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.
We all hope they will. The Bronx needs to become better, we now have America's poorest congressional district in our once lovely Borough. Just as whites were displaced in the great white dispora of the 1950-1970s, we now see the same thing about to happen to today's current residents. This time, it is mostly driven by economics and not the fear of crime, violence or riots, etc.
I suspect we will see a big uptick in private homes/developments within 5 years.
When were whites "displaced" in the Bronx?? When I think of displacement, as the term is applied to neighborhood demographic changes, I think of changing conditions (largely economic in nature) that make it too costly for people to remain where they live; so its not really "voluntary" in that sense. I am not aware of this happening to whites in the BX in the 1950s-1970s. What I am aware of, however, is that there was a large "white flight" process in the BX and other areas during that period, but that was overwhelmingly voluntary.
When were whites "displaced" in the Bronx?? When I think of displacement, as the term is applied to neighborhood demographic changes, I think of changing conditions (largely economic in nature) that make it too costly for people to remain where they live; so its not really "voluntary" in that sense. I am not aware of this happening to whites in the BX in the 1950s-1970s. What I am aware of, however, is that there was a large "white flight" process in the BX and other areas during that period, but that was overwhelmingly voluntary.
My white ancestors got displaced from Bushwick back in the day. They stuck around until the end. I assume you'll hear similiar stories from whites that lived in the Bronx.
My white ancestors got displaced from Bushwick back in the day. They stuck around until the end. I assume you'll hear similiar stories from whites that lived in the Bronx.
Sure, whites are affected by gentrification and are otherwise displaced, most often by other whites in this city/country; we see many Polish-Americans being displaced in Greenpoint, etc. even today. But, for the period that the poster I'm referring to mentioned (the 1950's - 1970's), whites were not getting displaced as a general matter. No, whites were fleeing the arrival of blacks and Latinos to the borough in a massive case of "white flight." They were not displaced. And, note, the poster I responded to wasn't talking about specific examples; he was very general about things.
Note, the poster I replied to makes clear what his definition of "displacement" is for that period. But his definition is precisely what I have a problem with. Note, this epidemic of white flight was often "justified" by fears of crime, but many whites left at the first sign of "color" coming into the neighborhood; in short, it wasn't always justified by the reality on the ground. That one black or brown family on the block "tainted" things and hurt property values, and signaled to many that it was time to flee the area, so homes became open for more black and brown families.
Not even. High paid career devoted people are a part of pushing urbanism. They hate suburbs. Suburbs worked better when there were no women in high paid positions. Now with with both mom and dad working long hours, they prefer being close to work and amenitirs.
With that said of course suburbs will not die out. They are increasingly for lower middle class people. No one things suburbs will die off.
If you look at the people on this forum who like suburbs, affordability is a key factor.
Not simply affordability (and all the surrouding suburbs are not so very "affordable" anyway). They also like that when they go home (if they choose their home itself and their surrounding home area right), they tend to go to a place of relative peace, quiet, and tranquility (and, often times, more privacy-- as a result of less density of development --and more safety and more freedom from having to deal with all of society's miscreants and malcontents always all around you and at your doorstep like it so often is when living in the city).
Not even. The corporate executives, A list entertainers and such live in Manhattan. I know execs who work 100 hours a week. For them their jobs are their lives. They do not have the time to commute from suburban communities. So these rich people buy apartments in Manhattan. Of course some of rhem buy houses elsewhere. But they are primarily city people.
Bankers work extreme hours and so do tech people.
Not even. I have found that enough of the very rich don't limit themselves to just a single home but have multiple places to call home. For instance, they have a rental apartment or condo in Manhattan plus a single-family home in the suburbs and sometimes also a condo or coop or bungalow or cottage or time-share even further out in the state or in another state (e.g., Florida, upstate New York, the Poconos, Connecticut, Cape Cod, et al). That is, they have the wealth and resources to "have their cake and eat it too"; they can have it all . . . unlike so many of the rest of the population that can only afford to maintain one single place to call "home" and hence have to make a singular choice of choosing one place over another. Whereas the very-well-to-do can optionally have multiple abodes at the same time.
Not even. I have found that enough of the very rich don't limit themselves to just a single home but have multiple places to call home. For instance, they have a rental apartment or condo in Manhattan plus a single-family home in the suburbs and sometimes also a condo or coop or bungalow or cottage or time-share even further out in the state or in another state (e.g., Florida, upstate New York, the Poconos, Connecticut, Cape Cod, et al). That is, they have the wealth and resources to "have their cake and eat it too"; they can have it all . . . unlike so many of the rest of the population that can only afford to maintain one single place to call "home" and hence have to make a singular choice of choosing one place over another. Whereas the very-well-to-do can optionally have multiple abodes at the same time.
I know of a lawyer who owns a rent stabilized apartment in Manhattan and owns a country home somewhere in new England. I have to say I agree with you.
I know of a lawyer who owns a rent stabilized apartment in Manhattan and owns a country home somewhere in new England. I have to say I agree with you.
I used an estate/trust attorney in the settling of my parents' estate and affairs after my mother died. He works out of a large law firm in midtown Manhattan (near Grand Central Station) and is married and lives in an apartment in Manhattan's Upper East Side + he has a home in the Hamptons (Long Island's East End) + he has a home in northeastern Pennsylvania (in the Poconos area).
My mother also had a long-time female friend (both my mother and this friend are now deceased) who got into the real estate business from the influence of her family owning commercial and residential properties. Beyond all the properties she herself came to own and manage (but not live in herself), she herself lived in a 3-bedroom apartment in Flushing, Queens; a large studio or one-bedroom in Bayside, Queens; a house in Woodstock, NY; a house in Suffolk County, Long Island; and either a condo or time-share in South Florida. Although obviously wealthy or enough so, she actually was very frugal and stingy and carried herself like a basic middle-class person (i.e., no airs or pretensions or pomposity about her). You wouldn't be able to tell by looking at her and how she lived (including where she lived) that she was a millionaire. Her apartments and her home(s) were not elegant and adorned with all the trappings of wealth and she also could be rather characterized as a hoarder.
And I knew a real estate agent/broker who himself owned 2 (or maybe 3?) homes in Long Island + an apartment in Manhattan's Greenwich Village + some kind of abode in Cape Cod (and maybe even more abodes elsewhere). I wonder if it must be somewhat taxing on the brain so all these people to have so many disparate homes to have to keep track of, maintain, watch over or have watched over, pay bills on, et al.
Urban renewal is happening big time in the Bronx. The Bronx won't become expensive like downtown Manhattan. That won't even happen in Harlem. Both places have too many NYCHA's and other welfare housing. That will keep prices down. More white people moving in doesn't necessarily lead to upscaling.
Urban renewal is happening big time in the Bronx. The Bronx won't become expensive like downtown Manhattan. That won't even happen in Harlem. Both places have too many NYCHA's and other welfare housing. That will keep prices down. More white people moving in doesn't necessarily lead to upscaling.
It is easy to gentrifiy and build outside of housing projects due to property being less cheaper.
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.
