U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-25-2014, 02:50 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,016,941 times
Reputation: 1349

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
This is an extreme example but these place exist and these aren't the places that Philadelphians with money move to.
When land pressures are high enough, monied families who cannot afford the high-amenity neighborhoods will move to more marginal, but not impoverished, neighborhoods which are "close enough." This also happens to businesses. Past a critical point, the neighborhood flips to "up and coming."

While not gentrification, we've seen the same underlying process happen to San Jose neighborhoods that flipped from majority white to majority Asian. One entrepreneurial family or business is slowly followed by another and at some point there is a sudden shift in demographics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-25-2014, 11:32 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,971,230 times
Reputation: 1958
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
When land pressures are high enough, monied families who cannot afford the high-amenity neighborhoods will move to more marginal, but not impoverished, neighborhoods which are "close enough." This also happens to businesses. Past a critical point, the neighborhood flips to "up and coming."
when regional land pressures are high enough. neighborhood rents don't exist in a vacuum.

if you can't afford to live in a neighborhood with a reasonable amount of amenities then you're not really "monied."

Quote:
While not gentrification, we've seen the same underlying process happen to San Jose neighborhoods that flipped from majority white to majority Asian.
why is that not gentrification?

neighborhoods don't "flip" nearly as quickly as people think/say they do and even then the kind of change that happens over a 20 year period isn't possible unless a lot of people are moving out of the neighborhood in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2014, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,110 posts, read 16,206,019 times
Reputation: 12744
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
when regional land pressures are high enough. neighborhood rents don't exist in a vacuum.

if you can't afford to live in a neighborhood with a reasonable amount of amenities then you're not really "monied."



why is that not gentrification?

neighborhoods don't "flip" nearly as quickly as people think/say they do and even then the kind of change that happens over a 20 year period isn't possible unless a lot of people are moving out of the neighborhood in the first place.
Because white people can't be displaced by gentrification because then that upsets people's perceptions about how inequality in society has everything to do with race and helpless victims. If the minorities actually can, and do, displace whites... well, then that disproves their belief system. And it really has nothing to do with a few neighborhoods in the Bay Area. Asian Americans have the highest median income of any group, higher than non-Hispanic Caucasians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2014, 03:04 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,275,924 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Because white people can't be displaced by gentrification because then that upsets people's perceptions about how inequality in society has everything to do with race and helpless victims. If the minorities actually can, and do, displace whites... well, then that disproves their belief system. And it really has nothing to do with a few neighborhoods in the Bay Area. Asian Americans have the highest median income of any group, higher than non-Hispanic Caucasians.
However, is that true within the Bay Area? Asians are certainly poorer than whites in San Francisco, though Chinatown skews the numbers. In any case, I suspect Asians aren't driving out whites due to causing real estate prices but various other cultural push/pull factors. I'll admit I'm just guessing though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2014, 07:14 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,016,941 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
when regional land pressures are high enough. neighborhood rents don't exist in a vacuum.

if you can't afford to live in a neighborhood with a reasonable amount of amenities then you're not really "monied."
No, neighborhoods don't exist in a total vacuum, nor did I suggest they did. But, they can exist as outliers. This seems rather fundamental, so I don't grasp your point. Would you expand on why pointing this out matters?

In the SF bay area, you can earn a lot of money and not be able to afford the neighborhoods with a lot of amenities, what ever those amenities may be. Low amenity homes can still go for $600k. Not particularly amazing moderate amenity neighborhood homes can sell for $1m.



Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
why is that not gentrification?

neighborhoods don't "flip" nearly as quickly as people think/say they do and even then the kind of change that happens over a 20 year period isn't possible unless a lot of people are moving out of the neighborhood in the first place.
If one group is replacing another and it's not clear the group be replaced has weaker financials than the group doing the replacing, it's not gentrification. Gentrification necessarily requires economic disparities.

To your other point, people move. Neighborhoods are dynamic. So, yes, we're assuming a lot of people are moving, but that's just life. What matters is the makeup of the neighborhood; a lot of movement, but a static makeup means the neighborhood looks relatively the same, whereas a lot of movement and an influx, even over a longer period of time, can dramatically change the look of a neighborhood. This is exactly what happened in parts of SE San Jose, wherein, as white people moved over time, they were gradually replaced by asian families, until the neighborhoods suddenly (relatively suddenly) flipped when white people hastened their moves above the normal rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2014, 08:36 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,971,230 times
Reputation: 1958
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
No, neighborhoods don't exist in a total vacuum, nor did I suggest they did. But, they can exist as outliers. This seems rather fundamental, so I don't grasp your point. Would you expand on why pointing this out matters?
because that's how this tangent started . . . that home prices are largely a product of regional incomes and the size of the cohorts of those incomes.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/35749624-post80.html

Quote:
In the SF bay area, you can earn a lot of money and not be able to afford the neighborhoods with a lot of amenities, what ever those amenities may be. Low amenity homes can still go for $600k. Not particularly amazing moderate amenity neighborhood homes can sell for $1m.
The Bay Area and NYC are national (and even international) outliers and that's in part because they are home to industries with exceptionally high salaries and, at least in the case of SF, a slavish insistence on the maintenance of vast swathes of low to medium density development relatively close to the regional core and the painfully slow expansion of a relatively fast, regional rail system.

People don't just move for s***s and giggles. In the Bay Area you have a rapidly growing population with an appallingly low number of new units going up. The return of the middle class to the city (middle class not monied) is largely a result of people trading commutes of 1-2 hours for higher rents. It's still an economic decision.

Quote:
If one group is replacing another and it's not clear the group be replaced has weaker financials than the group doing the replacing, it's not gentrification. Gentrification necessarily requires economic disparities.
So where's the cut off? If it's a household income of $80k replacing a household of $70k that's gentrification?

Quote:
To your other point, people move. Neighborhoods are dynamic. So, yes, we're assuming a lot of people are moving, but that's just life. What matters is the makeup of the neighborhood; a lot of movement, but a static makeup means the neighborhood looks relatively the same, whereas a lot of movement and an influx, even over a longer period of time, can dramatically change the look of a neighborhood. This is exactly what happened in parts of SE San Jose, wherein, as white people moved over time, they were gradually replaced by asian families, until the neighborhoods suddenly (relatively suddenly) flipped when white people hastened their moves above the normal rate.
egggh . . . you realize that white people are declining (rapidly) as % of the population in the US as a whole but in California especially? and that one of the major cohorts of white people is getting really old? and that virtually all of the population growth in CA is from immigration? And that when middle-class people bought into a new suburban development 30 or 40 years ago most of them were in the family formation stage? And that when middle-class people retire they usually sell their house because that's where most of their net worth is? especially in a place like the Bay Area where a whole lot of average homeowners have become real estate millionaires.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2014, 09:30 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,971,230 times
Reputation: 1958
So having a look at SE San Jose it would appear that your perception is guided largely by . . . perception.

Non-hispanic whites in SE San Jose numbered 18,600 in 1970 and peaked at 23,100 in 1990. Today they number 15,028.
The difference is that Asians in the same area went from around 600 in 1970 to 51,516 in 2010.

So, the number of white people hasn't changed all that much. The difference is that they went from being 92% of the population to 16% of the population and that's why you're perceiving that the neighborhood "flipped" as you say . . . because virtually all of the new construction in the last 35 years has been filled by asian households. And why wouldn't it? The white population of CA is stagnant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2014, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,148 posts, read 103,052,823 times
Reputation: 33191
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
The Bay Area and NYC are national (and even international) outliers. . . .
Please repeat this, over and over. I'm getting frustrated with NYC (in particular) getting used as an exemplar for issues like residential parking, shopping habits, etc. IT'S AN OUTLIER, FOLKS!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2014, 07:43 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,275,924 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Please repeat this, over and over. I'm getting frustrated with NYC (in particular) getting used as an exemplar for issues like residential parking, shopping habits, etc. IT'S AN OUTLIER, FOLKS!
I realize that. I (and few others) have stated it's an example of a typical American city. That doesn't mean it can't be an interesting example. Nor I am necessarily trying to make a statement of America overall. I'm puzzled why you think that's implied. Sometimes I'm trying to discuss high density environments. It's a rather good example of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2014, 07:18 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,971,230 times
Reputation: 1958
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I'm puzzled why you think that's implied. Sometimes I'm trying to discuss high density environments. It's a rather good example of that.
NYC can be held up as a good example of what's possible (and what to avoid) but it's generally not a good example of how other US cities are or the problems that they deal with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top