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 03-03-2015, 08:23 PM
 
Location: Chicago - Logan Square
3,396 posts, read 6,207,459 times
Reputation: 3717

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Outside of your examples, where we see gentrification we tend to see policies in place that limit even moderate and thoughtful increases in density. So we see a bifurcation along socioeconomic lines between those who can afford SFHs and those who cannot.
Where do you see gentrification increasing the number of SFHs? I haven't seen that in any of the places I've lived in that gentrified (which has been plenty). In the early phases of gentrification the existing housing stock remains, but 3-flats full of families become 3-flats with young couples and college students. Later those run down three flats get replaced with 3 condos, or upgraded apartments. The loss of density has nothing to do with changes to the built environment, it's just families being replaced by young couples or singles.

The later phases usually mean an increase in density. I lived in Ukrainian Village in Chicago while it was gentrifying in the late 90's, and now that it's been gentrified there are plenty of larger buildings being built. Where I've been living for the last 10 years in Logan Square is starting to see the same thing happen with a massive dual tower residential project, a 120 unit building, and a 40 unit building. This is all within a couple blocks, with more large developments happening in the surrounding area. Parts of Brooklyn that I lived in during the late 80's have seen the same thing happen. I've seen similar things happen at a smaller scale in two other areas that I grew up in (JP in Boston and Shephard's Bush in London).

In the Chicago and Brooklyn cases I know that the changes in zoning was driven by politicians and developers. I actually contributed to the push for TOD in Chicago and know from experience that it all started with an alderman (Flores) and a few developers. They did it in direct response to the local real estate market, not due to planners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2015, 10:38 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,016,522 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attrill View Post
Where do you see gentrification increasing the number of SFHs? I haven't seen that in any of the places I've lived in that gentrified (which has been plenty).
That's exactly what I was saying, that where we see gentrification, we tend to see politics and policies that limit development because gentrification tends to be representative of a larger problem of demand overwhelming an artificially constrained supply.

I say "tends to" because gentrification can simply be a wealthier socio-economic group showing preference for something particularly specific, like a very specific and quantifiable neighborhood for which the supply is obviously severely finite. If what you want is a house that is part of a specific tract of homes, there's only so many of those in that tract. But a shortage of that tract does not necessarily--more often than not, it does, but not necessarily--represent a shortage of housing in general across a city or region.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2015, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,517 posts, read 12,042,165 times
Reputation: 10615
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
That's exactly what I was saying, that where we see gentrification, we tend to see politics and policies that limit development because gentrification tends to be representative of a larger problem of demand overwhelming an artificially constrained supply.
Pittsburgh certainly has examples when gentrification has increased the number of single-family homes. The best example is Allegheny West. This neighborhood had close to 3,000 people in 1950, and has only a bit over 300 today. It was initially built out in the mid to late 19th century as one of the first "streetcar suburbs" for the wealthy who worked in Downtown Pittsburgh. In the early/mid 20th century, the grand homes were broken up into rooming houses. But preservationists eventually became interested in the neighborhood, got it made into a historic district, and slowly converted most of the residences back into single-family housing. As a result you have many grand houses (3-4 bedroom) occupied by a single childless couple, or, in some cases, just a single wealthy person.

Of course, this was not the sole factor which contributed to a nearly 90% reduction in population. Many of the grandest houses were taken over in the mid to late 20th century by the expanding Community College of Allegheny County, or converted into offices. But even as the neighborhood has continued to improve, its population has continued to shrink. There's still probably another five grand houses which are re-muddled and split into apartments yet to gentrify, so the population could still shrink further, unless the plans for loft apartments in the old warehouse district on the northern fringe of the neighborhood pan out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2015, 03:00 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,016,522 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Pittsburgh certainly has examples when gentrification has increased the number of single-family homes.
Okay, I think you mean single family households. Saying there's been an increase in the number of SFHs suggests that there's been new development, ie, new single family homes were added to the inventory oh homes. Saying there's been an increase in the number of single family households can mean there's been an absolute increase in HHs (ie, new development) or a relative increase. Your comment was hard to parse before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2016, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Holly Neighborhood, AUSTINtx
3,589 posts, read 5,334,827 times
Reputation: 2243
The numbers simply don't add up. Giving my city as an example, a new home on the small side say 1600 sq. ft., will cost $200k to build. Even if the land were free most people below the median income could not afford to buy a new home here. Thankfully there are older homes on less valuable real estate in the burbs here and across the country.

Fact is poor people buy used cars because that is what they can afford. This helps both ends of the market as the higher income individual has someone to sell his car to, and the poorer person can get a set of wheels. The older the car and the more miles it has on it the cheaper it will be. Housing works much the same way in regards to location, size, and quality of housing. The only way around this is to subsidize the costs, something I'm not prepared to do except on a limited scale.

I think the topic of gentrification has heated up because of the sizable trend of back to city living. I cities like Paris central locations have always commanded top dollar and the suburbs were for the affordable housing. Many US cities are on a similar path and the transition will cause some heartburn.

Maybe we should look at the Miami example (aside from building housing on the rising coastline part):

How Miami Fought Gentrification and Won (for Now)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 05:17 PM
 
150 posts, read 149,316 times
Reputation: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by verybadgnome View Post
The numbers simply don't add up. Giving my city as an example, a new home on the small side say 1600 sq. ft., will cost $200k to build. Even if the land were free most people below the median income could not afford to buy a new home here. Thankfully there are older homes on less valuable real estate in the burbs here and across the country.

Fact is poor people buy used cars because that is what they can afford. This helps both ends of the market as the higher income individual has someone to sell his car to, and the poorer person can get a set of wheels. The older the car and the more miles it has on it the cheaper it will be. Housing works much the same way in regards to location, size, and quality of housing. The only way around this is to subsidize the costs, something I'm not prepared to do except on a limited scale.

I think the topic of gentrification has heated up because of the sizable trend of back to city living. I cities like Paris central locations have always commanded top dollar and the suburbs were for the affordable housing. Many US cities are on a similar path and the transition will cause some heartburn.

Maybe we should look at the Miami example (aside from building housing on the rising coastline part):

How Miami Fought Gentrification and Won (for Now)
Interesting
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