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.
All over the forum people are seeing gentrification as one of the biggest threats to communities or color. This belief is so extreme that some board members have wished for more gun violence and crime to occur so it could scare off hipsters and others who drive up prices.
What about the opposite? Many neighborhoods are seeing an emergence of crime, drugs and mayhem from people coming from the old ghettos. Business don't want to stay in places where flash mobs frequently rob them or where people are harassed by teens, so they move out. Families also leave, and the nabe stagnates, decays and becomes another hood.
This is occurring in the West Village. The city won't make any real effort to protect middle class and productive areas because they are not Times Square or Wall Street. I know people will come here and say overall crime is down, but what they don't want you to know is that violent assaults and robberies are up.
Christopher Street has always been like that. The gay teenagers use a proliferation of drugs down by the West Side Highway, then go crazy on Christopher Street. Drug dealers take advantage and hang out there too. Nothing new about that part of town.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
I think that gentrification is bad, and I'm not even a New Yorker. If I moved to New York which I would one day hope to do, I still side with the native New Yorkers who have ethnic neighborhoods even if I would technically be considered a "transplant". I think that they should improve the crime areas but any improvements to neighborhoods in livability or safety should be there for the current residents, not to encourage more transplants to move in. Having more crime just hurts the people there.
I know that one time there was proposed law not too long ago that would allow residents of Chinatown to rent to people of Chinese descent for a much lower price than a non-Chinese person, but the bill was struck down (for obvious reasons), but the intention was good was to keep the ethnic and cultural way of Chinatown Chinese.
I normally hate the idea of co-op boards, but I would sorta agree with a law that if that Chinatown law was proposed, they should allow people in the community to determine who gets to move into their neighborhoods. I don't think all neighborhoods should be able to do that, but known ethnic/cultural enclaves should be able to do that to protect their distinct cultural identity. The already hipsterized/transplant areas should not have it and anyone can move there. Although that is a good idea, I know it can easily turn into something really bad, but that is why gentrification is such a problem because there is no easy way to solve it without causing more problems that can be unfair for people.
Another thread, beating a dead horse.....Why is it that people who assume that those who are not all gung ho about gentrification would rather live in an era with extreme violence and drugs, as if there were no other options or balanced approach?
I just love the fact that an all black neighborhood is automatically a ghetto to some of you guys!
Unfortunately most black neighborhoods in this city are ghetto. There are exceptions however, such as Cambria Heights, Laurelton, and Rosedale. Thankfully, these nice black areas probably won't see gentrification anytime soon.
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.