U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-17-2013, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,699 posts, read 23,655,251 times
Reputation: 35449

Advertisements

I don't believe Yuppies ruin a city but they make it too expensive for many people to continue to live there or in some specific neighborhoods. In many cases those people already living in those neighborhoods are the elderly or lower income people. And not all of those neighborhoods were all that in need of gentrification or Yuppification to begin with. Mine wasn't but that is what happened here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-17-2013, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee, Wi
181 posts, read 272,969 times
Reputation: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewcrew1000 View Post
The Real Estate Yuppie Paradigm

1 Neighborhood settled by working class immigrants with a real sense of community
2 Poor and Uneducated people move in like Hispanics/Whites/Blacks, gov't sets up lower income buildings
3 Working/Blue Class Imigrants move out to inner ring suburbs, Crime Skyrockets
4 Artists and Gays move in because of cheap rents and won't be bothered if they just keep to themselves
5 Artist or Gays aren't afraid of the crime so they set up a little business like a coffee shop or some kind of great restaurant
6 Others catch on so more artists and/or gays come into an area settling up more shops
7 Rents inch upward, sense of community starting to take shape, poor people are getting priced out
8 Plans for a new condo development are announced/Rents inch up more/ Poor people gone
9 Plans for Whole Foods/Pottery Barn/Starbucks and more condos - Artists forced to move to other areas like Oakland, Eastern Parts of Queens and Brooklyn or even Inner Ring Suburbs (Which are now starting to become the poor areas of Metros)
10. Yuppies firmly control area - Cycle starts over in Oakland, and parts of Queens and Brooklyn
Gentrification defined.

If you use this knowledge to your advantage you can make pretty good money. I know I've made it when I force the poor people out!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2013, 11:33 PM
 
9,967 posts, read 14,610,447 times
Reputation: 9193
Gentrification was basically a way for cities to try to bring back some tax revenue and investment to close-in neighborhoods that were often on a down slope of decline since the 1960s. For the most part the first places that really get successfully gentrified are often the old warehouse/light industrial areas on the edge of the downtown core(like SoHo was at one time). Then you get the working class areas with decent housing stock that have been on the down slope for some time and have a lot of vacant commercial real estate. The highest crime areas are often seen as being too far gone to be gentrified at first--and places that have more thriving ethnic communities where people in that community actually own and shop at store there aren't going to be the first places to be gentrified as well(look at many Asian immigrant neighborhoods).

The problem is that now, the formula has been so successful in so many American cities, that now cities can't see anything but the end product of yuppie gentrification(condos, Whole Foods) as a way to revitalize neighborhoods. It comes to the point where instead of just meeting this new demand for more upscale housing in the central city, they figure just build it and they will come. At some point some American cities will have to figure out if they want to compete with the suburbs for the new industries of tomorrow or if they simply want to be a playground for the rich.

But look at much of Europe--cities that had historic working class ghettos at one point near the center have long since become expensive areas where only the well heeled can afford to live(while tourists can come to visit) and the real working class lives far out in dense suburbs on the outskirts. This is Paris and Vienna in a nutshell, and in our lifetime it might be the reality for more American cities. Once their is a high demand for real estate in the central neighborhoods and prices go up--eventually the only way for the remaining poor to live near the center is through subsidized housing or social services--which just leads to a population that is either rich or poor--with a population of people just barely getting by working menial jobs who are willing to pay a premium to live where the amenities are--often young transplants who end up coming and going rather quickly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
1,954 posts, read 4,503,627 times
Reputation: 1817
^^^^ Agreed with the above.

One problem is that American cities have been left with few great urban districts due to urban decline in the past. This puts the exceptional urban districts that are remaining at a premium, and drives up the prices in those locations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 07:39 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
1,257 posts, read 2,577,857 times
Reputation: 1206
In response to OP. Ill sum it up in one quick sentence...

Most large cities in America.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Lakeland, Florida
6,972 posts, read 12,482,290 times
Reputation: 8712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deezus View Post
Gentrification was basically a way for cities to try to bring back some tax revenue and investment to close-in neighborhoods that were often on a down slope of decline since the 1960s. For the most part the first places that really get successfully gentrified are often the old warehouse/light industrial areas on the edge of the downtown core(like SoHo was at one time). Then you get the working class areas with decent housing stock that have been on the down slope for some time and have a lot of vacant commercial real estate. The highest crime areas are often seen as being too far gone to be gentrified at first--and places that have more thriving ethnic communities where people in that community actually own and shop at store there aren't going to be the first places to be gentrified as well(look at many Asian immigrant neighborhoods).

The problem is that now, the formula has been so successful in so many American cities, that now cities can't see anything but the end product of yuppie gentrification(condos, Whole Foods) as a way to revitalize neighborhoods. It comes to the point where instead of just meeting this new demand for more upscale housing in the central city, they figure just build it and they will come. At some point some American cities will have to figure out if they want to compete with the suburbs for the new industries of tomorrow or if they simply want to be a playground for the rich.

But look at much of Europe--cities that had historic working class ghettos at one point near the center have long since become expensive areas where only the well heeled can afford to live(while tourists can come to visit) and the real working class lives far out in dense suburbs on the outskirts. This is Paris and Vienna in a nutshell, and in our lifetime it might be the reality for more American cities. Once their is a high demand for real estate in the central neighborhoods and prices go up--eventually the only way for the remaining poor to live near the center is through subsidized housing or social services--which just leads to a population that is either rich or poor--with a population of people just barely getting by working menial jobs who are willing to pay a premium to live where the amenities are--often young transplants who end up coming and going rather quickly.

You described the Pearl District in Portland, Oregon to the T. High end condos and Whole Foods amongst tons of other high end shops. More businesses geared for peoples dogs, than for the senior citizen or lower income worker living there. Young people by the droves moving in and out for whatever reason. Those that are forced into subsidized housing with these expensive shops across the street from them.( The subsidized housing unfortunately is quite expensive for an employed person.) Basically nothing for the average joe or jane other than a subway in a section 8 bldg. That is across the street from million dollar condos. At least the penthouses. They sure as hell are not going to put in a dollar store in these kind of high and mighty neighborhoods. God forbid anyone paying top dollar to live in subsidized housing, would attrack a dollar or discount store in the Pearl District. Strange thing this high and mighty neighborhood is where they put a sizeable percentage of subsidized housing. One of the largest senior bldgs in Portland borders the Pearl district and the downtrodden neighborhoods of homelessness.

I don't agree with these type of gentrification programs. At least Portland's definition of them. The last thing we need in America is more social and financial divide. Especially when it is done in such close in crammed in neighbohoods like that Pearl District in Portland. It all looks nice to the tourist, however the vibe when living there is. Segregation by class of people and incomes, from one side of the street to the other. I've never seen anything so bad on that level until living there. I saw the cost of rents and the purchase price of even the smallest studio, go up in price and then fall somewhat. However there is so many on the market you take a huge beating when selling it. I can attest to that one. I will never forget that place, and it will never happen to me in my life again. I was so thankful the day I retired, and was able to get the hell out of that environment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,066,811 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimrob1 View Post
You described the Pearl District in Portland, Oregon to the T. High end condos and Whole Foods amongst tons of other high end shops. More businesses geared for peoples dogs, than for the senior citizen or lower income worker living there. Young people by the droves moving in and out for whatever reason. Those that are forced into subsidized housing with these expensive shops across the street from them.( The subsidized housing unfortunately is quite expensive for an employed person.) Basically nothing for the average joe or jane other than a subway in a section 8 bldg. That is across the street from million dollar condos. At least the penthouses. They sure as hell are not going to put in a dollar store in these kind of high and mighty neighborhoods. God forbid anyone paying top dollar to live in subsidized housing, would attrack a dollar or discount store in the Pearl District. Strange thing this high and mighty neighborhood is where they put a sizeable percentage of subsidized housing. One of the largest senior bldgs in Portland borders the Pearl district and the downtrodden neighborhoods of homelessness.

I don't agree with these type of gentrification programs. At least Portland's definition of them. The last thing we need in America is more social and financial divide. Especially when it is done in such close in crammed in neighbohoods like that Pearl District in Portland. It all looks nice to the tourist, however the vibe when living there is. Segregation by class of people and incomes, from one side of the street to the other. I've never seen anything so bad on that level until living there. I saw the cost of rents and the purchase price of even the smallest studio, go up in price and then fall somewhat. However there is so many on the market you take a huge beating when selling it. I can attest to that one. I will never forget that place, and it will never happen to me in my life again. I was so thankful the day I retired, and was able to get the hell out of that environment.
Proof you can't make everyone happy. When you actually desegregate with liberal welfare policies and have the rich and poor living on the same streets right next to one another, someone still isn't isn't going to be happy and wants to go back to living in segregated neighborhoods. Normally, you'd expect it to be the rich people complaining about the crime and the poor people, so having it be the normal joe complaining about living next to the rich people is a twist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 03:11 PM
 
1,604 posts, read 3,501,875 times
Reputation: 1526
I would say that yuppies (and to a lesser extent, hipsters) ruined DC, but DC was already a craphole with its crime, rudeness, and segregation before the influx of transplant snobby yuppies. Between the Waka Floka reject wannabe thugs who don't run a damn thing outside their "block" and the trust fund arrogant yuppies who were born on third base but act like they hit a triple, I'd much rather be in a city dominated by MMA posing, Affliction-wearing, pot smoking, Yagerbomb pounding, Call of Duty playing, Fast and Furious wannabes with the suped-up Nissans blasting Gangam Style while trying to imitate a scene from Tokyo Drift.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 03:22 PM
 
Location: worldwide
696 posts, read 880,397 times
Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimrob1 View Post
Portland, Oregon most definitely.
What makes Portland such a desirable place for yuppies?

Im a Young urban professional, and Portland never crossed my mind.

Also, why do people think Yuppies ruin cities ? If anything they make cities better because they help keep the city gentrified and progressing.

People are just jealous they can't be young and well off so they try and make it seem like they ruin places instead, when thats just an excuse.

The reality is , if they could trade places with them they would do it in a heart beat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2013, 03:30 PM
 
Location: worldwide
696 posts, read 880,397 times
Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jjnyc View Post
That's a good point. NYC did not need to be reinvigorated. It used to be a vibrant, livable, affordable city, albeit seedier here and there. But there was a mixture of classes, cultures-even in Manhattan.
You are right it didn't need to be reinvigorated, but it goes back to the simple rule of Supply & Demand. NYC is a city with high demand , so therefore the costs the prices of real estate go up. But with that comes a lot of great things like I previous said, it makes the city even more vibrant, livable, interesting and more well kept. Money makes everything better especially when it comes to talking about a cities future .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top