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 06-28-2014, 11:10 AM
 
3,262 posts, read 3,002,974 times
Reputation: 1893

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I am talking young people of a certain type. And in the Bay Area we have both food stamp hipsters and techie hipsters with lots of disposable income. And hipster places are pretty much code words for expensive. Hence through $5 toast phenomenon. The going rate for a latte is $4 in Oakland now. The trendy beer bar has a $7 corn dog (made with organic corn and local ingredients) and their main courses are about $23. The going rate for a cocktail at most places is $10-11.

I am not particularly cheap when it comes to food,but sadly the going rate for lunch these days is about $11-13 for an entree. I starting thinking it is a deal if lunch is under $10.
Well think about it this way, if people are spending market rent or making major lifestyle sacrifices in terms of housing quality to live in a hipster area, the sticker cost of the relatively expensive food and entertainment options is much lower than the cost of merely being in the neighborhood itself. So the prices gets a bit ridiculous relative to places serving other populations because the customers are relatively price insensitive at the point of sale, since the monetary or QOL cost of living there or the time cost hauling out there and back to hang out there is so much higher than the actual food and entertainment direct prices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2014, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,655,359 times
Reputation: 26646
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity View Post
Well think about it this way, if people are spending market rent or making major lifestyle sacrifices in terms of housing quality to live in a hipster area, the sticker cost of the relatively expensive food and entertainment options is much lower than the cost of merely being in the neighborhood itself. So the prices gets a bit ridiculous relative to places serving other populations because the customers are relatively price insensitive at the point of sale, since the monetary or QOL cost of living there or the time cost hauling out there and back to hang out there is so much higher than the actual food and entertainment direct prices.
The problem in the Bay Area is that for the middle class, particularly families, the cost of living is pretty ridiculous. I make what most people would call a good income, and there aren't really more than a couple neighborhoods I can afford a one bedroom condo in. And none of them are with in 30 mikes of my job, that's for sure. I do live 30 miles away on purpose because well I like my neighborhood and the once in the 30 mile radius of work suck (for my preferences). And well I'll probably end up getting a enjoy sooner than later.

So now that the hipsters discovered oakland, one of the few places that actually still has a middle class in the Bay Area, well people are getting priced out. It is so crazy that the rents in the hipster areas are now more than ones in the most affluent areas of town. This isn't an exaggeration. And many of these areas were really pretty marginal. So many formerly cheap areas suddenly cost as much as the rich areas....so what happens to those people? Well in our region they get displaced to 30-40 miles away in the exurbs with no community or transit...and that ends up causing pollution, traffic congestion and all sorts of social issues. And the people with enough means to have a choice leave the area.

And let me be completely honest, a 160k household income is the minimum for a middle class existence for a family with kids, and they will have to sacrifice commute time, housing size or school quality. With that income you can only pick 2 from that list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2014, 12:00 PM
 
3,262 posts, read 3,002,974 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
The problem in the Bay Area is that for the middle class, particularly families, the cost of living is pretty ridiculous. I make what most people would call a good income, and there aren't really more than a couple neighborhoods I can afford a one bedroom condo in. And none of them are with in 30 mikes of my job, that's for sure. I do live 30 miles away on purpose because well I like my neighborhood and the once in the 30 mile radius of work suck (for my preferences). And well I'll probably end up getting a enjoy sooner than later.

So now that the hipsters discovered oakland, one of the few places that actually still has a middle class in the Bay Area, well people are getting priced out. It is so crazy that the rents in the hipster areas are now more than ones in the most affluent areas of town. This isn't an exaggeration. And many of these areas were really pretty marginal. So many formerly cheap areas suddenly cost as much as the rich areas....so what happens to those people? Well in our region they get displaced to 30-40 miles away in the exurbs with no community or transit...and that ends up causing pollution, traffic congestion and all sorts of social issues. And the people with enough means to have a choice leave the area.

And let me be completely honest, a 160k household income is the minimum for a middle class existence for a family with kids, and they will have to sacrifice commute time, housing size or school quality. With that income you can only pick 2 from that list.
Sure hipsters and gentrifiers moving in make an area less affordable for others by increasing the amount of money chasing scarce market rent apartments and by supporting more expensive businesses, and it can be problematic for other people who aren't insulated from the increases and either are or would otherwise want to be in the area as well. It's just that the prices of things aren't overpriced for their target audience relative to the perceived value in them. A family or an old-time resident in subsidized housing might not think that, but they aren't the target market for those businesses.

Really the only viable solution to more people wanting to live in and take advantage of an area or proximity to the city than there is housing for is to allow more housing and commercial space to be built -- unfortunately and not coincidentally the places being hit the hardest with exclusion due to gentrification-driven price increases are precisely the areas that don't allow development to meet the demand for housing, like the Bay Area, NYC metro, Boston, DC, etc. Meanwhile, go to a city like say Austin that does allow for development and the price hikes still happen, but not enough to exclude families and poorer residents entirely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2014, 01:34 PM
 
10,910 posts, read 9,322,273 times
Reputation: 6598
There's a chase here, let's cut to it. I'm using NYC, and Manhattan specifically, as the model, but this can be seen elsewhere.

Once upon a time (that time being the 60's through the early 80's), a lot of cities were post industrial wastelands. Their manufacturing base left, there was lots of fallow real estate, lots of crime, and the governments were running out of money. The families that had lived in the inner cities fled to the suburbs (at least the ones that could.)

These factors mostly caused blight, but in some areas, and in NY this was particularly the case, there was enough money flowing to sustain the economy (in NY, wall street drove this) to some extent, and the decay, and the general anything goes attitude that came out of the 60's, combined with a lot of cheap, big, empty space allowed a lot of fun, if not particularly socially acceptable activities to be sustainable. The artist class also were able to make use of all this cheap, big space. So the cities became something of a center for an interesting combination of creativity and debauchery. The people who stayed in the city were the people who appreciated this. The ones that didn't, left.

However at some point (that point being the crack cowboy days of the mid-80s), the out and out violence and criminality drove a big backlash against the anything goes mentality. Also, the real estate community started to see the value of the heretofore undervalued property in the city cores. So there was a burst of law and order politics and redevelopment that kicked off at the same time. This had the desired effect. The cities (at least in NYCs case) become much safer, and there was a much nicer set of housing stock available. The debauchery got toned down by the combination of tougher enforcement and more competition for space (leading to higher rents and landlords not having to put up with legally questionable activities.) This also encourage people who were starting families to stay in the city. They needed more space, pushing up rents, and also created more pressure to "clean things up." So the people who liked the old, cheap, anything goes situation have been increasing shut down and squeezed out, in favor of richer families with a more suburban mindset (even if they don't want to admit it.)

Even if you don't like this, short of crushing the cities economies with the idea of creating the fallow ground that spawned the last cycle, there's nothing that can be done about it. And, in point of fact, even people might find the boring, it leaves the cities in much better shape by any objective standards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2014, 03:21 PM
 
798 posts, read 908,585 times
Reputation: 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
There's a chase here, let's cut to it. I'm using NYC, and Manhattan specifically, as the model, but this can be seen elsewhere.

Once upon a time (that time being the 60's through the early 80's), a lot of cities were post industrial wastelands. Their manufacturing base left, there was lots of fallow real estate, lots of crime, and the governments were running out of money. The families that had lived in the inner cities fled to the suburbs (at least the ones that could.)

These factors mostly caused blight, but in some areas, and in NY this was particularly the case, there was enough money flowing to sustain the economy (in NY, wall street drove this) to some extent, and the decay, and the general anything goes attitude that came out of the 60's, combined with a lot of cheap, big, empty space allowed a lot of fun, if not particularly socially acceptable activities to be sustainable. The artist class also were able to make use of all this cheap, big space. So the cities became something of a center for an interesting combination of creativity and debauchery. The people who stayed in the city were the people who appreciated this. The ones that didn't, left.

However at some point (that point being the crack cowboy days of the mid-80s), the out and out violence and criminality drove a big backlash against the anything goes mentality. Also, the real estate community started to see the value of the heretofore undervalued property in the city cores. So there was a burst of law and order politics and redevelopment that kicked off at the same time. This had the desired effect. The cities (at least in NYCs case) become much safer, and there was a much nicer set of housing stock available. The debauchery got toned down by the combination of tougher enforcement and more competition for space (leading to higher rents and landlords not having to put up with legally questionable activities.) This also encourage people who were starting families to stay in the city. They needed more space, pushing up rents, and also created more pressure to "clean things up." So the people who liked the old, cheap, anything goes situation have been increasing shut down and squeezed out, in favor of richer families with a more suburban mindset (even if they don't want to admit it.)

Even if you don't like this, short of crushing the cities economies with the idea of creating the fallow ground that spawned the last cycle, there's nothing that can be done about it. And, in point of fact, even people might find the boring, it leaves the cities in much better shape by any objective standards.
The biggest irony of gentrification is that the same people that push gentrification are the ones who let the cities and neoghborhoods decline to start with: real estate and big business/corporate class.

As you stated the industries left and those industries were the sole reason a lot of people came to the city to begin with. The industries fed the tax base and the city coffers. As for real estate, the words blockbusting and redlining tell their role in the decline.

You made a good point about the debauchery and creativity.....and youre right, little can be done to stop gentrification.......but I wonder how I am going to perceive cities within the next 10-20 years.....granted, there are many cities where gentrification is either small scale or damn near non existent.....but its ironic that the irony I speak of happened to some of americas most interesting and fascinating cities....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2014, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,729,443 times
Reputation: 32304
Default 1% ?? Quite an exaggeration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooter2219 View Post
.......To summarize, Im not sure if that's the purpose, but gentrification ends up erasing most, if not everything that made the city a fun and interesting place to go in the firstplace. It just becomes a playground for the 1% crowd. so goes life i suppose....
I don't think your hyperbole in the sentence I bolded helps make your point. I am a retired high school teacher, age 70 - hardly a member of the "1% crowd". Yet I greatly enjoy the rich culture of the revitalized Grand Avenue corridor in downtown Los Angeles - Opera, Los Angeles Philharmonic, Los Angeles Master Chorale, live theatre - even though I cannot afford to live in the high rise residential units which have proliferated in that area in the last 10 to 20 years. But visiting is affordable; many of the eateries on Grand just a few blocks south of Disney Concert Hall are quite affordable for middle class people like me.

Now admittedly, good seats for the things I like are not cheap, and I may only partake of them about twice a month on average over the course of a year. But for me Grand Avenue and its world class culture is a real treasure, and your talk about the 1% is rather absurd, at least in the context I am talking about.

Perhaps I am being unfair in my choice of example, as I know little about the specifics of Manhattan and Washington D.C. And maybe you just got carried away and didn't mean the 1% literally. But still I couldn't let that 1% comment pass without rebuttal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2014, 04:32 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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post

Perhaps I am being unfair in my choice of example, as I know little about the specifics of Manhattan and Washington D.C. And maybe you just got carried away and didn't mean the 1% literally. But still I couldn't let that 1% comment pass without rebuttal.
He's engaging in hyperbole, there are not enough 1% even in Manhattan for it be dominated by them. To be the 1% you need a household income of at least $343k / year. That's roughly 15-20% of the Manhattan core (as in excluding mostly poor Upper Manhattan). The upper middle class can survive in Manhattan and other gentrified cities (a couple with two good white collar jobs can make the rent). However, artists and others in more average-paying jobs (like a schoolteacher) wouldn't be able to afford to live there. They will be, as you do, afford to go to events and eateries, but not be able to afford housing to live there. The opera singer, starving-artists types have been priced out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2014, 04:47 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,729,443 times
Reputation: 32304
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
He's engaging in hyperbole, there are not enough 1% even in Manhattan for it be dominated by them. To be the 1% you need a household income of at least $343k / year. That's roughly 15-20% of the Manhattan core (as in excluding mostly poor Upper Manhattan). The upper middle class can survive in Manhattan and other gentrified cities (a couple with two good white collar jobs can make the rent). However, artists and others in more average-paying jobs (like a schoolteacher) wouldn't be able to afford to live there. They will be, as you do, afford to go to events and eateries, but not be able to afford housing to live there. The opera singer, starving-artists types have been priced out.
Thanks for that Bankrate.com link defining the 1%. It may be slightly dated, as it is based on the 2009 tax year, but I found it very interesting. If I had had to guess, I would have guessed the income would have to be much higher to qualify.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2014, 04:52 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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Thanks for that Bankrate.com link defining the 1%. It may be slightly dated, as it is based on the 2009 tax year, but I found it very interesting. If I had had to guess, I would have guessed the income would have to be much higher to qualify.
Your perception might be skewed since you live in Los Angeles. Outside of some big metro areas, there's not really the money to generate that type of wealth. 1% in Los Angeles County is probably quite a bit higher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2014, 07:38 PM
 
13,012 posts, read 6,224,968 times
Reputation: 10828
There is an interesting book about how gentrification affected Hoboken, NJ. I've read it and found it to be quite interesting:

Yuppies Invade My House at Dinnertime: A Tale of Brunch, Bombs, and Gentrification in an American City: Joseph Barry, John Derevlany: 9780944421017: Amazon.com: Books

To this day in Hoboken, some tension exists between the "born and bred" community and the so-called "yuppies".
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