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.
Hipster districts dont impress me personally. I can look past the fact theyre trustafarians.
I love generalizations! Are you calling my grown kids, making entry-level incomes and living with roommates in a hip part of town, trustafarians? Where did they get the trust fund? Not from me...
My experience is that crime-ridden areas get taken over by Yuppies and they bring with them lots of funky shops, cafes and restaurants, along with lots of dating-age people and skyrocketing housing prices. Apparently, you weren't familiar with Lower East Side in the 70s, compared to now.
To this day in Hoboken, some tension exists between the "born and bred" community and the so-called "yuppies".
How much of the "born and bred" is left, though? Hoboken during the mid-20th century was a blue-color working class port city. By the time gentrification came along, it had been on the decline and losing population for many years.
I think the OP's post has a lot of muddled thinking...going through it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooter2219
My thing is this. Whether pro or anti gentrification, its highly difficult to dispute that gentrification is an extreme form of urban renewal. Its not just mere revitilization, but its revitilization driven by the elites, whether they be trustafarians pretending to be artsy and weird (hipsters) or full blown gordon gekkos and lobbyists in training (yuppies).
Gentrification is the exact opposite of urban renewal.
The idea of urban renewal (in theory) was that you'd demolish all the old historic structures, but largely leave the population in place. Yes, in many cases urban renewal involved outright depopulation when it involved downtown expansion, highway construction, or new stadiums, but where residential was replaced with residential, it was supposed to house the same population. In contrast, gentrification keeps the existing urban form, with relatively little demolition (until building at higher density can be borne by the market), but replaces the population.
The other major difference is urban renewal is planned, while gentrification is generally organic. Most true cases of gentrification basically pop out of nowhere, and are highly pushed by first-wave gentrifiers and homeowners fixing up cheap houses well before developers get in on the deal. This is opposed to what I call "revitalization" which is where local government gets together CDCs and big developers and attempts to flip an entire area which was formerly non-residential (say a warehouse district) or semi-blighted - the sort of area which is way too intimidating for homeowners to take on themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooter2219
If gentrifiers have their way, theyll take over the whole city and make it a checkerboard of astronomical wealth and hipster enclaves. This has proven true in San Francisco and much of NYC and just about all of DC is about to see the same fate.
This is a really troublesome comment. What is the "right thing" for an upper-middle class professional to do exactly? If it's wrong to move into a formerly working class urban area, because they'll become a gentrifier, should they instead just stick to the same wealthy urban enclaves and suburban locales they have historically?
IMHO the individual actors are all making rational decisions given the nature of the market. The central problem is one of capitalism, and it shouldn't be colored as an individual moral choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooter2219
Hipster districts dont impress me personally. I can look past the fact theyre trustafarians. I like quirky and interesting things. I like eccentric cafes and diners and whatnot. The difference is before in a artsy bohemian neighborhood, that stuff was affordable if not dirt cheap. In a hipster neighborhood your paying a arm and a leg to enjoy alot of that stuff.
Cities like NY and DC i can still visit and be fascinated if nothing else bc of the fascinating infrastructure networks. But not all cities have those. Many american cities are car dependent, so unless your on the LA or Bay area freeways, theres not much to see in that regard...but the culture and pulse of the city is what makes the place interesting. Like it or not, the working class and starving artist communities were the heart and soul of alot of these cities. All the eccentric and diverse peoples and vibes of the city are erased if a gentrification movement hits the city.
To summarize, Im not sure if thats 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....
As others said, I think this is over the top, given there are very few cities which are remotely close to 100% gentrified. But even if they did, that would just mean that the innovative cheap stuff, and the immigrants, would just move to the suburbs and smaller cities. And I don't see how this is a major loss, since our smaller cities and first-ring suburbs do need a lot of love in some cases.
How much of the "born and bred" is left, though? Hoboken during the mid-20th century was a blue-color working class port city. By the time gentrification came along, it had been on the decline and losing population for many years.
You're correct as many "born and bred" have taken advantage of the gentrification and sold their homes at a huge profit.
However, there are still some who are hanging in there. They are the ones who are keeping the long-time festivals running, etc. I seriously doubt that the newcomers would take the time to do that.
Again, the book I mentioned is a good read if this topic interests you.
I think the OP's post has a lot of muddled thinking...going through it...
Gentrification is the exact opposite of urban renewal.
The idea of urban renewal (in theory) was that you'd demolish all the old historic structures, but largely leave the population in place. Yes, in many cases urban renewal involved outright depopulation when it involved downtown expansion, highway construction, or new stadiums, but where residential was replaced with residential, it was supposed to house the same population. In contrast, gentrification keeps the existing urban form, with relatively little demolition (until building at higher density can be borne by the market), but replaces the population.
I don't think that was the idea of urban renewal, unless you use "historic" as a synonym for "old". Much as you may believe the meme that the Hill District in Pittsburgh was full of some fabulous old houses that got town down for the sole purpose of building the Civic Arena, that's not true. I've posted many pictures of what's left up there on the Hill in various threads on this forum. It's not the greatest, and that's the stuff that wasn't torn down!
As far as gentrification being "organic" (part of the post I snipped and now want to respond to), it's hardly "organic" if it's happening in virtually every city in the US, which it is. Gentrification might be compared to the growth of suburbia in the 50s and 60s. It's the "in" thing.
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.
