Why is Gentrification bad? (Baltimore: low income, house, neighborhood)

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by K-Luv

Also, there is (little more than) a (semantic) difference between gentrification and revitalization (and redevelopment).

(pls forgive the editing)

These differences exists certainly... but aside from the scale and perhaps the more incremental nature of some projects... the difference and especially the success of same won't really be known until twenty years hence.

[nowitsshowtime]

The only people that see gentrification as bad is the people that live in the area and eventually get priced out and are forced to move due to new money influx, rising rents, and the like.

Doesn't matter what the people in these areas think. Shouldn't we try to make all areas nicer instead of keeping them ****ty just so its cheap?

[Merc63]

Originally Posted by K-Luv

I agree that gentrification replaces the "local" culture with a homoginized version of "white culture", but it is always only a particular brand that it is appealing to. Namely, those with the disposable income to spend on $4 coffees everyday and overpriced clothes from boutiques. I personally like the independent coffee shops and book stores that tend to precede gentrificaiton, but I can do without the attitudes.

Actually, most of the areas thet get gentrified don't have cool little old coffeshops and bookstores in them. Around here what gets gentrified now are areas of run down houses that are boarded up and falling in.

[(-)]

gentrification isn't magic. people confuse the two terms. if you displace poor people in one neighborhood by gentrification, they don't just disappear. they have to go somewhere. gentrification may beautify that neighborhood but it will also send those displaced people to other communities.
my mother used to tell me when i was a kid there's a difference between straightening up and cleaning up. straightening up will have things appearing nice but a little examination will reveal the dirt you swept under the rug, the clothes you stuffed in the closet, the dirty dishes you just put in the dishwasher, etc. cleaning up means that you swept up the dirt, organized your closet, cleaned the dishes and put them away.
gentrification, at its best, can only straighten up communities. it does nothing to address the underlying issues of why said communities were in the predicaments they were in.
as an investor, i've never gotten into the "hot neighborhood" craze in baltimore. why? because many of the underlying issues (things that the local and state government are responsible for) do not get addressed. i backed off of my investments in baltimore and focused on my investments in dc because dc government made a concentrated effort to address the underlying issues affecting the communities being gentrified. they made an effort to address the concerns of the local citizenry (crime, transportation, retail, schools, etc.). baltimore has yet to do that.

[dbowe4415]

Originally Posted by westsideboy

Gentrification at its best is renewal. New money coming into a neighborhood, new people, new ideas. This happens all the time. Very rarely are communties stagant. They are either shrinking as people move out, or growing as people move in.

Gentrification at its worst can erase the unique culture of a neighbor and water down the bonds that families and friends have formed over generations.

I think gentrification overall is a good thing, so long as the pace of their arrival is slow enough for them to be assimiliated into the local culture. It beats the alternative of neighborhood decay and decline, that normally only attracts scumbags to move in.

I respect the opinions you've shared in this post. I also agree that gentrification is a primarily good thing for neighborhoods on the decline.

I disagree on one portion though: if the culture or traditions of a neighborhood are "lost" because of gentrification, then I think that's fine. Why? Because if the neighborhood is in terrible enough shape to have to undergo gentrification, then it makes sense for a new culture and new traditions to reshape the neighborhood.

[Billiam]

Originally Posted by dbowe4415

I respect the opinions you've shared in this post. I also agree that gentrification is a primarily good thing for neighborhoods on the decline.

I disagree on one portion though: if the culture or traditions of a neighborhood are "lost" because of gentrification, then I think that's fine. Why? Because if the neighborhood is in terrible enough shape to have to undergo gentrification, then it makes sense for a new culture and new traditions to reshape the neighborhood.

When you think about it, cultures in neighborhoods are always changing. Before neighborhoods being gentrified were in need of help, the people and culture were also different. Culture is constantly changing.

[Woodlands]

Is Little Italy considered a Gentrified Area?? Has Little Italy held on to its Italian culture...(the answers of course are yes, sorta, and no) Point being if you believe that Little Italy has gentrified.. it has also managed to hold on to some of its culture.. same can be said of Greektown.. though certainly its becoming more of a blended culture in both areas. Baltimore doesnt have a Chinatown but in Philly they have managed to hold on to their cultural instituation and identity despite or inspite of being a "gentrified" area. Point is... gentrification is not necessarily bad BUT it depends on the situation and the context which will vary from City to City.

In the case of the East Baltimore Redevelopment.. .most of those residents will move to NE Baltimore.. which will be good for some sections of NE and bad for others depending on the group of residents that move there. East Baltimore around Hopkins will likely become a mixture of senior housing, some affordable, and plenty of market rate... Is that good for East Baltimore?? probably... Some of the residents were paid nice sums of money for their homes and also received relocation checks. I remember an article that stated that the average home was purchased for somewhere around $200,000 when you factor in the relocation...So a segment of the population made out like bandits, if they spent the money wisely. Some may come back into East Baltimore, others will go NE, others will leave the City. So for some of these residents.. clearly Gentrification may have been a ticket out of a bad situation... which certainly is a good thing.....

[Tinawina]

Originally Posted by K-Luv

Also, there is a difference between gentrification and revitalization.

Ain't that the truth.

When I hear people talk about "revitalization" I always assume they are working with the current residents to find ways to bring needed change to a neighborhood.

When I hear people say "gentrification" I always assume the existing residents are being forced out in favor of white collar types. I think of developers, etc buying property from retired couples who've owned their houses for decades but now young couples just like them can't afford it, or longtime local businesses suddenly being unable to afford the rent. Change happens and that is ineveitable, but the process can be brutal on the people who are suddenly displaced IMO.

[mrboltonman]

When I think of revitalization it's areas getting redeveloped to better them. In the process you will have some of the poorer residents displaced. The area gets nicer then they can't afford to live there.

Gentrification I associate with young professionals buying properties in iffy areas then the areas become nice. I could see residents of the areas moving but I would think a lot would sell their home for more and just move on. I could definitely see the renters getting displaced.

[End-User]

When I hear gentrification I associate it with renters being priced out, property owners being bought out. I also associate it with local businesses closing and being replaced with different institutions or developers trying to get in on the ground floor of a new/emerging customer base full of recent transplants.

When I hear revitalization I think of existing residents attracting new amenities to better serve their own communities. I also tend to think revitalization is more likely to involve politicians and residents working together to create a "master plan" for an area.