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.
My problem with gentrification though is the fact that they don't actually help the people who lived in the neighborhood when it was poor.They end up having to move to another low-income part of the city,or into one of the poorer suburbs.If your not actually helping the people who lived in the neighborhoods being gentrified,what is being accomplished?And BTW this is just what I hear about.Maybe some cities do help the people in the neighborhoods being gentrified.But most of what I hear is that they tear down neighborhoods,than build a bunch of condos that don't end up being occupied by the people who were actually living in the neighborhood.
I can only use my neighborhood as an example. But it seems likely to me that gentrification would only push out the renters who are devaluing the neighborhood in the first place. (because they tend to destroy the place they live in.) I think most of the homeowners could afford property tax increases due to increased home values. And, if they had to sell, they would make money on their investment.
See, I would argue the opposite point. While there is some dislocation from apartments and the like, a revitalized downtown actually means a better quality of life in a whole host of ways. There are more jobs downtown, along with a far easier commute to work. There is a stronger social fabric, which means less crime and decay. And there typically is a better civic government as well, the result of a more affluent citizenry demand more efficiency and better results from their tax dollar.
Wouldn't it be nice if the people vulnerable to being pushed out (read: the lower-income people who were there first) by the gentrified people coming in can find affordable housing so that they can stay and be part of the millieu of what makes city living vibrant and exciting?
That's the paradox...gentrification usually means the area getting gentrified becomes highly desirable, driving up cost of buying there, which can make it almost impossible to stay if you don't have the means to keep up with the "rich" people around you.
Check this out in Baltimore (accompanying story in the Baltimore Sun -- Holding her ground -- baltimoresun.com (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-te.md.house20dec20,0,574035.story?coll=bal_tab01_l ayout - broken link)):
My problem with gentrification though is the fact that they don't actually help the people who lived in the neighborhood when it was poor.They end up having to move to another low-income part of the city,or into one of the poorer suburbs.If your not actually helping the people who lived in the neighborhoods being gentrified,what is being accomplished?And BTW this is just what I hear about.Maybe some cities do help the people in the neighborhoods being gentrified.But most of what I hear is that they tear down neighborhoods,than build a bunch of condos that don't end up being occupied by the people who were actually living in the neighborhood.
I do agree with you.
A true urban city contains people of all economic classes from the wealthy to the homeless. And having one central area containing people 'down on their luck' is preferred in order to locate and provide social services to assist them.
Detroit has an area 'Cass Corridor' which was low income near the central city. Unfortunately, there were also more problems there with drugs, crime, prostitution, but at least the social services/ homeless shelters were nearby to assist.
NOW that area has been 'discovered' and is in the process of gentrification. Investors bought rundown buildings at bargain prices, then either converted them to 'lofts' or condominiums. AND the new residents and investors have renamed the area nearby 'Midtown', since the name 'Cass Corridor' had such a history.
Atlanta is a great example. Crime and traffic (although this has always been a problem) moving into the suburbs over the past 10 years. Atlanta ITP (inside the perimeter of I285) neighborhoods are extremely desirable. One problem still to overcome is the teardown mentality (McMansion) caused by regentrification...
Wouldn't it be nice if the people vulnerable to being pushed out (read: the lower-income people who were there first) by the gentrified people coming in can find affordable housing so that they can stay and be part of the millieu of what makes city living vibrant and exciting?
That's the paradox...gentrification usually means the area getting gentrified becomes highly desirable, driving up cost of buying there, which can make it almost impossible to stay if you don't have the means to keep up with the "rich" people around you.
Check this out in Baltimore (accompanying story in the Baltimore Sun -- Holding her ground -- baltimoresun.com (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-te.md.house20dec20,0,574035.story?coll=bal_tab01_l ayout - broken link)):
Yeah, but....With programs such as Section 8 and Hope VI, people are able to find affordable housing with government assistance, without creating large pockets of poverty. So I'm not terribly sympathetic, considering how past approaches turned the inner city into unlivable, crime-ridden hellholes.
Yeah, but....With programs such as Section 8 and Hope VI, people are able to find affordable housing with government assistance, without creating large pockets of poverty. So I'm not terribly sympathetic, considering how past approaches turned the inner city into unlivable, crime-ridden hellholes.
But think about what the people are losing being kicked out of thier neighborhoods.They are losing thier friends,houses that they've lived in for decades,basically thier losing thier neighborhoods.Yeah,maybe they will be provided with a house in another neighborhood,but that means they have to start from scratch.
Yeah, but....With programs such as Section 8 and Hope VI, people are able to find affordable housing with government assistance, without creating large pockets of poverty. So I'm not terribly sympathetic, considering how past approaches turned the inner city into unlivable, crime-ridden hellholes.
I totally, TOTALLY agree with you. It's abundantly clear past approaches have failed--and, lots of urban problems need to be laid at the feet of those the government tries to help. THEY need to do something about THEIR situations and not just cry "woe is me!"
There's help available to those who need it (from their own families, the government, churches, and charitable organizations). Coupled with self-effort and determination, people can make it.
But think about what the people are losing being kicked out of thier neighborhoods.They are losing thier friends,houses that they've lived in for decades,basically thier losing thier neighborhoods.Yeah,maybe they will be provided with a house in another neighborhood,but that means they have to start from scratch.
Good point... The toll can be huge, and that's unfortunate.
Check this out in Baltimore (accompanying story in the Baltimore Sun -- Holding her ground -- baltimoresun.com (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-te.md.house20dec20,0,574035.story?coll=bal_tab01_l ayout - broken link)):
I saw something very similar to the above picture in Washington on either 12th or 13th Street NW near M or N Street (i.e. a few blocks west of the Convention Center Green Line Metro station) when I was checking out neighborhoods in anticipation for my move to the DC area.
My problem with gentrification though is the fact that they don't actually help the people who lived in the neighborhood when it was poor.They end up having to move to another low-income part of the city,or into one of the poorer suburbs.If your not actually helping the people who lived in the neighborhoods being gentrified,what is being accomplished?And BTW this is just what I hear about.Maybe some cities do help the people in the neighborhoods being gentrified.But most of what I hear is that they tear down neighborhoods,than build a bunch of condos that don't end up being occupied by the people who were actually living in the neighborhood.
At least for the homeowners, there is an enormous benefit for living in a gentrified neighborhood. They benefit financially by rising real estate values. I'm sure homeowners would prefer gentrification rather than slumification.
As for renters, they are often priced out of their neighborhood. That being said, I think its a silly notion that in America, people are "entitled" to live in a particular area. Neighborhoods in cities change over time. In Chicago, there is a neighborhood called Pilsen which is predominantly Mexican but in the process of gentrification, more yuppies and whites are moving in. Is that fair? Maybe not but perhaps another question to ask is was it fair for the Czechs and Slovaks, who lived in the neighborhood before the Mexicans (thus the name), to be pushed out by the new immigrants forty years before. This is the story of urban America. Neighborhoods go up, neighborhoods go down.
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.
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.
