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.
I agree historic homes tend to appeal to a slightly older, often a bit better off crowd. Young hipsters types are often more into gritty looking spots or old brick buildings if they care about building type.
We have both in Syracuse, but a twist is that some of it is backed or influenced by Syracuse University either by input with this: SALT District of the Near Westside
I agree historic homes tend to appeal to a slightly older, often a bit better off crowd. Young hipsters types are often more into gritty looking spots or old brick buildings if they care about building type.
I think that type of housing appeals to hipsters too. Just look at Silver Lake/Echo Park in Los Angeles. The difference, I think, is that hipsters will live not only in the cutesy, historic neighborhood but any neighborhood that offers certain conveniences whereas the older crowd rules out visually unattractive neighborhoods altogether (regardless of other conveniences). I think most hipsters would live in Park Slope-style brownstones if they could but they unfortunately missed that boat by a few decades.
I think that type of housing appeals to hipsters too. Just look at Silver Lake/Echo Park in Los Angeles. The difference, I think, is that hipsters will live not only in the cutesy, historic neighborhood but any neighborhood that offers certain conveniences whereas the older crowd rules out visually unattractive neighborhoods altogether (regardless of other conveniences). I think most hipsters would live in Park Slope-style brownstones if they could but they unfortunately missed that boat by a few decades.
I think you're broadly right, but for the "type 2/hipster" demographic I outlined convenience doesn't mean just transit, but having access to a large commercial district of the "right kind" right outside their door. The majority would pick the ugly apartment in the ugly house closer to this sort of commercial landscape, rather than the nice apartment in a beautiful building in a neighborhood which only has relatively minimal commercial zoning.
Based upon the other thread, I want ask people if they've generally noticed there are two different types of gentrification, which start from very different neighborhoods, attract different gentrifiers, and ultimately have slightly different results. I'd label them as follows.
There are volumes and volumes of academic literature on gentrification spanning over 50 years (do a search for "gentrification" on Google Scholar). Suffice to say gentrification can take many different forms depending on the place it occurs, the time period it occurs, the entities involved, and many other factors. What ties all the different forms of gentrification together, though, is that they all represent a class-based shift from working class to middle/upper class, with working class residents, businesses, and social and cultural hubs/networks often being displaced.
What ties all the different forms of gentrification together, though, is that they all represent a class-based shift from working class to middle/upper class, with working class residents, businesses, and social and cultural hubs/networks often being displaced.
Well, except when it doesn't. Gentrification of non-residential areas happens (e.g. parts of Philadelphia's Northern Liberties); if anyone was living there before, they were homeless or squatters, not working class.
There are volumes and volumes of academic literature on gentrification spanning over 50 years (do a search for "gentrification" on Google Scholar). Suffice to say gentrification can take many different forms depending on the place it occurs, the time period it occurs, the entities involved, and many other factors. What ties all the different forms of gentrification together, though, is that they all represent a class-based shift from working class to middle/upper class, with working class residents, businesses, and social and cultural hubs/networks often being displaced.
This is broadly true. But I also think gentrification can mean lower-middle class areas shifting to upper-middle class. This was talked about upthread in Toronto for example. I can think of some examples in Pittsburgh as well. These are basically neighborhoods in the "Queen Anne" belt in the East End. The oldest houses (from around 1900) are quite grand, but the neighborhoods became less desirable in the early 20th century, so the housing stock declines to smaller American Foursquares, and finally little ranches. They never actually became working class however, and ultimately went upper-middle class again over the last 30 years or so, which means they "gentrified" after a fashion.
Well, except when it doesn't. Gentrification of non-residential areas happens (e.g. parts of Philadelphia's Northern Liberties); if anyone was living there before, they were homeless or squatters, not working class.
I agree historic homes tend to appeal to a slightly older, often a bit better off crowd. Young hipsters types are often more into gritty looking spots or old brick buildings if they care about building type.
The difference between a "gritty looking spot with old brick buildings" and a "historic district" is typically about 15-20 years, a few coats of paint, and maybe some signage "Now Entering Gritty-Brick Historic District." Most of the buildings later considered "beautiful historic buildings" were considered obsolete, ugly garbage when the first wave of hipsters arrived there--they became "historic" later after people started fixing them up. In California, the current wave of hipsters is in love with 1950s/60s Mid-Century Modern architecture, and those buildings and neighborhoods are becoming the newest wave of "historic districts" for the same reasons that their grandparents fell in love with Queen Annes and Italianates.
is that they all represent a class-based shift from working class to middle/upper class, with working class residents, businesses, and social and cultural hubs/networks often being displaced.
Displacement certainly makes it sound dramatic but the extent to which this actually happens (as opposed to turnover) is highly questionable. Urban renters move every couple of years on average and neighborhood transition typically takes 20-30 years.
Northern Liberties still isn't finished (still some old warehouses and empty lots) and people have been talking it up at least since the mid-90s. Park Slope has always been a nicer neighborhood but it didn't transition into what it is today overnight.
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.
