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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-11-2015, 10:05 AM
 
1,376 posts, read 1,010,929 times
Reputation: 1453

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn.Davenport View Post
I understand all the many reasons why gentrification is bad for communities: long time residents get pushed out, property taxes go up, the neighborhood loses character, etc.
Though increased property taxes are great for city coffers and that's why city governments everywhere push for and love gentrification.

Also though gentrification can only happen when property owners sell out or landlords raise rent. In a neighborhood that's mostly renters it's different--though when you have single family homes or condos go up in value, people are going to cash out. So that longtime homeowner might be "pushed out" or they might be walking away by selling for a nice profit for a house that was worth much less twenty years ago and moving to somewhere they can get more house for their money further out. It's the renters though that really get pushed out with gentrification.

For gentrification not to happen and urban enclaves to remain the same over time, you need a constant influx of the group that's the primary demographic(cultural/ethnic/economic) and cheaper housing. Once that group stops moving in though, it's hard to keep the same demographics unless no one who grows up there never leaves(and people will leave). And you need members of that group to actually own most of the property in the neighborhood. An example is the remaining larger urban Chinatowns in North America like New York and San Francisco or ones in Canada like Vancouver or Toronto. They resist gentrification because they still get inflows of working class Chinese(or Southeast Asian) immigrants and because the businesses are mostly owned by Chinese.

Last edited by CanuckInPortland; 11-11-2015 at 10:24 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-11-2015, 05:47 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,278,660 times
Reputation: 9847
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
That's not always true, plenty of neighborhoods in large cities that are experiencing gentrification were not experiencing outward flight of residents overall before gentrification started to occur.
Which communities are you referring to? I've never heard of a neighborhood in decline that upwardly mobile people didn't try and flee.

There is tons of scholarship on the issue, and there is no question that gentrification does not lead to removal of existing residents. It leads to retaining of the existing population, because people want to stay, not leave.

Lance Freeman at Columbia has done tons of work on the issue-

Displacement or Succession?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2015, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,512 posts, read 2,984,110 times
Reputation: 2746
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Which communities are you referring to? I've never heard of a neighborhood in decline that upwardly mobile people didn't try and flee.

There is tons of scholarship on the issue, and there is no question that gentrification does not lead to removal of existing residents. It leads to retaining of the existing population, because people want to stay, not leave.

Lance Freeman at Columbia has done tons of work on the issue-

Displacement or Succession?
Of the same Columbia that is buying up whole swaths of West Harlem, gradually encroaching ever north towards its medical center, much to the chagrin (and lawsuits) of local minorities?

http://theharlemtimes.com/#article/6208

Gentrification wouldn't be an issue if the playing field was level in America. If people of color had the same access to jobs/education and obtaining capital as wealthy whites and Asians. After all, there's nothing immoral or inherently wrong with cleaning up a neighborhood. That's usually a good thing!

But the playing field still isn't level even in 2015 (I could post links showing black Harvard grads have the same job success as white state grads), so gentrification is rightly viewed as white folks (and Asians/wealthy foreigners/token people of color) kicking poor folks, who are often denied opportunity, out of their neighborhoods. America is all about the dollar, and white folks still reign supreme.

So yea, it is a negative thing when low income and/or people of color are bullied out of places due to money, when every other economic avenue still actively discriminates against them to earn enough to stay. Until the system is more equitable for people historically and currently oppressed by it, gentrification should be disdained. It's a sick game of musical chairs being played when the underlying causes aren't being fixed fast enough.

Last edited by qworldorder; 11-11-2015 at 06:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2015, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Arlington VA
550 posts, read 523,877 times
Reputation: 603
All gentrification is ethical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2015, 05:47 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,470 posts, read 25,466,902 times
Reputation: 8936
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Which communities are you referring to? I've never heard of a neighborhood in decline that upwardly mobile people didn't try and flee.

There is tons of scholarship on the issue, and there is no question that gentrification does not lead to removal of existing residents. It leads to retaining of the existing population, because people want to stay, not leave.

Lance Freeman at Columbia has done tons of work on the issue-

Displacement or Succession?
Most neighborhoods experiencing gentrification in San Francisco for example or even the Bay Area in general; people weren't fleeing these neighborhoods at all. The Mission in particular is usually the most glaring example of this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2015, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Denver
14,157 posts, read 19,808,972 times
Reputation: 8811
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
All gentrification is, by definition, ethical. Gentrification is the improvement/upgrading of a neighborhood.

Gentrification doesn't "push out" existing communities. In fact it reduces outward flight, because people prefer to stay in an improving area then leave a declining area.
You live in New Orleans and spew this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 08:21 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,460 posts, read 11,970,443 times
Reputation: 10568
Most cities have at least one former industrial area being redeveloped into an apartment zone. Here in Pittsburgh it's the Strip District. In 2000 there were only around 250 people living in the neighborhood. With all the new apartments and condos either already built or in the process of being built, it will have at least 3,000 people by 2020.

That said, it's silly to call this sort of redevelopment gentrification. Gentrification by definition means the replacement of a lower-income population by a higher-income one. If there is essentially no population to replace, it's not gentrifying, it's just redeveloping.

I consider gentrification to be a morally neutral process overall. I mean, if it was wrong for rich people to flee the cities to begin with, it can't also be wrong for them to move back in once again. Neighborhoods have always changed in terms of fashionably over generations. You can clearly see in many gentrifying neighborhoods, and even ones still "ghetto" in many parts of America, that they were built for the wealthy in the late 19th and early 20th century. In many cases the historic roots of modern-day neighborhoods of color happened less than 50 years ago, with elderly people today still remembering what they were like both pre-gentrification and pre-white flight. My only point here is that the current status of neighborhoods is not "indigenous" anywhere in America, so it's silly IMHO for current residents (whether they are yuppie NIMBYS or low-income people of color) to claim eternal ownership.

As others have intimated, there is relatively little data to show gentrification actually displaces people. Poor neighborhoods naturally have very high turnover of renters, who seldom stay in one apartment for longer than a year or two unless they live in public housing or somewhere with rent control. As a neighborhood gentrifies, inter-unit mobility drops. The low-income population mostly drops because people who would have moved anyway for normal reasons due to the instability of low-income life (family disputes, landlord not maintaining property, lose a job, etc) end up leaving the neighborhood for somewhere more affordable, and are replaced by higher-income renters. Low-income homeowners are typically quite happy with gentrification - they can stay in the neighborhood as long as they can afford the property taxes, and when they cash out it's like winning the lottery.

Really, the issue is not gentrification, it's a lack of affordable housing in many metros. Which, when it comes down to it, is a supply issue. If enough new-construction units were built where gentrifiers want to live, it would depreciate the rent values at older, unimproved units enough to maintain affordability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 09:36 AM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,278,660 times
Reputation: 9847
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder View Post
Of the same Columbia that is buying up whole swaths of West Harlem, gradually encroaching ever north towards its medical center, much to the chagrin (and lawsuits) of local minorities?
Ah, so you are saying that the extensive scholarship on the issue is invalid because the institutions employing such scholars tend to have growing space needs? Huh?

What a classic C-D response. Completely off-topic, no logical relationship whatsoever, factually wrong, and basically trollbait.

Lance Freeman (who is black, from Harlem, and extremely liberal) did his research on gentrification long before Columbia expanded its campus. And the Columbia expansion is 100% on non-residential land. Not one person is being displaced. And the expansion isn't even in Harlem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder View Post
Gentrification wouldn't be an issue if the playing field was level in America.
The playing field isn't level anywhere on earth. It will never be level anywhere on earth. This has zero to do with the thread topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder View Post
If people of color had the same access to jobs/education and obtaining capital as wealthy whites and Asians. After all, there's nothing immoral or inherently wrong with cleaning up a neighborhood. That's usually a good thing!
Gentrification has nothing to do with "people of color" and their relative access to jobs/education. And now Asians aren't "people of color" because they don't fit your ghetto stereotypes? LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder View Post
But the playing field still isn't level even in 2015 (I could post links showing black Harvard grads have the same job success as white state grads), so gentrification is rightly viewed as white folks (and Asians/wealthy foreigners/token people of color) kicking poor folks, who are often denied opportunity, out of their neighborhoods. America is all about the dollar, and white folks still reign supreme.
None of this is true. Asians have higher median incomes than whites, gentrification has zero to do with race, and whether or not the "playing field is level" (an impossible scenario) has zero to do with gentrification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder View Post
So yea, it is a negative thing when low income and/or people of color are bullied out of places due to money, when every other economic avenue still actively discriminates against them to earn enough to stay.
This is A. Completely fabricated and B. Completely off-topic. There is no race-based mechanism to "bully" people out of geographies, there are tons of economic reasons people stay in gentrified neighborhoods. And in fact they do stay, as the scholarship shows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder View Post
Until the system is more equitable for people historically and currently oppressed by it, gentrification should be disdained.
Then prepare to "disdain" gentrification for the remainder of your existence, because it isn't going away, ever. Has zero to do with "more equitable system", you made that up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 09:39 AM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,278,660 times
Reputation: 9847
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
You live in New Orleans and spew this?
No, I don't live in New Orleans. Where I live has no relationship to academic scholarship on the matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 09:43 AM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,278,660 times
Reputation: 9847
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Most neighborhoods experiencing gentrification in San Francisco for example or even the Bay Area in general; people weren't fleeing these neighborhoods at all. The Mission in particular is usually the most glaring example of this.
What are you basing this on? The Mission was a poor, declining neighborhood that was abandoned by white ethnics over a relatively short period. The remaining Mexicans would leave the neighborhood as they became more successful.

It's actually quite simple. If you are living in a declining neighborhood, are you apt to leave? If you are living in an improving neighborhood, are you apt to leave? Gentrification retains existing populations because it makes the neighborhood more desirable. There is far more flight out of Detroit than San Francisco even though Detroit is poor, affordable and ungentrified, and SF is wealthier, expensive and gentrified.

If the scenario being supported in this thread were true, then there would be no poor people in SF or NYC. In fact there are tons of poor people. And the % poor people over time doesn't vary that much. They stay because they want to, and because there are mechanisms that allow them to stay (rent control, public housing, limited equity homeownership, etc.)
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.
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