Is Gentrification a Bad Thing?

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Jonman wrote:

I think that's where I feel uneasy. It's not "losing" character, it's "changing" character. Maybe that change is in the direction of more homogeneity, but that's still change, rather than loss. Or to frame it the opposite way, *any* change implies loss - you exchange the old for the new.

Something about decrying that change in character sits wrong with me. It smacks of an appeal to antiquity.

The irony is how so much of gentrification smacks of an appeal to antiquity.

Paleocon wrote:

Where I have a gas station in Baltimore, we just got a Chipotle. I figure that is an improvement over the boarded up row house/shooting gallery where smackheads would stumble out into traffic, but what do I know about neighborhood charm?

Ah, see, there's that kind of neighborhood charm, and then there's opening up an artisianal meatball restaurant next to a 'charming' dive bar with one remaining customer who has a bunch of unironic Sailor Jerry tattoos. Who you think is drinking Fleichmann's, but has a special bottle where the liquor has been replaced with a premium liquor, because the management is actually paying him to stick around like a honeypot for hipsters.

Yeah. Asian. I don't do the Stuff White People Like.

Jonman wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

The irony is how so much of gentrification smacks of an appeal to antiquity.

How so? I don't follow.

From what I've seen (I think this was referenced upthread?), a lot of gentrification is the 'gentry' moving into neighborhoods for their 'charm'. Then more and more people like them follow them. Eventually, the neighborhood no longer has the 'charm' everyone moved their for in the first place. Like the old people and that pool in Cocoon.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Jonman wrote:

I think that's where I feel uneasy. It's not "losing" character, it's "changing" character. Maybe that change is in the direction of more homogeneity, but that's still change, rather than loss. Or to frame it the opposite way, *any* change implies loss - you exchange the old for the new.

Something about decrying that change in character sits wrong with me. It smacks of an appeal to antiquity.

The irony is how so much of gentrification smacks of an appeal to antiquity.

I won't respond for you, but I know exactly what you mean. People moving into neat old buildings for the charm of the old school architecture/neighborhood feel.

Jonman wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

When we talk about gentrification part of what we're talking about is neighborhoods losing their character. Sometimes they gain new characters, but frequently what bugs people (I count myself as one of those people) is that these gentrified neighborhoods skew towards a more homogeneous culture. Watching Portland go from a genuinely weird, interesting city to a bunch of almost-identical neighborhoods has been kind of a bummer. Strangely, moving back out to the suburbs, while my commute sucks, has been somewhat invigorating. There's more diversity in class and race in my sleepy little suburb than most of the core city. That feels like a loss to me.

I think that's where I feel uneasy. It's not "losing" character, it's "changing" character. Maybe that change is in the direction of more homogeneity, but that's still change, rather than loss.

I see what you're saying but I don't agree with this. If your city currently has Character A, Character B, Character C, etc and A turns into B which turns into C, you've lost character. If A turned into A', B turned into B', etc then I would call that more changing than loss. But when the diversity is lost, character is lost.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Jonman wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

The irony is how so much of gentrification smacks of an appeal to antiquity.

How so? I don't follow.

From what I've seen (I think this was referenced upthread?), a lot of gentrification is the 'gentry' moving into neighborhoods for their 'charm'. Then more and more people like them follow them. Eventually, the neighborhood no longer has the 'charm' everyone moved their for in the first place. Like the old people and that pool in Cocoon.

I think the more common motivation, at least in my experience, is that folks move to depressed neighborhoods because they have affordable access to housing closer to work. They put up with the crappy services and shady neighborhoods because it is as much as they would like to or can afford and they figure that putting in the sweat equity will pay dividends in the long run. In the case of places like Baltimore, programs like urban homesteading encourage this in an attempt to salvage dying or dead neighborhoods.

After a while, those folks get sick of having to drive or take the bus to get food from someplace other than a gas station and pretty soon, a Safeway or Harris Teeter opens up. Since the folks who tend to move into the area tend to be young, they also look for services like bars, burrito shops, and bike stores. Bitter locals call them "hipsters", but take their money anyway.

Before long, the businesses get tired of getting held up by crackheads and demand police presence and the locals complain further about how the "neighborhood has changed". They move out and complain that "gentrification" destroyed their neighborhood.

Paleocon wrote:

Yeah. Asian. I don't do the Stuff White People Like.

edit: eh, possibly derailing.

oops, missed this:

Paleocon wrote:

I think the more common motivation, at least in my experience, is that folks move to depressed neighborhoods because they have affordable access to housing closer to work. They put up with the crappy services and shady neighborhoods because it is as much as they would like to or can afford and they figure that putting in the sweat equity will pay dividends in the long run. In the case of places like Baltimore, programs like urban homesteading encourage this in an attempt to salvage dying or dead neighborhoods.

I think it very well may boil down to personal experience. It's probably worthwhile to distinguish between Baltimore-style gentrification and Brooklyn-style gentrification. Looking at either one through the other's lens probably misses something.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Yeah. Asian. I don't do the Stuff White People Like.

edit: eh, possibly derailing.

oops, missed this:

Paleocon wrote:

I think the more common motivation, at least in my experience, is that folks move to depressed neighborhoods because they have affordable access to housing closer to work. They put up with the crappy services and shady neighborhoods because it is as much as they would like to or can afford and they figure that putting in the sweat equity will pay dividends in the long run. In the case of places like Baltimore, programs like urban homesteading encourage this in an attempt to salvage dying or dead neighborhoods.

I think it very well may boil down to personal experience. It's probably worthwhile to distinguish between Baltimore-style gentrification and Brooklyn-style gentrification. Looking at either one through the other's lens probably misses something.

Probably.

I know nothing about Brooklyn. Maybe they had a perfectly good neighborhood before and developers are screwing it up. That, btw, is definitely NOT what is happening in Baltimore.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I think the more common motivation, at least in my experience, is that folks move to depressed neighborhoods because they have affordable access to housing closer to work. They put up with the crappy services and shady neighborhoods because it is as much as they would like to or can afford and they figure that putting in the sweat equity will pay dividends in the long run. In the case of places like Baltimore, programs like urban homesteading encourage this in an attempt to salvage dying or dead neighborhoods.

I think it very well may boil down to personal experience. It's probably worthwhile to distinguish between Baltimore-style gentrification and Brooklyn-style gentrification. Looking at either one through the other's lens probably misses something.

But I don't think that it's too much to say that the economic reasons for people moving into a particular area are more powerful than saying people are just doing it for the charm of the neighborhood.

Both Baltimore and Brooklyn were gentrified because a lot of people were looking for more bang and convenience for their housing dollar. That a neighborhood has nice, old architecture and some charm merely makes it easier for people to justify moving and perhaps putting up with some of the not so charming elements of the neighborhood.

Paleocon wrote:

Probably.

I know nothing about Brooklyn. Maybe they had a perfectly good neighborhood before and developers are screwing it up. That, btw, is definitely NOT what is happening in Baltimore.

To try and tl;dr the difference (I'm not from either place, FYI, so take this with a heaping pinch of pink hand-harvested salt), these weren't perfectly good neighborhoods, but they were not only affordable, they were also considered 'cool' neighborhoods. They're more interested in an independent butcher's shop opening than a Chipotle (although they're probably be really happy it has, they just won't tell anyone). Eventually they'll also complain about gentrification, even if they're the gentry in the first place.

super tl;dr: the motivation wasn't just economic like you're seing in Baltimore, it was also cultural. From what I see, it's like there's this sweet spot in gentrification where the neighborhood has changed enough to make the gentry feel safe, but not too much to make the gentry feel like it's Disneyland.

edit: crossed in posting, OG--I agree.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Like the old people and that pool in Cocoon.

I nominate this for best/worst metaphor. OMG.

True story.

In 1997, I moved to the leafy, quiet, and hip neighborhood of Park Slope in Brooklyn. I was a programmer working for Chase, both me and my wife were 25, with a 1-year-old child, and were looking for a nice, safe place, which I found. My casual junkie neighbors from three stories upstairs who complained that "all these yuppies are making the rent go up". I happily blew raspberries at them behind their back, and enjoyed the park, the quaint European-ish stores, the peaceful yet "vibrant" street scene, and the ability to get with our kid's stroller anywhere we wanted to.

We really, really enjoyed the neighborhood, but after 5 years or so decided to have a 2nd child, and resolved that we need to upsize from our 1-BR. What I realized though that over this period, the neighborhood was literally overran with these smug young professionals flush with Wall St paychecks, with these snooty young moms hogging the sidewalks with their strollers, with these scarves-wearing organisms of indeterminable gender camping all day long with their laptops in our coffee shops and muffin bakeries!!! All these Johnnies-come-lately!!

We decided to stick it to the gentrification and moved to Jersey 'burbs

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

True story.

In 1997, I moved to the leafy, quiet, and hip neighborhood of Park Slope in Brooklyn. I was a programmer working for Chase, both me and my wife were 25, with a 1-year-old child, and were looking for a nice, safe place, which I found. My casual junkie neighbors from three stories upstairs who complained that "all these yuppies are making the rent go up". I happily blew raspberries at them behind their back, and enjoyed the park, the quaint European-ish stores, the peaceful yet "vibrant" street scene, and the ability to get with our kid's stroller anywhere we wanted to.

We really, really enjoyed the neighborhood, but after 5 years or so decided to have a 2nd child, and resolved that we need to upsize from our 1-BR. What I realized though that over this period, the neighborhood was literally overran with these smug young professionals flush with Wall St paychecks, with these snooty young moms hogging the sidewalks with their strollers, with these scarves-wearing organisms of indeterminable gender camping all day long with their laptops in our coffee shops and muffin bakeries!!! All these Johnnies-come-lately!!

We decided to stick it to the gentrification and moved to Jersey 'burbs :)

Same thing is currently happening in Greenpoint. Except with more high-rise condos that are shoddily constructed and seem to fall apart at the first sign of rain.

I'll try to get a picture of the vacant ground floor units in this one building in my neighborhood. The HVAC ducts and electrical/ethernet cabling have been hanging out of the collapsed ceiling panels for the last year.

Even in Riverdale, there was a rash of high-rise construction, during and after the boom. Most of the old co-ops are pretty well occupied, but the new condos? Empty, and still asking Manhattan pricing.

Hmm.

My Mom's a native, so she's been keeping track of this kind of stuff. I still have mixed feelings about gentrification (in part due to what I believe is a certain amount of inevitability). In 20 years, New Orleans will be a different city, the question is, will it be New Orleans, or will it be "NEW ORLEANS!™ ® ".

But, if there's anything I can say for the makeover Midtown Manhattan's gotten (the "disneyfication"), it's made a lot of people richer, and money always talks.

But it don't sing and dance, and it don't walk.

A few years back I was 28 and landed a job in the NYC metro area. When looking at neighborhoods I had a pretty basic criteria: outside NYC with a 20 minute commute and able to live alone. My choices were either Jersey City or Hoboken. Hoboken has 50k people in 1 square mile so I didn't even bother looking there. That left the SW side of Jersey City where I found a large 1BR in a crappy neighborhood. Great apartment but the neighborhood never got better over the next 4 years; somehow it got worse.

Living around people who have no trouble throwing trash on the street with a garbage can on every corner really sucks. Or who refuse to clean up after their dogs. Little things like that add up. When a police officer was killed two blocks over last summer, I decided I was done. Moved out Dec 1st and couldn't be happier. Now I'm in Harlemworld with Whole Foods coming soon. Gotta love gentrification!

Tanglebones wrote:

Even in Riverdale, there was a rash of high-rise construction, during and after the boom. Most of the old co-ops are pretty well occupied, but the new condos? Empty, and still asking Manhattan pricing.

You know it's bad when even Archie and Jughead can't afford to live in their hometown anymore.

mindset.threat wrote:

A few years back I was 28 and landed a job in the NYC metro area. When looking at neighborhoods I had a pretty basic criteria: outside NYC with a 20 minute commute and able to live alone. My choices were either Jersey City or Hoboken. Hoboken has 50k people in 1 square mile so I didn't even bother looking there. That left the SW side of Jersey City where I found a large 1BR in a crappy neighborhood. Great apartment but the neighborhood never got better over the next 4 years; somehow it got worse.

Living around people who have no trouble throwing trash on the street with a garbage can on every corner really sucks. Or who refuse to clean up after their dogs. Little things like that add up. When a police officer was killed two blocks over last summer, I decided I was done. Moved out Dec 1st and couldn't be happier. Now I'm in Harlemworld with Whole Foods coming soon. Gotta love gentrification!

Well, this example speaks to the heart of what Spike Lee was ranting about last year. Why does it take rich (and often times, white) folks moving into a neighborhood to get it to be 'nice'?

It's easy to talk about people not throwing trash in the garbage cans, lord knows I've lived in neighborhoods like that and have talked about it as well, but when society continuously shows it does not value you, you kinda stop giving a sh*t after a while.

New Oakland homeowner is accused of gentrifying the neighborhood and pushing out the "historic residents" so he researched who owned his house and property over the past two centuries.

And there my research came full circle. I had found most of what I was looking for when I started this project. I had found many of the documents and the maps, the names and dates, and some of the personal and family stories that comprise the history of human habitation—at least for the last few centuries—of the place where I now live.

I found in that history the pattern that I expected. One group pushes out another group, often aided by forces much larger than themselves: a royal army, a Gold Rush, an earthquake, racism, the law, or the gears of capitalism turning. Those gears grind some people to dust. Others manage to harness their power to make fortunes large and small. Whether a person ends up as the machine’s operator or its input is often not determined by anything resembling merit or even by individual decisions, however much we might like to pretend otherwise.

I could conclude that this is the way of all the earth. It’s tempting, really, to see myself as simply a mote swept along in a wave of change. Displacement isn’t my fault. I’m just a particle man, “doing the things a particle can.” When I started this project, part of me was looking for that kind of absolution.

I didn’t find it, and I realized eventually that I was foolish to have ever gone looking. Instead, I found a growing discomfort with the pattern of our history. I found a deeper connection with this place and with the people who had been here before. I found more empathy for those who had wound up on the losing side of the changes that have swept through this place time and again, including the changes happening now, of which I am a part, not just a particle.

And that, for me, is the rub—now.

I still think “historic residents” is the wrong way to talk about this very real problem. We can’t and shouldn’t pin a neighborhood or a city to a particular historical period. Even if the buildings stay in place, people don’t. The sense of who constitutes the historic residents of a neighborhood can change in a few decades; an individual’s name—George Parsons, Maud Turner, Brock Winstead—can disappear even faster.

I don’t want to dismiss the possibility of righting the wrongs of the past. But when my neighborhood has a shouting match or, perhaps more productively, when we talk about housing and development policy in the city, the region, or the state, we’re talking about addressing the problems of the present. Knowing that this cycle repeats through history doesn’t absolve us from building cities that are inclusive and accessible to as many people as possible, not because they’re “historic residents,” but because they’re people. Our responsibility is not just to the residents here now, who suffer when change displaces them, but also to those of the future, here and elsewhere.

I think that's generally a really good point but should be coupled with some analysis of how often various groups get pushed out of their neighborhoods to see if it happens more often to particular groups of people. I would posit that it does.

SixteenBlue wrote:

I think that's generally a really good point but should be coupled with some analysis of how often various groups get pushed out of their neighborhoods to see if it happens more often to particular groups of people. I would posit that it does.

Rich people don't get get pushed out of neighborhoods. They simply move elsewhere when the neighborhood changes sufficiently that it no longer meets their needs.

Poor folk don't necessarily have that luxury, so they're the ones that get "pushed".

Economic vs other factors.
The issue is a wealthier inhabitant has more economic freedom and can use that to escape pressure or increase pressure an undue amount.

Jonman wrote:

Poor folk don't necessarily have that luxury, so they're the ones that get "pushed".

This is the "common knowledge" that the article I linked a month ago tries to dispel. The truth is that -- with a few exceptions (Wicker Park in Chicago, Harlem and Chelsea in Manhattan, Williamsburg in Brooklyn) -- this just doesn't hold true. In fact poor people are more likely to stay in gentrifying neighborhoods than they are in non gentrifying ones, because they also benefit from the new services brought in.

Jonman wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

I think that's generally a really good point but should be coupled with some analysis of how often various groups get pushed out of their neighborhoods to see if it happens more often to particular groups of people. I would posit that it does.

Rich people don't get get pushed out of neighborhoods. They simply move elsewhere when the neighborhood changes sufficiently that it no longer meets their needs.

Poor folk don't necessarily have that luxury, so they're the ones that get "pushed".

I should've been more clear. I don't mean rich/poor. I meant races.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Jonman wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

I think that's generally a really good point but should be coupled with some analysis of how often various groups get pushed out of their neighborhoods to see if it happens more often to particular groups of people. I would posit that it does.

Rich people don't get get pushed out of neighborhoods. They simply move elsewhere when the neighborhood changes sufficiently that it no longer meets their needs.

Poor folk don't necessarily have that luxury, so they're the ones that get "pushed".

I should've been more clear. I don't mean rich/poor. I meant races.

Either way, how do you define "pushed"? There's so many different reasons that feed into a decision to leave one place for another - which ones fall into "pushed", and which ones are perfectly reasonable reasons to move?

I feel like that would rehash the entire thread again. My point was the "It happens to everyone, that's life" point in that article is worth keeping in mind, but also worth keeping in mind "life" happens to some people a lot more than others.

SixteenBlue wrote:

but also worth keeping in mind "life" happens to some people a lot more than others.

Ha! Magnificent

Ohh. That's a good snippet. Also true for a lot of other issues involving privilege. *yoink*

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.

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.