Anti-gentrification radicals are on the march in Los Angeles. Is Houston next ? (lease, mortgages)

[jerbear30]

Originally Posted by jfre81

Cities are dynamic. Change is the only constant.

Gentrification is the opposite of dynamism--it is the same static reel of western colonial history playing itself out, one more time, in a loop. You have to look at it from a funny angle NOT to see its consonance with this history.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by jerbear30

Gentrification is the opposite of dynamism--it is the same static reel of western colonial history playing itself out

Actually, it's simple economics and it isn't really all that complicated.

In Houston, like basically every metropolitan area in the world, there was a movement out of the inner city to the suburbs in the 20th century. As a matter of fact, in Houston, some of the places being "gentrified" now sprung up as a result.

First it was Neartown and the Heights, then the boundary area between the erstwhile third and fourth wards (they were legally defined political entities) that used to be Little Saigon, then the East End, and now it's going to the other side of the loop into first-ring post-WWII suburbs. The gentrifiers aren't a cabal of neighborhood wreckers. They just want to live reasonably close to the city center and afford it. That's getting hard to do in the Heights, Montrose or even the East End these days.

There were neighborhoods sitting where the skyscrapers are in what we call downtown Houston today. "Downtown" was along Main for the first few streets south from the bayou. They were "gentrified."

All of the neighborhoods that got split in half by freeways in the city's transformation from environment for people to an environment for cars - they were "gentrified" too.

It's a full-circle coming of age for Houston. A part of the process of transitioning from an oil boom cowtown to a major world city. Most East Coast cities have neighborhoods near their cores that saw this process before Houston existed.

I'm not "for" gentrification any more than I'm "for" hurricanes. Or floods. Or people driving 50 mph in the left lane on 610.

[jerbear30]

Originally Posted by jfre81

Actually, it's simple economics and it isn't really all that complicated.

In Houston, like basically every metropolitan area in the world, there was a movement out of the inner city to the suburbs in the 20th century. As a matter of fact, in Houston, some of the places being "gentrified" now sprung up as a result.

First it was Neartown and the Heights, then the boundary area between the erstwhile third and fourth wards (they were legally defined political entities) that used to be Little Saigon, then the East End, and now it's going to the other side of the loop into first-ring post-WWII suburbs. The gentrifiers aren't a cabal of neighborhood wreckers. They just want to live reasonably close to the city center and afford it. That's getting hard to do in the Heights, Montrose or even the East End these days.

There were neighborhoods sitting where the skyscrapers are in what we call downtown Houston today. "Downtown" was along Main for the first few streets south from the bayou. They were "gentrified."

All of the neighborhoods that got split in half by freeways in the city's transformation from environment for people to an environment for cars - they were "gentrified" too.

It's a full-circle coming of age for Houston. A part of the process of transitioning from an oil boom cowtown to a major world city. Most East Coast cities have neighborhoods near their cores that saw this process before Houston existed.

I'm not "for" gentrification any more than I'm "for" hurricanes. Or floods. Or people driving 50 mph in the left lane on 610.

I'm not disputing your analysis, but there is a social subtext to this "development" that is anything but natural. Whites moved to the suburbs to be away from minorities. They then built highway so the wouldn't have to be around minorities when they came into the cities. Then, they decided they'd like to be back there, and they are now taking back that space. I understand that there isn't any "malevolence" in this but they have to be in willful denial to not acknowledge their place in this cycle, which again, is anything but natural.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by jerbear30

I'm not disputing your analysis, but there is a social subtext to this "development" that is anything but natural. Whites moved to the suburbs to be away from minorities. They then built highway so the wouldn't have to be around minorities when they came into the cities. Then, they decided they'd like to be back there, and they are now taking back that space. I understand that there isn't any "malevolence" in this but they have to be in willful denial to not acknowledge their place in this cycle, which again, is anything but natural.

If you think it's strictly a racial thing, I'm for all intents priced out of the Loop myself. Should I join the protest?

[jerbear30]

Originally Posted by jfre81

If you think it's strictly a racial thing, I'm for all intents priced out of the Loop myself. Should I join the protest?

I thought I made it clear that gentrification is not only about race--it obviously involves class too. I'm also not trying to suggest that all the white people living in the third ward, for instance, are bad people. In fact, I only brought up the issue of race because so many posters seemed to be leaving it out, like an elephant in the room. My point is that race AND class are involved in this process, in a way that fits with a longer, pretty oppressive history for the residents of the affected neighborhoods. So to ask them to NOT say anything or to just accept it as the way of the world seems like too much to ask, from my perspective.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by jerbear30

I thought I made it clear that gentrification is not only about race--it obviously involves class too.

Lenin,_Engels,_Marx by Makis Theodosis, on Flickr

I'm not disputing your analysis, but there is a social subtext to this "development" that is anything but natural. Whites moved to the suburbs to be away from minorities. They then built highway so the wouldn't have to be around minorities when they came into the cities. Then, they decided they'd like to be back there, and they are now taking back that space. I understand that there isn't any "malevolence" in this but they have to be in willful denial to not acknowledge their place in this cycle, which again, is anything but natural.

(Nope, not a race thing at all.)

Originally Posted by dat boy Karl

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his 'natural superiors,' and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous 'cash payment.' It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

(OK, it's a class thing)

[fnh]

There is undoubtably a moral component to redlining and discriminatory lending practices, both of which are major contributors to neighborhood blight over years of disinvestment. Residents become essentially locked in certain neighborhoods as they deteriorate without access to loans, then become locked out when the neighborhood location suddenly becomes attractive to outsiders with privileged access to money.

[jerbear30]

Originally Posted by jfre81

(Nope, not a race thing at all.)

OK, you are being willfully obtuse by suggesting that it's either "a race thing" or it's not at all about race. Neither of these choices is satisfactory, if you're really trying to understand the phenomenon rather than to justify it.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by jerbear30

OK, you are being willfully obtuse by suggesting that it's either "a race thing" or it's not at all about race. Neither of these choices is satisfactory, if you're really trying to understand the phenomenon rather than to justify it.

I didn't suggest it, I quoted your post, and merely emphasized where you suggested - nay, outright said it.

[detachable arm]

Originally Posted by Houston.Texas

... well I guess I am against gentrification with that said, Independence Heights is a colored mans neighborhood simple as that STAY OUT! Sorry not racist but I would like to stay in my home and not be forced out! I would like to continue to live in the city of Houston and not be pushed out...

It is not about race at all.

I agree with you though and At the same time there are certain types of people I don’t want in my neighborhood as well.

Again it is not about race.