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 02-26-2015, 07:51 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,053,448 times
Reputation: 8970

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stokes View Post
Marxist rhetoric. Incite class struggle. Feed the envy. Find the scapegoat. Nothing new.

Gentrification is class warfare. Because humans are hierarchical social animals, class warfare is natural.

Therefore, gentrification is natural.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-26-2015, 08:14 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,053,448 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz View Post
A bunch of empty words.

City officials facilitate developers' activities because those activities result in added housing. The construction of housing is a necessity of civilization. Everyone benefits from the construction of housing, and likewise, everyone is harmed by slow-downs in housing construction. In order to promote the construction of good-quality housing, you need to allow private companies to profit from the very expensive activity of building new housing. Developers receive a return profit by selling off their buildings to private parties, who in turn make a profit from renting apartments/housing at market value.

What exactly is the relief sought by the complaints of these gentrification crybabies? Should we all just live in commie blocks with all housing constructed by the government and provided to US citizens regardless of income-levels? That is completely unfeasible since our government doesn't have the resources to build and manage all housing units (unless we were to completely reform our entire government).

I think it's safe to say that most Americans would not want to live in a system that practiced a socialist model of housing construction, except for those few socialists living in America.

Gentrification displaces people. How do the people displaced by gentrification benefit from the construction of housing?

Here's an idea: Gentrification has two sides; property values increase and some people get displaced. Some portion of the property tax gain could be used to reduce displacement.

People displaced and those at risk of displacement might not want the construction of good-quality housing; i.e. they might prefer affordable housing of mediocre quality.

Building, housing, and zoning codes exist largely to raise the cost of housing beyond what the poor can afford, and when they complain, they are derided as crybabies.

We should not live in commie blocks with all housing constructed by government, we should live in libertarian blocks with all housing constructed by the private sector, under specifications chosen by the private sector.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2015, 11:20 PM
 
Location: Chicago - Logan Square
3,396 posts, read 6,182,219 times
Reputation: 3717
While I somewhat agree with the article, in general I think it's more of an indictment of the narrowness of what urban planning considers more than it's a rejection of the views of planners he doesn't agree with (and that indictment applies to the author as well).

The Chicago School is ancient at this point. While the class lines it is concerned with still exist, many of the ethnic and racial lines it was concerned with have been blurred to the point of irrelevance. Almost no one of any race would have a problem moving into a neighborhood that was full of Black/Asian/Hispanic professionals, and almost no one has a problem with a professional of any race or ethnicity moving into their neighborhood. That is very different from the environment that gave birth to the old Chicago School.

That still leaves us with income and education (AKA class) as a dividing line. This is a multi-edged sword, since income and education of residents also happens to be a very good indicator of school quality, crime levels, and the overall upkeep and environment of a neighborhood. While the success of the civil rights movement in the 60's allowed many minority groups to move forward, it also allowed them to leave the areas they grew up in, because once their "class" changed they didn't want to stay where they grew up. That is a much larger cause of the disintegration of many older neighborhoods. People weren't driven out, instead many people chose to identify with class over race or ethnicity.

Another large problem in discussions about "gentrification" is a false belief in the integrity, or even existence, of culturally coherent lower income neighborhoods. In some cities there are culturally coherent neighborhoods during the first wave of immigrants to an area, but it always passes within a generation as the children of immigrants move on to the suburbs or other cities. That's why Chicago has Hispanic neighborhoods with names like Humboldt and Pilsen.

Ultimately the biggest problems are economic - declining wages, the loss of decent paying low skilled jobs, the shift of profits to investments instead of labor, and corporate taxes on the poor through payday loan scams and other methods. Gentrification is nothing more than a symptom of a growing income disparity, and that cannot be fixed through any sort of urban planning. Pretending that it can be just allows the problem to grow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2015, 11:30 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,958 posts, read 3,819,250 times
Reputation: 3281
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Gentrification displaces people. How do the people displaced by gentrification benefit from the construction of housing?

Here's an idea: Gentrification has two sides; property values increase and some people get displaced. Some portion of the property tax gain could be used to reduce displacement.

People displaced and those at risk of displacement might not want the construction of good-quality housing; i.e. they might prefer affordable housing of mediocre quality.

Building, housing, and zoning codes exist largely to raise the cost of housing beyond what the poor can afford, and when they complain, they are derided as crybabies.

We should not live in commie blocks with all housing constructed by government, we should live in libertarian blocks with all housing constructed by the private sector, under specifications chosen by the private sector.
So according to you, we should stop developers from constructing new housing and have a lot of old, decaying buildings because since poor people can't have nice things, no one should be able to. Sounds like a grand idea!

Well then, move to Detroit! It sounds like exactly the place you're looking for! Even better, go move to a third world country. You'll never have to worry about gentrification there!

Meanwhile, the rest of us will go to college and have enough intelligence to acquire a job that pays enough to live in the area we desire to live. Selecting the proper career that pays enough to keep you afloat really doesn't take much intelligence. But I guess some folks will always complain and demand that they're entitled to live in their ideal housing, without having to put in the intelligence to choose the proper career. I'm sorry, but not everyone is a "special snowflake." Heck, there is an enormous disparity level between the quality of life in the US to many other countries around the world. The distribution of wealth and resources is not equally distributed, but ultimately there is no way to artificially distribute all wealth equally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2015, 03:03 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,053,448 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz View Post
So according to you, we should stop developers from constructing new housing and have a lot of old, decaying buildings because since poor people can't have nice things, no one should be able to. Sounds like a grand idea!

Well then, move to Detroit! It sounds like exactly the place you're looking for! Even better, go move to a third world country. You'll never have to worry about gentrification there!

Meanwhile, the rest of us will go to college and have enough intelligence to acquire a job that pays enough to live in the area we desire to live. Selecting the proper career that pays enough to keep you afloat really doesn't take much intelligence. But I guess some folks will always complain and demand that they're entitled to live in their ideal housing, without having to put in the intelligence to choose the proper career. I'm sorry, but not everyone is a "special snowflake." Heck, there is an enormous disparity level between the quality of life in the US to many other countries around the world. The distribution of wealth and resources is not equally distributed, but ultimately there is no way to artificially distribute all wealth equally.

No, just allow developers to construct as much cheap housing as the market will support, subject to infrastructure constraints. Housing is best left to the private sector, not to government. People are entitled to live in whatever housing they can afford in a free market, whether that housing is ideal or not. The choice of what to build should be left to the private sector, rather than to the social engineers in government.

Nobody is a special snowflake. Everyone deserves the housing they can afford, nothing more. Everyone also deserves a housing market free of government cost inflation. If you think you deserve a neighborhood free of poor people, find a gated community with an HOA. Don't use government to price the poor out of your neighborhood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2015, 03:11 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,053,448 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attrill View Post
While I somewhat agree with the article, in general I think it's more of an indictment of the narrowness of what urban planning considers more than it's a rejection of the views of planners he doesn't agree with (and that indictment applies to the author as well).

The Chicago School is ancient at this point. While the class lines it is concerned with still exist, many of the ethnic and racial lines it was concerned with have been blurred to the point of irrelevance. Almost no one of any race would have a problem moving into a neighborhood that was full of Black/Asian/Hispanic professionals, and almost no one has a problem with a professional of any race or ethnicity moving into their neighborhood. That is very different from the environment that gave birth to the old Chicago School.

That still leaves us with income and education (AKA class) as a dividing line. This is a multi-edged sword, since income and education of residents also happens to be a very good indicator of school quality, crime levels, and the overall upkeep and environment of a neighborhood. While the success of the civil rights movement in the 60's allowed many minority groups to move forward, it also allowed them to leave the areas they grew up in, because once their "class" changed they didn't want to stay where they grew up. That is a much larger cause of the disintegration of many older neighborhoods. People weren't driven out, instead many people chose to identify with class over race or ethnicity.

Another large problem in discussions about "gentrification" is a false belief in the integrity, or even existence, of culturally coherent lower income neighborhoods. In some cities there are culturally coherent neighborhoods during the first wave of immigrants to an area, but it always passes within a generation as the children of immigrants move on to the suburbs or other cities. That's why Chicago has Hispanic neighborhoods with names like Humboldt and Pilsen.

Ultimately the biggest problems are economic - declining wages, the loss of decent paying low skilled jobs, the shift of profits to investments instead of labor, and corporate taxes on the poor through payday loan scams and other methods. Gentrification is nothing more than a symptom of a growing income disparity, and that cannot be fixed through any sort of urban planning. Pretending that it can be just allows the problem to grow.

Not everyone is 'class consistent', where income and education levels are consonant with each other. As such, gentrification is pretty much all about income and not much about education - the educated poor have no defense against gentrification and displacement by the uneducated affluent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2015, 06:14 AM
 
15,734 posts, read 9,251,350 times
Reputation: 14217
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Gentrification displaces people. How do the people displaced by gentrification benefit from the construction of housing?

Here's an idea: Gentrification has two sides; property values increase and some people get displaced. Some portion of the property tax gain could be used to reduce displacement.

People displaced and those at risk of displacement might not want the construction of good-quality housing; i.e. they might prefer affordable housing of mediocre quality.

Building, housing, and zoning codes exist largely to raise the cost of housing beyond what the poor can afford, and when they complain, they are derided as crybabies.

We should not live in commie blocks with all housing constructed by government, we should live in libertarian blocks with all housing constructed by the private sector, under specifications chosen by the private sector.
Codes are not put into place to "screw the poor". That is NOT their intention.

Reverse gentrification also displaces people. Houses turn into rentals, rentals turn in to boarding houses. Next thing you know, the neighborhood is unlivable.

As for housing with mediocre quality, it sounds good now, but the first time shoddy building causes someone harm, the folks that shrieked for affordable housing would be the first ones to sue because they were forced to live in sub-standard conditions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2015, 06:51 AM
 
726 posts, read 699,691 times
Reputation: 1718
Everything is natural.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2015, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
363 posts, read 366,764 times
Reputation: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by P London View Post
Yeah great that the original people are pushed aside and are priced out to the edge of the city! Just great!
I actually think that it is.. are people entitled to living in a highly desirable area? Not in my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2015, 11:18 AM
 
5,076 posts, read 8,507,796 times
Reputation: 4632
Quote:
Originally Posted by regrone23 View Post
But his point is that cities are a political arena - conscious policy decisions (aimed at facilitating developers and other agents of capital) bring about gentrification far more than any "natural" evolution.
The suburbs and exurbs are a political arena as well. How is developing more further out on the edge of civilization any more natural than re-developing areas that already have infrastructure?

The anti-gentrification crowd seems to see decay as being the "correct" path for urban areas. If that doesn't happen then something unholy is underfoot. Politics are just as prevalent in the economics of decay and sprawl as they are in gentrification. Pretending they're not related is simply an exercise in cognitive dissonance designed to justify one's position on the issue.

Last edited by mkarch; 02-27-2015 at 11:48 AM..
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