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.
Immigrants aren't an issue if you're talking about people who have been there for "generations". I was specifically addressing "inclusionary housing", but the same effect occurs in schools, and it's easier to illustrate. Let's take one class. This class has, say, 25 students. They're all from a middle-class culture which holds education in some esteem. You've got some troublemakers, certainly a class clown, but most of the kids are there to learn most of the time.
Now we do some integration -- get rid of 5 of those students and add 5 poor students who come from a culture which thinks education is for other people. In class they're loud and obnoxious and constantly disruptive. If the teacher attempts to correct their behavior they respond with hostility and sometimes threats of violence. Outside class they are hostile and violent to the other students. When their guardians are contacted, they refuse to do anything about it.
There's not going to be much learning going on in that situation. So unless the 5 are expelled (which is going to be impossible because of the integration requirement), the 20 are going to leave as quickly as possible. Bad drives out good, or good drives out bad. They can't really co-exist.
Same thing with housing. No one who has the means to do otherwise wants to live near obnoxious, hostile, and (especially in the same building) filthy tenants. If they can, they'll drive them out. If they can't, they'll leave themselves.
I'm on my lunch break so I'm going to have the time to write out any long and detailed response, but that's exactly the kind of coded racism I was talking about in my OP(note to mods: this is relevant to the discussion of urban environments since it does effect how they develop). I first read this post the other night as I was getting ready for bed and was reading a book about the historical and philosophical development of the African-American view of education as something that's empowering. The popular racist belief is that minorities don't care about education in spite of various studies that look at the beliefs about education within groups. That belief is fueled by a very narrow focus on things such as the achievement gap which also leads people to belief that these groups are intellectually and morally inferior and gives this very warped justification for not wanting to integrate schools. Ironically, the beliefs that minorities were intellectually inferior was also used as justification for not wanting to integrate schools during the Jim Crow Era. This just doesn't apply to African-Americans, it applies to Hispanic Americans who also economically disadvantaged and hurt by these policies.
DarkEconomist also brings another extremely relevant point about gentrification in that housing policy is politically induced so that home prices can appreciate and the have nots can remain in their pockets of poverty. Housing policy, mortgage rates, and how people are spread out play a huge role in how schools are integrated, not concentrating crime, eliminating food deserts, and providing access to healthcare are arguably more important than cupcake and froyo shops, but they take a backseat because coded racist beliefs get in the way of addressing these issues.
Richard Rothstein, a well known urban education expert, wrote an article a few weeks back that looks at the historical roots of school segregation and why it continues to persist. If you're generally interested in these issues, then you should check it out:
@Octa: Thanks for thinking of me. I fixed my settings, so you can DM me now. I share many of your sentiments about gentrification.
Alright, thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
The real problem with gentrification is that gentrifyers tend to be okay with the free market allowing them to move in, but become hostile to the free market once they are the incumbent. In theory, an area with high land values should densify because developers want to make money by putting more people on each acre in hot neighborhoods. In reality, genrtifyers tend to block development.
Yes, they bought in to an area for a reason, so, obviously, they'd like to keep it that way, but it's hypocritical.
I agree. The city of DC is a pretty good example of how NIMBY's use political pressure to drive up their real estate value once they are there while blocking development.
The real problem with gentrification is that gentrifyers tend to be okay with the free market allowing them to move in, but become hostile to the free market once they are the incumbent. In theory, an area with high land values should densify because developers want to make money by putting more people on each acre in hot neighborhoods. In reality, genrtifyers tend to block development.
Yes, they bought in to an area for a reason, so, obviously, they'd like to keep it that way, but it's hypocritical.
You must live in my neighborhood. That's exactly what happened when two beautiful 107 year old houses and the beautiful property were sold and slated for demolition to make way for a four story 77 apartment building squeezed in on a lot that can barely accommodate it.
The buyer lied to the owner of the building and the Realtor about keeping the houses as business offices as they had been used for decades. One day after buying them he served the tenants with eviction notices then proceeded to make arrangements to tear the old houses down. One was destroyed the other saved and moved to a vacant lot around the corner thanks to the local news media alerting the neighborhood association and some people who bought the old home and paid to move it. Also the credit union took a chance in allowing them to precariously shift the house across the parking lot to it's new home where it will be transformed into apartments but keep the integrity of it's appearance.
Now we get to look at this ugly building that will have super expensive "luxury" tiny apartments being built along with the other ugly super expensive apartment buildings just like it being built in my once pretty little neighborhood with grass, trees, flowers in open spaces that have been filled with these monstrosities.
The irony is that the people who are paying top dollar to live in these tiny overpriced cubby holes think they are living in an image of a city with nice little neighborhoods that are fast disappearing because of situations like this and may not be too dissimilar from those from which they are coming. But the overcrowding and the elimination of the green spaces and the low level smaller buildings and homes are turning my neighborhood and others like it throughout the city, into just another typical urban environment.
I believe I posted that video in the NYC forum. I also posted a blog that covers NYC gentrification specifically. I'll have to find the specific entry, but the blogger interviews a professor who says that NYC's gentrification is currently more systematic and policy-driven than it's ever been in the past.
In the gentrifying areas, there often isn't much between those two.
Usually the first areas to gentrify are areas that were already fairly decent but working-class/lower middle-class rather than well-off. For NYC, take for example Astoria or Greenpoint. There were always healthy neighborhoods, but at this point families are getting priced out by better off (or just able to accept less space) young transplants. Sure, sometimes gentrification happens in rather impoverished neighborhoods. But gentrification in spots like Bushwick or Bed-Stuy is rather patchy even if highly hyped compared to neighborhoods that were already ok. I think the same is true of Philly, in between neighborhoods get gentrified, the worst ones remain avoided.
[quote I'm ignoring immigrants because Octa was complaining about "...residents who came before gentrifiers, who have been there for generations, and who are now being forced out." By definition, immigrants have not been there for generations.[/quote]
I believe I posted that video in the NYC forum. I also posted a blog that covers NYC gentrification specifically. I'll have to find the specific entry, but the blogger interviews a professor who says that NYC's gentrification is currently more systematic and policy-driven than it's ever been in the past.
I believe I posted that video in the NYC forum. I also posted a blog that covers NYC gentrification specifically. I'll have to find the specific entry, but the blogger interviews a professor who says that NYC's gentrification is currently more systematic and policy-driven than it's ever been in the past.
Thanks for that blog link. Please let me know when you find it. And I think you posted it in that topic in the DC forum where you got into a debate with someone about what people 20 and 30 year olds are listening to when they go out. I don't think I've ever been to the NYC forum to post.
I'm on my lunch break so I'm going to have the time to write out any long and detailed response, but that's exactly the kind of coded racism I was talking about in my OP(note to mods: this is relevant to the discussion of urban environments since it does effect how they develop).
Ooh, the race card.
Quote:
I first read this post the other night as I was getting ready for bed and was reading a book about the historical and philosophical development of the African-American view of education as something that's empowering. The popular racist belief is that minorities don't care about education in spite of various studies that look at the beliefs about education within groups.
Nobody's talking about minorities in general except you. There are, however, certain subcultures (white and nonwhite) which take a dim view of education. They have a few other things in common -- relative poverty being one of them.
Nobody's talking about minorities in general except you. There are, however, certain subcultures (white and nonwhite) which take a dim view of education. They have a few other things in common -- relative poverty being one of them.
I agree with this. I think many here have supported the idea that gentrification on the whole deals more with economics than anything else. Whatever race or ethnic group gets shut out has to do with their economic status more than anything else as I pointed out in the case of my neighborhood of retirees and low income residents being pushed by those of a higher economic status.
As a matter of fact, today, if you want to talk about race, there are more African Americans living in my area whereas before when the area was low income there were none. But since the neighborhood has become gentrified, I am seeing more African Americans who can afford the high rents living here right along side the whiter residents who can also afford them. Gentrification had made the neighborhood more racially diversified.
I would say no. And the reason I say that is because my presence doesn't signal to other members of the community that an influx of wealthier, largely white (or black for that matter) residents are soon to follow, raising the rents, and thereby displacing them. I would also say no because neighborhoods like Bed-Stuy and Harlem have always had a mixture of incomes. Have you ever heard of Strivers Row in Harlem? It's not like everybody in these areas is on Section 8.
Since 1950, can you think of any examples where a few black artists have moved to a neighborhood, shortly followed by more affluent black professionals, resulting in 100% rent increases and mass displacement of residents?
And I don't think it's purely racial either. Gentrification is driven by upper middle class people, the majority of whom are white. And the upper middle class, and the white upper middle class in particular (or the "SWPL" class), has a culture and a set of values that's quite distinct from the lower white classes, imo. So if Roseanne Barr or Shortyo moved to the block, I don't think that would be interpreted as a hostile take over of the neighborood (regardless of ethnicity...they could be moving to a Polish neighborhood). And on the flipside, I don't think their presence would signal anything to the SWPL class since they largely detest lower class white people.
But if a white couple moved in with Syracuse stickers on the back of their Mini Cooper, then yes, I think they would be perceived as a threat (and a signal to other SWPLs). It would be the same thing if any indie rock band moved in. You don't necessarily have to be rolling in the dough to be considered a gentrifier.
I agree with this. I think many here have supported the idea that gentrification on the whole deals more with economics than anything else. Whatever race or ethnic group gets shut out has to do with their economic status more than anything else as I pointed out in the case of my neighborhood of retirees and low income residents being pushed by those of a higher economic status.
As a matter of fact, today, if you want to talk about race, there are more African Americans living in my area whereas before when the area was low income there were none. But since the neighborhood has become gentrified, I am seeing more African Americans who can afford the high rents living here right along side the whiter residents who can also afford them. Gentrification had made the neighborhood more racially diversified.
The color of money has no racial barriers.
I think this is a bogus way to try to deflect attention from the fact that gentrification is primarily a white, upper middle ciass phenomenon. A black person (or a Hispanic) moving into a neighborhood is not perceived the same as a white person moving into a neighborhood for the reasons I stated in my previous post. And the real-world consequences of their respective presences are very different. An upper middle class white person who moves to Harlem signals to other upper middle class whites (and Whole Foods, Target, real estate developers, etc.) that "Hey, the neighborhood's coming along." An upper middle class black person moving to Harlem is no big deal because upper middle class blacks have always been there. Where do you think Charles Rangel lives?
I think that gentrification represents a cultural shift to which existing residents are adverse. Even if the neighborhood makeup is largely working class Polish or Russians, they know that white people moving in is going to drastically change the character of the neighborhood. They know it's only a matter of time until the organic coffee shops, Whole Foods, dog parks, bike lanes and farmer's markets come. And worst of all, they know that they (or their friends and neighbors) are going to be priced out eventually. So they might not be able to stay even if they wanted to.
So it's not just a simple matter of economics in my view. It's both race and class. It's a bit silly to say, imo, that "it's just about the dollars" considering that it's largely white people who comprise the gentrifying, upper middle class of American society. The economics, by proxy, largely excludes other races, the same way a poll tax, which is "race-neutral" on its face, largely excluded blacks from the franchise in the South. The fact is that gentrification brings with it a culture that's white and upper midde class. It's just that most people don't see it that way because they don't think of white people as having a "culture." "Culture," in their view, is that stuff that Ethiopians, Mexicans, Jamaicans, and basically everybody else who's not them has.
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.
