Gentrification good vs. bad / research studies (New York, Red Hook: neighborhood, theatre, luxury)
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.
LOL... wow blond moment... I was having this same debate with Abklyndude in the lower income thread and got it mixed up... I was referring to Abklyndude through my posts though not you...
And the article that you posted was posted in 2008 but the findings are not... Like I said I would like to see statistics from the more recent years to see the dramatic changes because they have been dramatic in alot of locations in NYC... Bushwick not so much but other neighborhoods, yes.
Thanks, but I am the OP and I didn't state that at all.
Here's another article from 2008 (TIME Magazine), which is a little more recent - A simple google search of "gentrification study" turned this up at #2 position:
Thanks all, for the healthy and mostly polite discussion. It has helped me form a fuller perspective of this oft debated issue. Much appreciated.
Why should we support a system that produces market-oriented developments across a variety of landscapes of unused, vacant, or otherwise "blighted" areas? The mass-consumer society we live in is already unsustainable, why continue to support it through gentrification? It replaces a neighborhood's poverty problem to a certain extent, but it still leaves communities economically segregated. Gentrification does not solve the ongoing poverty problem in America, nor does it solve the long-standing problems in America's inner-city neighborhoods. The lack of knowledge that our city government has on developments that support gentrification will eventually produce an unknown social black-lash on the city. The extent of the social consequences is unknown.
That Time article says at the end that there is still a lot we need to know about gentrification. WHY ARE WE SUPPORTING IT THEN??? Because it produces more tax revenue for the city? Because it creates more Shake Shacks, Yogo Monsters, basketball arenas, and superfluous amounts of expensive luxury housing to support a growing demographic of educated, wealthy families and individuals? These are all temporary effects of gentrification that help produce money for the city, which creates better public services and amenities for all who live in the city. It may even lower crime rates because of increased foot traffic in different areas of the city.
Our country's government institutions (World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, ect.) proposed similar short-term solutions when the debt crisis occurred in Latin America that eventually put Latin America in further debt while they were servicing the consumerist society of the West. Short-term solutions are not the answer. We must look at long-term, well-balanced, solutions that look to support the current community, culture, and demographic, as well as respect the historic fabric of the architecture or landscape of an area, whether it is farmland or an urban neighborhood.
That brings up several of questions: Are existing populations all going to experience the trickle-down effect of these expensive developments? Is gentrification a sustainable way of "improving" the quality of neighborhoods? Does gentrification solve the affordable housing crisis that New York City, and this entire country, has?
JAGED,
I don't see where gentrification has done anything positive to keep middle income families and individuals in NYC. I see things becoming more polarized (poor & upper middle class/wealthy).
Slightly off topic but one of the reasons the middle class left and continues to leave the city is because they don't have good public school alternatives and they can't afford private schools.
Supposedly the development in LIC will have a percentage set aside for middle income (I think 20%) but I would propose that the percentages in these developments be higher. Again, what new developments are really targeting middle class people?
Besides the low diversity of Park Slope it has practically everything a neighborhood would want. Minorities in LES (#2 neighborhood) have benefited from the gentrification. Some rent their apts out, but the ones who sold made millions back in the late 90's and early 00's. Now if we could get all of that in a minority neighborhood, it would beat out park slope, but sadly there are some like you who dont want to try and make the neighborhood better. You dont even believe in your own people, so how can others. You would prefer to let kids horseplay on the street when we all know it would be a detriment to them and those around them, you prefer not to call the cops if someone suspects criminality is afoot. You scream racism if a white guy calls the police. You just want to keep everything in a neighborhood the way it is. Why not help the neighborhood evolve into something better and keep the diversity. Like I have said earlier, there are plenty of minority landlords and business owners in the area. They would benefit from gentrification. Some displacement occurs, but at the same time some also benefit. This money goes back into the hands of the minorities. If asians can buy out predominately white neighborhoods (Bensonhurst, Flushing, slowly Bay Ridge) then so can other minorities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anon1
@ tkak69 the diversity that you mentioned in your building is one of the sole reasons why you are not one of the people we are referring to when we speak of displacement because obviously that is not your main focus... you are just here because it was cheap, it was on the rise and you don't care whether you live in a park slope/williamsburg type of area...
that being said... the OP has clearly stated already that he would rather this neighborhood become like a Park Slope/Williamsburg where in recent past major displacement occured... Again im all for bettering the neighborhood just not the way the OP wants it to be done...
Brklyndude people of color cannot "buy out" neighborhoods, and keep the money local, because that's not the way it works. When brown or black people move in, everyone else leaves...prices drop, and..well..you know how the story ends. This isn't a function of people of color moving in, it is a function of the perception of what it means, and the response by those who currently live in the community. People of color have been "buying" into communities for decades, except that everytime they do...everyone else flees.
Lots of communities of color are working to make things better, and lots of those communities have gotten alot better because of the people who came together and made improvements. You are also underestimating the detrimental role to this day that politics play. Nobody wants to keep a neighborhood with high crime, but there is a great political advantage to do so...
Besides the low diversity of Park Slope it has practically everything a neighborhood would want. Minorities in LES (#2 neighborhood) have benefited from the gentrification. Some rent their apts out, but the ones who sold made millions back in the late 90's and early 00's. Now if we could get all of that in a minority neighborhood, it would beat out park slope, but sadly there are some like you who dont want to try and make the neighborhood better. You dont even believe in your own people, so how can others. You would prefer to let kids horseplay on the street when we all know it would be a detriment to them and those around them, you prefer not to call the cops if someone suspects criminality is afoot. You scream racism if a white guy calls the police. You just want to keep everything in a neighborhood the way it is. Why not help the neighborhood evolve into something better and keep the diversity. Like I have said earlier, there are plenty of minority landlords and business owners in the area. They would benefit from gentrification. Some displacement occurs, but at the same time some also benefit. This money goes back into the hands of the minorities. If asians can buy out predominately white neighborhoods (Bensonhurst, Flushing, slowly Bay Ridge) then so can other minorities.
Okay, the poor (living in NYCHA projects and ppl w/ rent controlled apartments) have benefited from early gentrification that occurred in Manhattan and Brooklyn. However, I don't see this trend continuing for neighborhoods that lie outside of the inner circle (i.e., 30 minutes or shorter commute to midtown or lower Manhattan). "Fringe" neighborhoods will continue to grow as the place for the poorer people. For example, NE Bronx, SE Queens, Far Rockaway, Staten Island, east Brooklyn (two-fare zones), etc.
As far as people in poor neighborhoods fighting for services, I'll say this ... I have lived in NYC my whole life (I was born in the '60s) and sometimes the fight is only as big as the dog in the ring. Your politicians with the most clout generally represent white neighborhoods, and stuff gets done. I lived in a black middle class neighborhood most of my life and despite active block associations, people who voted, paid taxes, kept up their homes, didn't deal in illegal activities, ran for the school board, belonged to the PTA, white neighborhoods had better services all around. So now, your middle class black and Latinos don't even come to NYC anymore. We're fed up because we (too) want neighborhoods with low crime, good services and good schools. But since the "Park Slopes" of the world are largely out of our (and most people's price range) -- regardless of race/ethnicity -- we've left NYC for the NJ or LI 'burbs or nice, affordable neighborhoods in Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, and Florida.
That the only "GOOD" neighborhoods in NYC have cost of entry points that exceed your typical middle class family is outrageous to me. I would never pay through the nose to live in Park Slope because all of its glitz and glam isn't really necessary for a good quality of life. I'd prefer a Co-op City circa 1970 or Roosevelt Island, circa 1980 any day.
Last edited by queensgrl; 05-09-2011 at 09:08 PM..
Reason: typo s/b "isn't really necessary"
Okay, the poor (living in NYCHA projects and ppl w/ rent controlled apartments) have benefited from early gentrification that occurred in Manhattan and Brooklyn. However, I don't see this trend continuing for neighborhoods that lie outside of the inner circle (i.e., 30 minutes or shorter commute to midtown or lower Manhattan). "Fringe" neighborhoods will continue to grow as the place for the poorer people. For example, NE Bronx, SE Queens, Far Rockaway, Staten Island, east Brooklyn (two-fare zones), etc.
As far as people in poor neighborhoods fighting for services, I'll say this ... I have lived in NYC my whole life (I was born in the '60s) and sometimes the fight is only as big as the dog in the ring. Your politicians with the most clout generally represent white neighborhoods, and stuff gets done. I lived in a black middle class neighborhood most of my life and despite active block associations, people who voted, paid taxes, kept up their homes, didn't deal in illegal activities, ran for the school board, belonged to the PTA, white neighborhoods had better services all around. So now, your middle class black and Latinos don't even come to NYC anymore. We're fed up because we (too) want neighborhoods with low crime, good services and good schools. But since the "Park Slopes" of the world are largely our of our (and most people's price range -- regardless of race/ethnicity -- we've left NYC for the NJ or LI 'burbs or nice, affordable neighborhoods in Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, and Florida.
That the only "GOOD" neighborhoods in NYC have cost of entry points that exceed your typical middle class family is outrageous to me. I would never pay through the nose to live in Park Slope because all of its glitz and glam isn't really unnecessary for a good quality of life. I'd prefer a Co-op City circa 1970 or Roosevelt Island, circa 1980 any day.
Okay, the poor (living in NYCHA projects and ppl w/ rent controlled apartments) have benefited from early gentrification that occurred in Manhattan and Brooklyn. However, I don't see this trend continuing for neighborhoods that lie outside of the inner circle (i.e., 30 minutes or shorter commute to midtown or lower Manhattan). "Fringe" neighborhoods will continue to grow as the place for the poorer people. For example, NE Bronx, SE Queens, Far Rockaway, Staten Island, east Brooklyn (two-fare zones), etc.
As far as people in poor neighborhoods fighting for services, I'll say this ... I have lived in NYC my whole life (I was born in the '60s) and sometimes the fight is only as big as the dog in the ring. Your politicians with the most clout generally represent white neighborhoods, and stuff gets done. I lived in a black middle class neighborhood most of my life and despite active block associations, people who voted, paid taxes, kept up their homes, didn't deal in illegal activities, ran for the school board, belonged to the PTA, white neighborhoods had better services all around. So now, your middle class black and Latinos don't even come to NYC anymore. We're fed up because we (too) want neighborhoods with low crime, good services and good schools. But since the "Park Slopes" of the world are largely out of our (and most people's price range) -- regardless of race/ethnicity -- we've left NYC for the NJ or LI 'burbs or nice, affordable neighborhoods in Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, and Florida.
That the only "GOOD" neighborhoods in NYC have cost of entry points that exceed your typical middle class family is outrageous to me. I would never pay through the nose to live in Park Slope because all of its glitz and glam isn't really necessary for a good quality of life. I'd prefer a Co-op City circa 1970 or Roosevelt Island, circa 1980 any day.
This is old news, nyc is one of the most segregated cities in america. Whats so funny is when nyc went against segregation of the south with its jim crow madness, nyc was keeping segregation alive up north. Talk about double standards.
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.
