts towards more rich people (as has happened with SF, which the article is about). If it shifts towards more poor people, then there's more panaderias and fewer Paneras.

Which is my point.

Jonman wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

That's the essence of gentrification, though. The people with more money get to decide how the city changes and what it changes into. If you read that article there's a good line about "losing panadería and gaining a Panera".

Which only happens if the demographics of the neighborhood shifts towards more rich people (as has happened with SF, which the article is about). If it shifts towards more poor people, then there's more panaderias and fewer Paneras.

Which is my point.

But, to ask the question of the thread, is that a good thing? Is it a good thing if the what the neighborhood is and what it costs tracks with the wealthiest people in the community? I think the article makes the most important point. If you gain density but lose what made a place something special, was the tradeoff worth it? I like density, to be clear. I don't plan on living in the suburbs forever. But I've been shocked by just how much more diverse and weird the suburbs are than the supposedly weird city at the hub of the metro area.

DSGamer wrote:
Jonman wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

That's the essence of gentrification, though. The people with more money get to decide how the city changes and what it changes into. If you read that article there's a good line about "losing panadería and gaining a Panera".

Which only happens if the demographics of the neighborhood shifts towards more rich people (as has happened with SF, which the article is about). If it shifts towards more poor people, then there's more panaderias and fewer Paneras.

Which is my point.

But, to ask the question of the thread, is that a good thing? Is it a good thing if the what the neighborhood is and what it costs tracks with the wealthiest people in the community? I think the article makes the most important point. If you gain density but lose what made a place something special, was the tradeoff worth it? I like density, to be clear. I don't plan on living in the suburbs forever. But I've been shocked by just how much more diverse and weird the suburbs are than the supposedly weird city at the hub of the metro area.

And I'm answering the question.

Yes, having the neighborhood evolve to suit the changing nature of it's inhabitants is a good thing.

For instance, if you gain density because there's more people wanting to live there, that's a good thing. The alternative is a dysfunctional neighborhood.

Part of what irks me about the whole notion is the spectacularly nebulous and subjective concept of "something special". One man's "something special" is another man's "there goes the neighborhood". The point is that what was once "something special" ceases to be when it no longer meets the needs of the people that live there.

That's assuming ideas like Tragedy of the Commons, Prisoner's Dilemma, and just the obvious notion that people don't know what they want don't exist.

Well, that's kinda my point. People can totally want every gentrified neighborhood to have its own coffee shop, Whole Foods, and gourmet pizza place, but that doesn't mean the neighborhood actually got "better". Sounds boring to me. We already tried that in the suburbs.

DSGamer wrote:

Well, that's kinda my point. People can totally want every gentrified neighborhood to have its own coffee shop, Whole Foods, and gourmet pizza place, but that doesn't mean the neighborhood actually got "better". Sounds boring to me. We already tried that in the suburbs.

On the coasts, even your suburbs are cooler than Midwest suburbs. I'd love it if the miles of TGIChiliBees, SuperWalMarts, Starbucks, and Domino's were local coffee shoppes, Whole Foods, and gourmet pizza places.

edit:

French restaurants and beer gardens take the place of soul food restaurants and bookstores in Harlem. I mean, if you lose a panadería and gain a Panera, is that really a mark of sophistication?

Is that a fair comparison? Is losing a locally owned mexican pastry shop to a boring corporate sandwich shop the same as losing what many consider an obsolete business? I mean isn't a bookstore just a dry beer garden anymore?

And that’s OK. Cities evolve and neighborhoods change. We can’t stop Manifest Destiny, can we?

But the idea that the wealthy newcomers are culturally superior is as old as white people “gentrifying” areas occupied by people of color. Gentrification supplants one culture with another; it doesn’t fill in a void.

I completely agree with this, but my issue is that this isn't what I see. I don't see an air of cultural superiority around gentrifiers. I see people moving because of the culture, and then adding their own flavor. So when I see T shirts that say "Keep Austin Weird," I'm reading them as egocentric statements more along the lines of "Keep Illegals Out" than anything else.

SixteenBlue wrote:

That's assuming ideas like Tragedy of the Commons, Prisoner's Dilemma, and just the obvious notion that people don't know what they want don't exist.

All of which apply to what DSGamer is saying as much as they do to what I'm saying.