Can the Westside avoid gentrification problems? (Atlanta: low income, apartment complexes, renters)

[glovenyc]

I've always been torn on the subject of gentrification, I see the pros and the cons. I hate to see good hardworking people be displaced, but I also hate to witness the generational despair in our inner cities as well.


FWIW, in a nation like the United States maybe we need to accept gentrification is a natural phenomenon and American as baseball, white-flight and apple pie.

[arjay57]

Seems to me the ATL needs to take another look at what it means by affordable housing.

For comparison, here's a new project in Brooklyn. Why can't we have more housing in this price range?

92 affordable unit are opening up on Commercial Street with rents between $494 and $1,025.

21 Commercial Street, Greenpoint : 92 newly constructed units
Number of studios available: 5 for a monthly rent of $494, and 18 for a monthly rent of $788
Number of one-bedrooms available: 5 for a monthly rent of $532, and 18 for a monthly rent of $847
Number of two-bedrooms available: 9 for a monthly rent of $647, and 37 for a monthly rent of $1,025.
Rent includes cooking gas.
Special building features: Live-in super, laundry room, access to a fitness room and a community courtyard. A bicycle room is also available for an additional fee.


https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201...dio-greenpoint

[Forhall]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Seems to me the ATL needs to take another look at what it means by affordable housing.

For comparison, here's a new project in Brooklyn. Why can't we have more housing in this price range?

When the tax base and crime rate of NYC and Atlanta are at parity, we can certainly start pushing such things. Let me know when that happens.

[ronricks]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

Yes it is your more Fucos of the land than the people. The neighborhood is the people.

Racism happen to many cities across the US too I think your missing the point.

Your seem really really really confused to what gentrification is, confusing the neighborhood improving with gentrification. I'm all for the neighborhood improving and lowering the crime but not the base of gentrification. It the disfranchianment of the neighborhood.

For the neighborhood to improve fucos on the people in the neighborhood. Upward mobility for them is first foremost. Second mix income develop. If this happen it will reduce crime and poverty.

I am not missing the point. You seem to not be able to understand that just like schools the neighborhoods are NOT going to improve without massive gentrification. How many examples of this in intown Atlanta have we already seen? Gentrification works. Period. It isn't 'prejudice', 'racist' or any other 'ice' or 'ist' you can list. It is a naturally re-occurring thing. The citizens in these neighborhoods have had their chance time to move over and let others try. Not trying to sound harsh but it is just reality. These things go in cycles and it is EVERY city in America.

[jeoff]

Folks want a place to "improve" without it becoming more valuable, because then rents and taxes will go up--but they expect a nice profit when it is time for *them* to sell. They want better schools, and safer streets, but they don't want another Decatur. --they want that city "vibe", but have it set up, so crime never happens to *them* because *they* are *street smart*. They want to point out how everything motivation for every action outside of their enclave is *racist*, but want that section 8 housing/bar/liquor store down the street closed because it is a *hell hole* of some sort.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by glovenyc

I've always been torn on the subject of gentrification, I see the pros and the cons. I hate to see good hardworking people be displaced, but I also hate to witness the generational despair in our inner cities as well.

FWIW, in a nation like the United States maybe we need to accept gentrification is a natural phenomenon and American as baseball, white-flight and apple pie.

Again there seems to be a confusion between improving the neighborhood and gentrification.

What I have noticed all pro gentifrication argument are straw mans. The straw man to try present the opposite or counter arguments of gentrification is to want the neighborhood to be or stay bad. Umm no improve the people lives already in the neighborhood.

There two way the median income to increase,

1) for the lower income to perish or die out

Or 2) for lower income to reach social ability.

The invisible had belief is when a person make there own individual selfish will to reach sociability it will by fault improve others as he or she spend or employ the community around him or her. Base on conservatives very on economical philosophy of trickle down economics. It's good to mix incomes as provides as window.

Not everything need to high price apartments add mix income developments integrate The lower income to provide that window. Gentifrication is negative because it's base on replacing the neighborhood people and not integrate them in the success of the neighborhood.

[Forhall]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

Stop it

98% of people aren't crimmials

If the people are not there to be safe...... there no point of it being safe it defaeat the entire point. The point is the people in the neighborhood.

Of course your thankful of it I lost count of the prejudice statements you have made of this regard. Gentrification isn't natural or even necessary. the neighborhood can improve with the upward ability of the people with in and mix income development.

Contrary to what you believe, neighborhoods improve because the residents become better educated and higher income. This causes a cycle to start, bringing better businesses, which draw in more high income people. That's gentrification. There is no gentrification from the inside. You can't gentrify a neighborhood by throwing money at residents who have already accepted a certain mentality. The high schooler in a bad neighborhood who is skipping school to ride with a gang and rob people will not suddenly stop doing this and become valedictorian just because you give his mom a nicer, rent controlled apartment. That's what these antigentrification people don't seem to get. When you DO try to invest in one of these communties, they destroy and abuse it. Build them a nice new park and it will become a drug hangout. Give them community art programs and murals, they'll deface it with graffiti. Give them ultra cheap section 8 house and it becomes Edgewood courts, responsible for 25% of all shooting related 911 calls in edgewood. It just doesn't work. If a community won't improve themselves no matter what you do, then there's nothing stopping people from moving in and improving the community themselves.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by jeoff

Folks want a place to "improve" without it becoming more valuable, because then rents and taxes will go up--but they expect a nice profit when it is time for *them* to sell. They want better schools, and safer streets, but they don't want another Decatur. --they want that city "vibe", but have it set up, so crime never happens to *them* because *they* are *street smart*. They want to point out how everything motivation for every action outside of their enclave is *racist*, but want that section 8 housing/bar/liquor store down the street closed because it is a *hell hole* of some sort.

Literally nothing in this post make sense and you again present a straw man argument.

For example "they want better school and safer streets"

Dude if genificanation happens "they" are no longer their to enjoy that.

[Forhall]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

Literally nothing in this post make sense and you again present a straw man argument.

For example "they want better school and safer streets"

Dude if genificanation happens "they" are no longer their to enjoy that.

What you ask is literally not possible. I get where you coming from but you need to consider this:

The schools get better and the streets safer BECAUSE the original residents are no longer there.

You're basically saying you want all the benefits of an expensive neighborhood with the prices of the hood. It's just literally not possible. The "good schools" in the expensive neighborhoods have nothing to do with the investment of outside groups, in fact APS spends a ton of money even on the low performing schools. The reason those neighborhoods have top schools is because the students are primarily affluent, and come from high intelligence families with the means to ensure they succeed. The schools are good BECAUSE the cost barrier to entry ensures only successful families can afford the district. That's it. There's no magical formula that is being withheld from poor neighborhoods. There's no super special teacher out there that APS reserves only for expensive neighborhoods. The "cheap" neighborhoods have bad schools and high crime because they're cheap. That's it. Low prices = less successful residents = higher crime, fewer services and shops (they research local incomes), and lower performing schools. Cost goes up, more affluent residents come in, the reverse happens.

You're basically asking something impossible.

[cqholt]

Gentrification is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Currently there is demand to live in dense, walkable communities. There water only a few places where that exists, so as demand for those areas increase the price goes up. The BeltLine is a driver of walkable communities and is no different than other public transportation investment we have seen.