Is Gentrification a Bad Thing?

FSeven wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Still trying to get my brain around how the "character of a neighborhood" is some kind of protected thing. I am pretty sure Fort Lee and Flushing have changed ethnic hands at least a dozen times since the 1900's and that alone is also part of the "character". The same could be said of Petworth in DC or Silver Spring, MD.

It is when folks insist in stagnation that you end up with blight.

Like I said, I don't have the answers. I just don't want to have to bring my kids to a museum to learn about the culture of these places or have them experience them as they were through old footage. I think maybe that part of your inability to wrap your brain around it lies in your comparison of the culture of Harlem and New Orleans with that of Flushing, NY or Silver Springs, MD. And that's fine but there will always be a severe disconnect in the way we perceive these places, ensuring that any discussion over it will be fruitless.

I just frown upon the dilution of anything unique and different in this country for the sake of the almighty dollar and the opening of another Walmart or strip mall, dog park, or Starbucks.

Oddly, the people making the loudest noises against walmarts, strip malls, and Starbucks are hipsters.

Question for you FSeven, because like all scared white people I avoided Harlem when I was in manhattan a decade ago (I'm a lot less fearful now). Was the neighborhood safe for me to wander around and enjoy the culture of Harlem before developers and businesses invested there?

Seth wrote:
FSeven wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Still trying to get my brain around how the "character of a neighborhood" is some kind of protected thing. I am pretty sure Fort Lee and Flushing have changed ethnic hands at least a dozen times since the 1900's and that alone is also part of the "character". The same could be said of Petworth in DC or Silver Spring, MD.

It is when folks insist in stagnation that you end up with blight.

Like I said, I don't have the answers. I just don't want to have to bring my kids to a museum to learn about the culture of these places or have them experience them as they were through old footage. I think maybe that part of your inability to wrap your brain around it lies in your comparison of the culture of Harlem and New Orleans with that of Flushing, NY or Silver Springs, MD. And that's fine but there will always be a severe disconnect in the way we perceive these places, ensuring that any discussion over it will be fruitless.

I just frown upon the dilution of anything unique and different in this country for the sake of the almighty dollar and the opening of another Walmart or strip mall, dog park, or Starbucks.

Oddly, the people making the loudest noises against walmarts, strip malls, and Starbucks are hipsters.

Question for you FSeven, because like all scared white people I avoided Harlem when I was in manhattan a decade ago (I'm a lot less fearful now). Was the neighborhood safe for me to wander around and enjoy the culture of Harlem before developers and businesses invested there?

Yes, as much as most other neighborhoods in NYC. My dad taught on the border between Harlem and Morningside Heights for about 20 years, without incident.

FSeven wrote:

Alright, so we're to a point of he said/she said. I think they are largely getting dismissed, evident in how it took a rant by Spike Lee to bring the topic to the forefront.

The issue of re-development/gentrification isn't anything new, FSeven. It's been an issue in every city that I've ever lived in. I would wager that it's been an issue since the invention of the concepts of property and money.

Lee didn't bring the topic to the forefront. I don't live anywhere near New York, but even I knew that people had been snapping up quaint brownstones in Brooklyn and anywhere else that was a reasonable commute from Manhattan for more than a decade now. Lee didn't say sh*t about that. He only went on his rant when it impacted him personally through his father.

And all that is why re-development/gentrification is difficult to get amped up about. One, it happens all the time. Two, barring disasters it takes years and years to happen. And, three, you really only pay attention to it if you're the one seeing your neighbors change and your rent steadily increase or you're the one who's excited to finally find an affordable home in a decent neighborhood. And then it's a good or bad thing depending entirely on which side you're on.

FSeven wrote:

And yes, I think more efforts should be made to preserve these places but I think you're grossly exaggerating my sentiment. No one's saying freeze these places in time as they are right now. I'm suggesting there needs to be programs which ensure the preservation of the cultural capital inherent in these places. Do I have all the answers as to precisely go about that? No.

Then try clarify what you mean about preserving those places because it most definitely is coming across as "nothing can change, ever."

It's clear from your other posts that you're extremely uncomfortable with what change represents. You want a unique culture and way of life preserved, but you don't want a museum or, worse, a sort of living history park. But you can't preserve that way of life without walling off Harlem and not allowing anything to change.

FSeven wrote:

You've obviously never been to New Orleans. Or stopped by Showman's or Ginny's in Harlem. Which is fine, but I'd really like to limit the discussion to things we at least have a passing knowledge in otherwise it becomes a debate between my fact and your rhetoric.

Actually, I have been to New Orleans. Several times. Again, you seem to think that your experience is the only valid experience. For good or for bad New Orleans *is* the French Quarter for the vast majority of people.

FSeven wrote:

I thought I was just expressing an opinion and never once purported to speak for an entire community. However there is plenty of sentiment which suggests that most Harlemites are against gentrification. Did you read the article I linked to before?

Everyone who is getting the short end of the stick in re-development is against said re-development.

FSeven wrote:

OG, in all seriousness, it's starting to get irritating listening to you prattle on about things you apparently haven't done any research into.

Katrina was precisely the opportunity rich white elites needed to make New Orleans richer and whiter.

What am I supposed to say, FSeven? That I'm shocked and dismayed that a racist and corrupt city was actually racist and corrupt?

Am I supposed to be surprised that rich, connected people took advantage of a natural disaster that destroyed a chunk of a city? I mean it's not like the same thing happened after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Or the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. Or the Great Fire of London in 1666. Or the Great Fire of Rome all the way back in 66 AD.

Oh, wait. Those things totally happened. Every f*cking time. The poor and powerless were quickly pushed out so that wealthy and connected could redevelop as they saw fit.

Please don't think this is me completely dismissing or ignoring what you wrote. You are clearly very knowledgeable and passionate (and right) about what's happening in New Orleans.

But it's also something that has happened over and over for at least two millennia so it's hard for me to pretend that what's happening in New Orleans is something new and unique. Or that the poor and disenfranchised are going to win against money and power this time.

FSeven wrote:

Ahh now I see. You misinterpreted what he's saying. Because what I and others got from Spike Lee's rant was not that white people can't buy property in Harlem but that there seems to be a trend among those who are buying property to make every effort to destroy the very culture that makes Harlem so great. He never said white people should stay out. He complained about hipsters and gentrifiers. He's also upset that it took an influx of white residents for the garbage to be picked up and for police officers to have more of a presence. He's not saying, as seth suggested that he prefers an unsafe neighborhood. He's saying that if there was a police presence for years as their suddenly is when whites come in, the streets wouldn't have been unsafe to begin with.

I didn't misinterpret what he's saying. I understood it perfectly. White people can be in Harlem only if they are Victorian children: seen and not heard. In his mind Harlem is--and should always be--a black neighborhood so new residents should only be accepted if they never change anything. Ever.

Those new property owners shouldn't be allowed to renovate their homes because that would drive up property values and that would drive out existing residents. No businesses should be allowed to open that served the new (and existing) residents because a Starbucks would totally destroy Harlem's character (again, whatever the f*ck that means).

FSeven wrote:

Any idea what would happen to the real estate prices in a low to moderate rent neighborhood if Spike Lee moved in and paid $32 million dollars for a mansion smack dab in the middle? As DK Smith explained, "Spike is a causative factor in gentrification. If Spike moves to a swamp...that land next door goes up immediately."

I meant that Lee should have taken his $32 million and become a Harlem landlord himself. If he doesn't like what other owners are doing with their property then he should have bought them out. Then it would be him making sure that no Starbucks or hipster bars were built on his block.

Tanglebones wrote:
Seth wrote:
FSeven wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Still trying to get my brain around how the "character of a neighborhood" is some kind of protected thing. I am pretty sure Fort Lee and Flushing have changed ethnic hands at least a dozen times since the 1900's and that alone is also part of the "character". The same could be said of Petworth in DC or Silver Spring, MD.

It is when folks insist in stagnation that you end up with blight.

Like I said, I don't have the answers. I just don't want to have to bring my kids to a museum to learn about the culture of these places or have them experience them as they were through old footage. I think maybe that part of your inability to wrap your brain around it lies in your comparison of the culture of Harlem and New Orleans with that of Flushing, NY or Silver Springs, MD. And that's fine but there will always be a severe disconnect in the way we perceive these places, ensuring that any discussion over it will be fruitless.

I just frown upon the dilution of anything unique and different in this country for the sake of the almighty dollar and the opening of another Walmart or strip mall, dog park, or Starbucks.

Oddly, the people making the loudest noises against walmarts, strip malls, and Starbucks are hipsters.

Question for you FSeven, because like all scared white people I avoided Harlem when I was in manhattan a decade ago (I'm a lot less fearful now). Was the neighborhood safe for me to wander around and enjoy the culture of Harlem before developers and businesses invested there?

Yes, as much as most other neighborhoods in NYC. My dad taught on the border between Harlem and Morningside Heights for about 20 years, without incident.

Cosign. I was living in Bed-stuy back in 2001 for 3 years and was fine. I lived in Crown Heights for 2 years and was also fine. Was there crime? Sure, but I never personally felt threatened.

One could make an argument that the'fear' whites have of historically black neighborhoods is actually a symptom of subconscious racism.

Oh that's an argument I readily make, nel. A decade ago I was barely old enough to drink legally, and quite the astounding idiot, if I do say so myself.

The intervening years have been good for my views on a great many things.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Also focusing on his actions and character instead of his words is cheap and dismissive. Is he wrong or right? This isn't the "Judge Spike Lee" thread.

I was mostly focusing on his recent words and wasn't trying to portray Spike Lee as Captain Douche of the year. Still, in this case he slipped into celebrity self-importance mode. Maybe I'm still a little sore that the missus dragged me to an Oscar party instead of letting me geek out in Diablo and the ESO beta, but some of the smug acceptance speeches were just nauseating. "Hey look at me - I made a movie about trans people with AIDS and slavery and I mentioned the Ukraine in my speech! I'm such a great person!" I recognize some celebrities put their money where their mouth is and contribute a lot more than I can to a given cause. But there are plenty of celebrities who think just because they make a movie that somehow entitles them to being moral champions (and from where I stand, making a movie is your job for which you shouldn't receive any more or less praise than the rest of us who do our jobs well).

And in this case, I'd have a lot more respect for Lee if he was doing something more than verbally vomiting on some of the newer homeowners, many of whom are just middle-upper middle class. At the very least go show up at a Goldman Sachs shareholder meeting or the mayor's office and unload.

Sorry for the derail - all that I said isn't meant to detract from the discussion of gentrification which is far bigger than Spike Lee.

San Francisco is a bit of a disaster. Now that rich tech companies are providing free transit to work for rich tech workers, it's skewing the already expensive housing market.

My research indicates that the tech shuttles are contributing to soaring housing costs in San Francisco. And in some ways, the name calling between techies and the rest of San Francisco is a distraction from the real issue: Many of San Francisco’s policy makers are more invested in pandering to the tech industry than in protecting low-income San Franciscans.

The author calls landlords evicting people unscrupulous, but...it would take a lot of scruples to intentionally allow your products to be used that far below market value. I can't imagine libertarians proudly selling gold at 1998 prices. That said, I trust Goldman's experience and training in this area. It's a good article on what rich-on-richer gentrification looks like.

OG_slinger wrote:

They're not getting dismissed, FSeven. But there's a world of difference in saying that this particular building or location is of historical interest and should be preserved versus here's four square miles of one of the largest cities on the planet that you want preserved in its entirety. Or, in the case of New Orleans, here's an entire city that you want preserved.

Alright, so we're to a point of he said/she said. I think they are largely getting dismissed, evident in how it took a rant by Spike Lee to bring the topic to the forefront. And yes, I think more efforts should be made to preserve these places but I think you're grossly exaggerating my sentiment. No one's saying freeze these places in time as they are right now. I'm suggesting there needs to be programs which ensure the preservation of the cultural capital inherent in these places. Do I have all the answers as to precisely go about that? No.

OG_slinger wrote:

You might personally value jazz, but it's been 80 years since anybody's been stomping at the Savoy. And you're more likely to have a drunk, overweight white girl flash her boobs at you in the French Quarter than hear really good music.

You've obviously never been to New Orleans. Or stopped by Showman's or Ginny's in Harlem. Which is fine, but I'd really like to limit the discussion to things we at least have a passing knowledge in otherwise it becomes a debate between my fact and your rhetoric.

OG_slinger wrote:

Not to mention that you're kinda assuming that everyone in Harlem or New Orleans thinks exactly as you do and they want things to stay exactly the way they are (or were, in the case of New Orleans).

I thought I was just expressing an opinion and never once purported to speak for an entire community. However there is plenty of sentiment which suggests that most Harlemites are against gentrification. Did you read the article I linked to before?

OG_slinger wrote:

I mean there's about 100,000 people who used to live in New Orleans who don't anymore. They stayed away after Katrina. Perhaps that's because your "unique human gumbo" also came with a side of crushing and concentrated poverty. And, as much as people might miss their old neighborhood, they might like the new life they've built more.

OG, in all seriousness, it's starting to get irritating listening to you prattle on about things you apparently haven't done any research into.

Katrina was precisely the opportunity rich white elites needed to make New Orleans richer and whiter. Before the storm the black population of New Orleans was around 70% and they had an all black council. Now the council is mostly white, with not one but two white city council presidents. The reason that there even was a second president was because when there was a black majority, they added a second president to represent white interests. Once the opportunity presented itself for whites to take control, they did so but did not reciprocate the city council representation.

Since Katrina, scores of black voters have been purged from the voting rolls either unable to get back home or due to the lack of replacement housing which was promised by the city council. The only reason public housing was allowed to be torn down was because of a promise that replacement housing would be provided on a 1 to 1 basis. That promise has never come to fruition. Many of those "projects" had long histories of development, entrepreneurship, community pride, and civic engagement around issues like teen pregnancy, AIDS, and youth violence. Schools were taken over and turned into charter schools with no engagement or accountability to the communities in which they were located. Tulane University, for example, took over Fortier High School (which was 98% black) and turned it into a school that prioritized admission for the kids of Tulane staff and faculty.

It was even admitted by various civic leaders that corporate elites and old money (guys like Joe Cannizaro and Jimmy Reiss) sought to use Katrina to change the racial demographic. There were open discussions about bulldozing both poor and middle-class black neighborhoods, in addition to the Lower 9th Ward which has the highest rate of black home ownership in the entire country and to turn them into wetlands or public parks. No discussion of the sort was suggested regarding Lakeview which was a predominantly white neighborhood devastated just as bad as the Lower 9th. Let's not forget the "Blood relative renter law" passed by St. Bernard Parish in the wake of Katrina. That law stated that no one could rent property in the Parish (an entirely white neighborhood) unless they were a blood relative of the landlord. This was effectively a racist policy which sought to prevent displaced blacks from finding temporary housing. A lawsuit brought on by Civil Rights activists successfully had the law dissolved but that's an example of a front line effort to make New Orleans whiter. In the years following Katrina, the National Fair Housing Alliance found high rates of housing discrimination against blacks that were displaced by Katrina. They found that in 2/3rds of cases, whites were favored over blacks.

Here's an outsanding article by the National Housing Institute which examined the political undercurrents at play in the direct aftermath of Katrina.

Other things you're missing in regards to your grossly oversimplified post-Katrina analysis, which contributer Robert Bullard went into in great detail in his submission to Equity and the Environment (Research in Social PRoblems and Public Policy), a few of which I'll list here.

-Selectively hand out FEMA grants: FEMA's grant assistance program favored middle-income families, the bulk of which went to white middle-income victims. FEMA referred more than two million people, most of which were poor and black, to the SBA to get loans, behavior which had several legal groups such as the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights bring suit against FEMA (McWaters v. FEMA).

-Deny SBA loans to blacks and the poor: After FEMA referred the poor and mostly black to the SBA for loans, they processed the applications very slowly to the tune of a third of the 276,000 applications in the first year post-Katrina. Also of note, the SBA rejected 82% of those applications. Ultimately, 55% of home owners and businesses were turned away. That white neighborhood, Lakeview, which I mentioned before? They received over 47% of their loan approvals while predominantly black neighborhoods (including middle-class black neighborhoods) received approval rates as low as 7%. Also of note, as indicated in this USA Today article, the biggest recipients of loan money were country clubs, yacht clubs, exclusive private schools, and megachurches. Great article chock full of stats about racial disparities in where SBA diverted it's funds. You can also give a read to a NY Times article from 2005 titled "The Poor Need Not Apply"

-Use of Eminent Domain to seize land: The City Council (which was suddenly predominantly white) elected to give Katrina evacuees one year to return before the city was legally allowed to take their property through eminent domain. Use a little math to figure out how slow relief money was making it to victims, how entire housing projects were torn down, how much time was spent filling out applications and having them reviewed only to be rejected, and come up with a ballpark figure of how long was reasonable for evacuees to make it back home.

-Redevelopment restricted through "Greenbuilding" and flood-proofing building codes.

-Awarding of insurance claims using the "Wind or Water" trap. Due to the enormity of the hurricane, many insurance companies categorized legitimate damages due to wind as flood or water related, a tactic used by small insurance companies predominantly used by blacks due to major insurance firms redlining entire black neighborhoods.

-Application of discriminatory environmental clean-up standards: Clean-up of white neighborhoods was held to residential standards while black neighborhoods were held to industrial standards which specifies no cleanup or partial cleanup. The government argument was that many black neighborhoods were already highly polluted with background contamination or "hot spots" which exceeded EPA safety levels pre-Katrina, and as such did not need to be cleaned according to more rigorous residential standards. As a subtext, I'll let you guess how and why those neighborhoods were contaminated in the first place.

-Black "low lying" neighborhoods were sacrificed in the name of saving wetlands and environmental restoration while phased rebuilding and restoration schemes concentrated on "high grounds". High ground areas that remained relatively undamaged by Katrina, which are disproportionately white and affluent, were ordered to be the focus of relief funds.

OG_slinger wrote:

Lee's argument is basically that white people are buying property in Harlem and thereby ruining the neighborhood.

Ahh now I see. You misinterpreted what he's saying. Because what I and others got from Spike Lee's rant was not that white people can't buy property in Harlem but that there seems to be a trend among those who are buying property to make every effort to destroy the very culture that makes Harlem so great. He never said white people should stay out. He complained about hipsters and gentrifiers. He's also upset that it took an influx of white residents for the garbage to be picked up and for police officers to have more of a presence. He's not saying, as seth suggested that he prefers an unsafe neighborhood. He's saying that if there was a police presence for years as there suddenly is when whites come in, the streets wouldn't have been unsafe to begin with.

OG_slinger wrote:

But when he had an opportunity to buy property, he didn't buy in Harlem.

Any idea what would happen to the real estate prices in a low to moderate rent neighborhood if Spike Lee moved in and paid $32 million dollars for a mansion smack dab in the middle? As DK Smith explained, "Spike is a causative factor in gentrification. If Spike moves to a swamp...that land next door goes up immediately."

nel e nel wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Yes, as much as most other neighborhoods in NYC. My dad taught on the border between Harlem and Morningside Heights for about 20 years, without incident.

Cosign. I was living in Bed-stuy back in 2001 for 3 years and was fine. I lived in Crown Heights for 2 years and was also fine. Was there crime? Sure, but I never personally felt threatened.

One could make an argument that the 'fear' whites have of historically black neighborhoods is actually a symptom of subconscious racism.

I'm sure you can guess that I would be the third to vouch for your safety, seth. One of my wife's and I (mine and my wife's? my wife's and my? I don't know how to type that) favorite things to do is head to the Schomberg Center for Research in Black Culture on Malcolm X Boulevard to take in new exhibits, grab a bite at Sylvia's a little further down on Malcom X Blvd for lunch (or whatever other place we're in the mood for), and spend the rest of the day wandering in and out of boutique shops, bookstores, music stores, and then taking in a dinner & show at one of the various jazz venues before heading back home to Jersey.

I've spent time there both as a solo white guy and while walking hand in hand with a black woman, which individual black men and women have taken issue with (nasty stares, muted comments - things which we get from white folks too in suburbia) but never once have I felt in fear for my personal well being. On the contrast, the people that I've interacted with, be it store clerks, street musicians, or just residents who I happen to cross paths with, have been some of the warmest and congenial people I've ever met. That's one thing that's always baffled me about black stereotypes perpetuated by whites; that they're aggressive and uncivilized. Those stereotypes must be held by white folks who've actually never bothered to speak to black folks because to me, white people are far more distant, wrapped up in themselves, and aloof than black folks. But that's just my experience.

OG_slinger wrote:

It's clear from your other posts that you're extremely uncomfortable with what change represents. You want a unique culture and way of life preserved, but you don't want a museum or, worse, a sort of living history park. But you can't preserve that way of life without walling off Harlem and not allowing anything to change.

I'll admit I'm a bit of an idealist in this regard but I do think it's doable. All it would take is for new residents to, as Spike Lee suggested, not call the cops on a local jazz musician practicing his upright bass in the middle of the day. Or trying to get street musicians ousted from performing.

OG_slinger wrote:
FSeven wrote:

You've obviously never been to New Orleans. Or stopped by Showman's or Ginny's in Harlem. Which is fine, but I'd really like to limit the discussion to things we at least have a passing knowledge in otherwise it becomes a debate between my fact and your rhetoric.

Actually, I have been to New Orleans. Several times. Again, you seem to think that your experience is the only valid experience. For good or for bad New Orleans *is* the French Quarter for the vast majority of people.

I stand corrected and apologize for assuming you've never been there. That said, I'm disappointed that what you came away with from your time there was that "you're more likely to have a drunk, overweight white girl flash her boobs at you than hear really good music." Perhaps the concept of "you're doing it wrong!" holds true in those cases?

OG_slinger wrote:

]What am I supposed to say, FSeven? That I'm shocked and dismayed that a racist and corrupt city was actually racist and corrupt?

Am I supposed to be surprised that rich, connected people took advantage of a natural disaster that destroyed a chunk of a city? I mean it's not like the same thing happened after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Or the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. Or the Great Fire of London in 1666. Or the Great Fire of Rome all the way back in 66 AD.

Oh, wait. Those things totally happened. Every f*cking time. The poor and powerless were quickly pushed out so that wealthy and connected could redevelop as they saw fit.

Please don't think this is me completely dismissing or ignoring what you wrote. You are clearly very knowledgeable and passionate (and right) about what's happening in New Orleans.

But it's also something that has happened over and over for at least two millennia so it's hard for me to pretend that what's happening in New Orleans is something new and unique. Or that the poor and disenfranchised are going to win against money and power this time.

You're comparing change as a result of natural disasters with gentrification - forcing out residents of a community for monetary gain. I don't think it's a fair comparison.

I'm not sure what you're supposed to say, OG. Only that saying this about Katrina, New Orleans, and the soul-crushing obstacles (racist government and local policies and the fight against corporate and old money) it's residents faced and still do face in going back to their homes is not the right thing to say. Suggesting that 100,000 people stayed away as if they voluntarily chose to abandon their homes and liked the new lives they built for themselves in strange new places puts a very Andy Griffith vibe on a very, very dark part of contemporary American history.

OG_slinger wrote:

I mean there's about 100,000 people who used to live in New Orleans who don't anymore. They stayed away after Katrina. Perhaps that's because your "unique human gumbo" also came with a side of crushing and concentrated poverty. And, as much as people might miss their old neighborhood, they might like the new life they've built more.

OG_slinger wrote:

I didn't misinterpret what he's saying. I understood it perfectly. White people can be in Harlem only if they are Victorian children: seen and not heard. In his mind Harlem is--and should always be--a black neighborhood so new residents should only be accepted if they never change anything. Ever.

Those new property owners shouldn't be allowed to renovate their homes because that would drive up property values and that would drive out existing residents. No businesses should be allowed to open that served the new (and existing) residents because a Starbucks would totally destroy Harlem's character (again, whatever the f*ck that means).

Again, you're misunderstanding! You don't seem to be considering that it's okay to participate. You seem to be creating this artificial divide between white residents of Harlem and black residents. That they can't intermingle and enjoy the same unique culture of a place and even contribute to it or try to preserve it. White participation in and contribution to black culture does not make it any less black. Hell, there are/were white jazz and folks singers, musicians, and even white actors in black theaters. And I'd even hesitate to call it "black culture" in the first place. If we're calling a vibrant jazz scene "black" then we might as well call anything related to Rock N Roll "black culture" because they invented that, too. Are we now calling novelty book stores, retro speak easy's, a wide variety of ethnic and cultural eateries, small theaters, boutiques, thrift shops, bakeries, museums, local parks, and wine bars, "black culture"? I think it's dishonest to summarize Harlem as "black culture". What, then is "white culture"?

This guy "gets it". Confessions of a Harlem Gentrifier.

Jordan Teicher wrote:

I know that the causes and effects of gentrification are complicated, and I don’t purport to fully understand them. But I know, somehow, that by living in Harlem, I’m part of a change that will eventually increase property values, raise rents and force out people who’ve lived here longer. And while the phenomenon may be natural in a city like New York, that doesn’t make it any less painful. For many of the residents here, I recognize, my presence is even more of a nuisance than the tourists cum paparazzi on my street.

I don’t want to see people’s lives upended, and I certainly don’t want to be the cause. I feel, though, in some sense, that it’s all unavoidable. A freelance journalist just out of college can’t afford to live in the ritzier parts of Manhattan, not to mention the trendier sections of Brooklyn. Others like me will move to Harlem and the like out of necessity, and the consequences will take their toll. But I still ask myself: What can I do to grow in this city without hampering someone else?

Not much, as far as I can tell. There are larger solutions, of course, like building more affordable housing alongside the shiny new condos, but that’s not quite within my power. All I can really do, I think, is to respect the uniqueness and significance of the community where I live, be conscious of my place in it, and return the courtesy I’ve been shown by my neighbors. It’s not much, but it’s something.

To this day, I haven’t been inside the Abyssinian Baptist Church. But some nights, I open my window, and along with the breeze gently lifting the sheer curtains in my apartment comes the voices of the choir. It’s a powerful sound, a full-throated roar loud enough to break through those old stones and reach my ear. The people inside probably don’t know about their secret audience, in fact, probably never imagined a guy like me would live in earshot of this heavenly sound. But I still listen. And it’s still beautiful.

Yes, Spike Lee should probably have purchased some housing and kept it affordable but that still wouldn't guarantee that the uniqueness of Harlem is kept in tact. All he was saying is that people who move in need to have the same mentality as Jordan Teicher.

I see the 'cleaning up of blight' and the 'creation of jobs' as an argument that gentrification is a 'demonizing term' or isn't such a bad thing. And perhaps that is true.

But, say, when you look at the Caribbean/Black section of Crown Heights in Brooklyn, you see a lot of gentrification with no cleaning up of blight or job creation. It was a functioning neighborhood already, with little 'blight'. Crime wasn't an issue, outside of the yearly Labor Day parade. I was sometimes the target dirty looks, and heard the occasional comment about white people moving in and destroying everything. That was annoying, but I could let it slide for a couple of reasons. For one, I wasn't part of the 'gentrification problem'; my wife and I were in a rent stabilized apartment that had been in her family since the 60's ... and economically we weren't any better off than those around us, and probably worse than quite a few. I also agreed with the sentiment ... once wealthier white people began moving in, prices began sky-rocketing. I didn't see any increase in the number of businesses that were in existence. Some places went away, others moved in, and those that stayed have continued to raise their prices. There was no net increase in jobs. I think this is the type of gentrification that upsets people.

In NYC at least, this has been an on-going cycle for a long time, so is clearly nothing new. That doesn't mean it is a good thing, or something that should just be accepted as 'natural'. Looking at ways to turn this cycle into something that is a net gain for more people seems like a reasonable request. Aiming for mixed-incoming neighborhoods seems like the most obvious way forward ... but few if any developers will do that voluntarily, so the big bad government may need to assist with that goal.

To me at least the complaints folks have about "gentrification" really sound like they want to treat neighborhoods like nature or historic preserves.

If this is the case, there are models for this. Take a look at Annapolis or Old Town Alexandria and the draconian restrictions on architectural improvements. In those areas you have to petition a municipal arborist if you want to trim back you trees or appeal to the architecture committee if you want to paint your fence.

If one is concerned about the "character" of a neighborhood, perhaps it would be a better idea to identify what that character is and address it more directly than just making the blanket statement that folks who want a better life for themselves and their kids should stay the hell out because they might change things.

"A friend of my wife and me"

As someone who's family had to sit through a humiliating "neighborhood interview" because the real estate agent was instructed that the good white folks didn't want to "change the character of the neighborhood", I find this whole discussion more than a bit disturbing.

I am pretty sure the Fair Housing Act has been law for over four decades.

FSeven wrote:

I'll admit I'm a bit of an idealist in this regard but I do think it's doable. All it would take is for new residents to, as Spike Lee suggested, not call the cops on a local jazz musician practicing his upright bass in the middle of the day. Or trying to get street musicians ousted from performing.

I'm sorry, FSeven, but it would take a hell of a lot more than for new residents to not call the cops on local jazz musicians. In fact, I would argue that it's essentially impossible to do.

Why? Well, just look at the economics. Owners are going to dump money into their property in hopes of increasing its value. If I'm trying to flip houses or buildings, I'm going to fix them up in hopes of making more money. If I'm a landlord, I'm going to make some modest improvements so I can charge more in rent. If I'm a new homeowner, this is where I live so of course I'm going to renovate.

All that will increase property values and rents throughout Harlem and those increases will ripple throughout the entire neighborhood. And those increases *will* price out some existing residents. There's no way around that.

So simply allowing new (and more affluent) residents in has changed Harlem.

FSeven wrote:

I stand corrected and apologize for assuming you've never been there. That said, I'm disappointed that what you came away with from your time there was that "you're more likely to have a drunk, overweight white girl flash her boobs at you than hear really good music." Perhaps the concept of "you're doing it wrong!" holds true in those cases?

Most likely. When you go there for business, you don't get much of a chance to wander about.

But, that being said, it's kinda like Vegas. You don't go to Vegas to wander around old neighborhoods. You go there for the casinos.

FSeven wrote:

You're comparing change as a result of natural disasters with gentrification - forcing out residents of a community for monetary gain. I don't think it's a fair comparison.

I'm not sure what you're supposed to say, OG. Only that saying this about Katrina, New Orleans, and the soul-crushing obstacles (racist government and local policies and the fight against corporate and old money) it's residents faced and still do face in going back to their homes is not the right thing to say. Suggesting that 100,000 people stayed away as if they voluntarily chose to abandon their homes and liked the new lives they built for themselves in strange new places puts a very Andy Griffith vibe on a very, very dark part of contemporary American history.

I believe you first mentioned New Orleans as being another example of what Harlem represents, a unique cultural environment that needs to be preserved.

I was just pointing out that everything you are rightly pissed at has happened to every other city that suffered a major disaster throughout history: the rich and powerful pushed out the poor and weak.

And I simply disagree with you about the 100,000 former New Orleans residents. People are complicated creatures, but you can generally count on them to do certain things like taking care of their families and wanting to make things better for their children.

Not everyone is as attached to New Orleans as you, even people who lived there. There most definitely is a portion of the population that had to relocate to a new city after Katrina and liked what they saw. That's not surprising considering that, as culturally unique New Orleans was, it had some pretty significant issues with poverty, unemployment, crime, corruption, etc.

Is it truly an "Andy Griffith vibe" to say that some people might actually like whatever city they moved to after the hurricane more than New Orleans? That they might have gotten a better apartment in a better neighborhood? That they might like the school their kids go to now better? That they might have gotten a better job (or a job)? Perhaps they didn't want to deal with all the sh*t you've written about and simply want to live their lives? The pull of location and place simply isn't as strong with some people as it is for others.

FSeven wrote:

Again, you're misunderstanding! You don't seem to be considering that it's okay to participate. You seem to be creating this artificial divide between white residents of Harlem and black residents. That they can't intermingle and enjoy the same unique culture of a place and even contribute to it or try to preserve it. White participation in and contribution to black culture does not make it any less black. Hell, there are/were white jazz and folks singers, musicians, and even white actors in black theaters. And I'd even hesitate to call it "black culture" in the first place. If we're calling a vibrant jazz scene "black" then we might as well call anything related to Rock N Roll "black culture" because they invented that, too. Are we now calling novelty book stores, retro speak easy's, a wide variety of ethnic and cultural eateries, small theaters, boutiques, thrift shops, bakeries, museums, local parks, and wine bars, "black culture"? I think it's dishonest to summarize Harlem as "black culture". What, then is "white culture"?

This guy "gets it". Confessions of a Harlem Gentrifier.

Jordan Teicher wrote:

I know that the causes and effects of gentrification are complicated, and I don’t purport to fully understand them. But I know, somehow, that by living in Harlem, I’m part of a change that will eventually increase property values, raise rents and force out people who’ve lived here longer. And while the phenomenon may be natural in a city like New York, that doesn’t make it any less painful. For many of the residents here, I recognize, my presence is even more of a nuisance than the tourists cum paparazzi on my street.

I don’t want to see people’s lives upended, and I certainly don’t want to be the cause. I feel, though, in some sense, that it’s all unavoidable. A freelance journalist just out of college can’t afford to live in the ritzier parts of Manhattan, not to mention the trendier sections of Brooklyn. Others like me will move to Harlem and the like out of necessity, and the consequences will take their toll. But I still ask myself: What can I do to grow in this city without hampering someone else?

Not much, as far as I can tell. There are larger solutions, of course, like building more affordable housing alongside the shiny new condos, but that’s not quite within my power. All I can really do, I think, is to respect the uniqueness and significance of the community where I live, be conscious of my place in it, and return the courtesy I’ve been shown by my neighbors. It’s not much, but it’s something.

To this day, I haven’t been inside the Abyssinian Baptist Church. But some nights, I open my window, and along with the breeze gently lifting the sheer curtains in my apartment comes the voices of the choir. It’s a powerful sound, a full-throated roar loud enough to break through those old stones and reach my ear. The people inside probably don’t know about their secret audience, in fact, probably never imagined a guy like me would live in earshot of this heavenly sound. But I still listen. And it’s still beautiful.

Yes, Spike Lee should probably have purchased some housing and kept it affordable but that still wouldn't guarantee that the uniqueness of Harlem is kept in tact. All he was saying is that people who move in need to have the same mentality as Jordan Teicher.

Yes, Teicher gets it. By living in Harlem, he is destroying it. It's simply a matter of how quickly it happens. He may respect the neighborhood, but when the 10,000th version of him moves in, the neighborhood will be radically different.

Again, if you want Harlem preserved as it is, you have to literally wall it off. Nothing can change. There can be no new residents. Property values can't increase. New businesses can't be opened (especially any business that doesn't reflect the Harlem's "character").

Otherwise you have to accept that Harlem *will* change and that the unique cultural gumbo that existed for decades will eventually be gone. It then becomes a question of how do you preserve it. And brings us back to the things that are shadows of the culture they're trying to preserve: historic buildings and museums.

Tanglebones wrote:

"A friend of my wife and me"

Why the need for the stupid comment?

FSeven wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

"A friend of my wife and me"

Why the need for the stupid comment?

He was being helpful; you asked the question in your own post.

Good post about Teicher, although he also acknowledges that gentrification is inevitable.

If the underlying issue is about respect -- that is, respectful urban change can be called renewal while disrespectful urban change should be called gentrification, that seems fair. You don't move into the space above a bar then call the cops when people are drinking downstairs at midnight.

FSeven wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

"A friend of my wife and me"

Why the need for the stupid comment?

One of my wife's and I (mine and my wife's? my wife's and my? I don't know how to type that)

I'm shoving this here for comment. I've only read half of it, but it deals with two topics that are very important to me - how education reform can gentrify neighborhoods. I haven't fully digested what it's saying to comment on it yet.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinion...

Thanks for that article, Seth. Serious stuff.

I hadn't considered that voucher systems would allow people with more money to move into areas with lower property values without worrying about the quality of the local school system. :X Yet another reason to hate vouchers, and to hate the way we tie school funding to property taxes in this country.

Interesting read about gentrification going on in the north part of my neighborhood:

http://www.theawl.com/2014/03/the-se...

The practice of exploiting a vulnerable service class to build a playground for the wealthy by no means started with college graduates in Brooklyn. This is but one hyper-specific strain of the thing, mutated to appease a population whose primary demands include Kurosawa references and intelligent conversation at brunch. But there is an overarching logic, and it shouldn’t be rendered invisible.

One might think in neighborhoods that have long given up the production of goods in favor of the provision of services, some adjustments should be in order. But with no cohesive labor movement and a roaring demand for more services—and experiences—wherever the wealthy choose to migrate, it doesn’t look as if the industry will change significantly anytime soon, even as hospitality becomes the functional backbone of American job growth.

nel e nel wrote:

Interesting read about gentrification going on in the north part of my neighborhood:

http://www.theawl.com/2014/03/the-se...

Holy crap, that article was a crash course in American coffee history!

the solidarity economy is, for the time being, at its best in the service sector. I can barely remember paying full price for anything. Checks for Negronis, artisanal spicy pickles, hand-roasted coffee beans, and sometimes entire locally sourced meals disappeared with a wink and a nudge reminiscent of Fight Club’s ominous waiter scene. At the very least, it allowed us to participate in a culture we couldn’t really afford. At its vilest it felt like a neighborhood of people working for slightly more than minimum wage in exchange for a chance to play-act at brunching in a nice neighborhood.

This person knows her stuff. This is, quite honestly, how the service sector survives. And I'm not entirely sure that's a terrible thing. It's essentially a closed barter system, and business owners understand its importance. (Or, the smart ones do. There's an episode of Scrubs that touches on why this is important).

That said -- it's tough to divine which facet of gentrification this article's touching on. It goes into how rents have skyrocketed, but the coffee shop Osberg was employed at existed due to a neighborhood gentrified enough to support 5 dollar coffees. Pretty sure whatever existed before Hannah Horvath moved in wasn't buying 5 dollar coffees, let alone at a place that did no drip coffee.

So really this is a heartfelt article about the pros and cons of a changing neighborhood.

Saw this post and thought of this and the minimum wage thread since they are interrelated.

How Germans Manage Housing Prices

Seth wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

Interesting read about gentrification going on in the north part of my neighborhood:

http://www.theawl.com/2014/03/the-se...

Holy crap, that article was a crash course in American coffee history!

the solidarity economy is, for the time being, at its best in the service sector. I can barely remember paying full price for anything. Checks for Negronis, artisanal spicy pickles, hand-roasted coffee beans, and sometimes entire locally sourced meals disappeared with a wink and a nudge reminiscent of Fight Club’s ominous waiter scene. At the very least, it allowed us to participate in a culture we couldn’t really afford. At its vilest it felt like a neighborhood of people working for slightly more than minimum wage in exchange for a chance to play-act at brunching in a nice neighborhood.

This person knows her stuff. This is, quite honestly, how the service sector survives. And I'm not entirely sure that's a terrible thing. It's essentially a closed barter system, and business owners understand its importance. (Or, the smart ones do. There's an episode of Scrubs that touches on why this is important).

That said -- it's tough to divine which facet of gentrification this article's touching on. It goes into how rents have skyrocketed, but the coffee shop Osberg was employed at existed due to a neighborhood gentrified enough to support 5 dollar coffees. Pretty sure whatever existed before Hannah Horvath moved in wasn't buying 5 dollar coffees, let alone at a place that did no drip coffee.

So really this is a heartfelt article about the pros and cons of a changing neighborhood.

Sorry for the late reply to this; I think it's an interesting look at gentrification from a couple of perspectives:

- the larger societal perspective of the shift from a production to service based economy and

- the perspective of someone working in that service economy and how that change affects their life/livelihood.

Anyways, came across a link to a great blog post about the original Spike Lee rant and how it fits into NYC's history of gentrifcation:

http://vanishingnewyork.blogspot.com...

Part of the syndrome includes complaining about the traditions of the people who preceded you. For example, as Lee pointed out, a group of African-American drummers have played in a circle in Harlem’s Marcus Garvey Park every weekend since 1969. Their presence helped to keep the park safe. Then a luxury condo opened nearby. In 2008, the newcomers—“most of them young white professionals,” according to the New York Times--started complaining about the drums. They called the police and circulated racist e-mails “advocating violence against the musicians.” The drummers agreed to move away from their traditional spot, and Marcus Garvey Park, named after the black nationalist in 1973, was rechristened by realtors and newcomers with its original nineteenth-century name, Mount Morris Park. No one is quite sure who Mr. Morris was...

In another example of the widespread trend, in Carroll Gardens the newcomers complained to the city about the smell of roasting coffee at D’Amico’s, an Italian-American café that had been fragrantly roasting beans since 1948. Thanks to the complaints, the D’Amico family came under investigation by the city’s DEP and, with the threat of closure, were forced to spend money on upgrades to their antique machinery.

“Gentrification became a systematic attempt to remake the central city, to take it back from the working class, from minorities, from homeless people, from immigrants who, in the minds of those who decamped to the suburbs, had stolen the city from its rightful white middle-class owners. What began as a seemingly quaint rediscovery of the drama and edginess of the new urban ‘frontier’ became in the 1990s broad-based market driven policy.”

Kim-Mai Culter posted a very interesting article on Techcrunch about what's happening with the Google bus protests in San Francisco and the idea that Silicon Valley techies are pushing out lower-income San Franciscans.

It's a fairly long read, but the takeaway is that this issue has been brewing literally for decades and what we're seeing now is, in large part, based on political decisions made decades ago--everything from California property tax rates to urban planning processes--amplified by healthy doses of NIMBY.

OG_slinger wrote:

Kim-Mai Culter posted a very interesting article on Techcrunch about what's happening with the Google bus protests in San Francisco and the idea that Silicon Valley techies are pushing out lower-income San Franciscans.

It's a fairly long read, but the takeaway is that this issue has been brewing literally for decades and what we're seeing now is, in large part, based on political decisions made decades ago--everything from California property tax rates to urban planning processes--amplified by healthy doses of NIMBY.

That article is very interesting. I'd highly recommend giving it a read.

There are still low income people in San Francisco? How? In a Still Untitled podcast a while back, Adam Savage of Mythbusters was talking about how much San Fran had changed in the last few decades that he's lived there with housing prices skyrocketing due largely to the extremely strict development laws the city has in place.

Kehama wrote:

There are still low income people in San Francisco? How? In a Still Untitled podcast a while back, Adam Savage of Mythbusters was talking about how much San Fran had changed in the last few decades that he's lived there with housing prices skyrocketing due largely to the extremely strict development laws the city has in place.

About half of all housing units (and 75% of rental units) are rent controlled.

This was interesting to read about. tl;dr, one of Google's employees bought an entire building and evicted all the residents.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...

Edwin wrote:

This was interesting to read about. tl;dr, one of Google's employees bought an entire building and evicted all the residents.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...

When I first read a 'Google employee', I was surprised ... it didn't sound like the action of someone in the 'tech' field. Then I saw that he was a lawyer, and understood.

absurddoctor wrote:
Edwin wrote:

This was interesting to read about. tl;dr, one of Google's employees bought an entire building and evicted all the residents.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...

When I first read a 'Google employee', I was surprised ... it didn't sound like the action of someone in the 'tech' field. Then I saw that he was a lawyer, and understood.

Perhaps things are different in California, but in RTP, I know plenty of tech employees who would do this sort of thing if only they thought of it first.

It is my experience that "fcuk the poor" libertarian types are massively overrepresented in the tech fields. I suspect a lot of that comes from the psychological insecurity and isolation many of them experienced from being "nerds" all their lives combined with the fact that many of them lack traditional credentials associated with status or education (many are high school or college dropouts because their lack of social skills made it difficult to manage those environments). Combine that with salaries that defy expectations for those education levels and you suddenly end up with a large percentage of the tech population feeling simultaneously insecure and personally superior.