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.
If that doesn't motivate them to change their lives, then what will?
I'm staying in the middle of a gentrified area, and it is exciting with all of the changes taking place, and all of the changes are positive.
With real tax-paying people occupying the buildings now, there's fewer people loitering, less violence, less drugs and less crime.
Re: "change their lives"... some of the people being pushed out of gentrifying areas are elderly pensioners, retirees, etc. who are longtime residents of the neighbourhood. Some people are permanently stuck living on limited incomes, so I do spare a bit of sympathy for them. Overall though, gentrification is a net positive, in my view.
This is why I make the distinction between "gentrification" and "revitalization." No one protests when a blight and crime filled neighborhood is revitalized. But, people living in a stable--but not middle/upper-class--neighborhood that is gentrified, have a right to be upset, IMO. If lots of "yuppies" start moving into their neighborhood; tearing down their modest homes and businesses, to be replaced with shiny McMansions and breakfast cereal cafes, they have a right to feel resentment. (though I don't condone illegal activity, of course)
The entire personality of the neighborhood changes. People no longer are friendly. Houses are no longer affordable. Rents go sky high. The sense of community is lost. Overcrowding takes place. Old houses and green spaces are torn up and in their place go ugly new behemoth apartment buildings. Ma and Pa stores are replaced by chains. So are restaurants. The diversity of age and ethnicity disappears. Wealth moves in. The area begins to look like every other cookie cutter trendy city neighborhood. All uniqueness if it was there before is gone. Everyone is mostly the same age and income. There is tremendous overcrowding.
If the people who live there today like it the way it is now, that's fine. They don't know it the way it was, maybe they wouldn't have liked it maybe not. It probably wouldn't have been bland enough for them. To each their own.
There are several areas that I'm familiar with that were easy to gentrify since they were nice little
neighborhoods but they spread out further. There was a larger sense of a community with diverse age groups and incomes. At that time, people worked near their job, paid property taxes, took pride
in home ownership including those who rented (had gardens and they too took pride in the property
which they didn't own). There was a variety of age groups as well as a mix blue to white collar
residents (teachers, doctors, engineers, factory workers, welders, etc...)
What got lost was the character of the neighborhood and the amenities that existed back then i.e.,
walking to the grocery store, the bank, the quaint mom and pop delis, bakeries, restaurants, access
to the downtown without using a car but wait - isn't that why people want to live in these
areas even today?
I'll visit every now and then and see some of the charming and older architecture has been
demolished and replaced but the huge difference is that most of the businesses are corporate chains.
So, as an observer and a consumer, I feel I can be in anywhere USA.
There are some studies that suggest that people move out of a neighborhood more slowly once it starts gentrifying. Perhaps the difference is, people don't complain about moving out of a bad neighborhood they don't like, but they do complain about moving out of a good neighborhood they do like?
Yes, I would agree with this. Long after my previous neighborhood became "improved" which just meant a few houses being fixed up and some crime being gotten rid of, the area was a really nice place to live. It wasn't the best neighborhood but I wouldn't have called it "bad" either.
But when it started becoming gentrified, changes were made that didn't have to be made. It went from an already vital neighborhood that had been made better to a neighborhood that had been made very different. Some of the those differences were overcrowding, less diverse, overpriced, loss of sense of community, loss of beloved green spaces and century old trees and the tearing down of beautiful old homes in perfect condition in order to build massive apartment buildings to house those newcomers who are the only people who can afford to live there.
Modest income people and retirees like me who have lived in the neighborhood for nearly 30 years have been forced out. There is no place to go because all other neighborhoods are experiencing the same thing. So in a way, I like being in a new city that is more diverse and in that sense I don't miss what is no longer there in the former one. But not everyone who is pushed out can afford to relocate and homelessness often becomes a problem.
Re: "change their lives"... some of the people being pushed out of gentrifying areas are elderly pensioners, retirees, etc. who are longtime residents of the neighbourhood.
So? Those "longtime residents" are part of the problem. They failed or refused to get involved in their community/neighborhood, which is one of the reasons it went to hell in the first place.
They have no one to blame, but themselves for their plight.
So? Those "longtime residents" are part of the problem. They failed or refused to get involved in their community/neighborhood, which is one of the reasons it went to hell in the first place.
They have no one to blame, but themselves for their plight.
That's the biggest bunch of manure I have heard in a long time. I know of neighborhood associations one in which I have had personal experience in at least three different neighborhoods that fought the paving over, tearing down and plowing under of their neighborhoods only to be bulldozed by corrupt politicians being paid off by greedy property developers who came in and tore down what existed to lure in the suckers who were willing to pay exorbitant prices just for an address.
In some of the neighborhoods where people could afford it, they bought up property to prevent this from happening but in most, the people couldn't afford to so they lost their neighborhoods or the best parts of them.
As an example, in a very wealthy neighborhood in Portland, OR, called Eastmoreland, developers wanted to tear down centuries old redwood trees to build large duplexes. This is happening all over the city only most of the buildings are giant apartment complexes. Land and trees are being removed at blinding speed. But the people in Eastmoreland rallied and fought and were able to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars to save the trees.
In the past, a few less affluent neighborhoods were able to purchase small homes about to be bulldozed to make way for giant apartment buildings. People are constantly fighting against their neighborhoods being taken over by large developers changing their areas but it's a losing battle for most of them
That's the biggest bunch of manure I have heard in a long time. I know of neighborhood associations one in which I have had personal experience in at least three different neighborhoods that fought the paving over, tearing down and plowing under of their neighborhoods only to be bulldozed by corrupt politicians being paid off by greedy property developers who came in and tore down what existed to lure in the suckers who were willing to pay exorbitant prices just for an address.
Right! And had your neighborhood gone to hell before it was "saved" by the gentrifiers?
Right! And had your neighborhood gone to hell before it was "saved" by the gentrifiers?
Yeah, this is an example of the "Hell" the neighborhood was in.
Ordinances were violated right and left. One in which a developer aka "Destroyers" are supposed to give the Neighborhood Associations notice of any property marked for destruction and something new being proposed to take it's place in order for the neighborhood to look into purchasing that property. In other words, the community is supposed to have first rights. This ordinance was blatantly ignored. When the NA challenged it a vague loophole was said to have been found. More than likely one that contained lots of "green" and I don't mean the little pocket park that was demolished along side this beautiful building.
The way the sale of the houses came about this way. The owner could no longer afford the property taxes. He sold them to a realtor with the promise the tenants would have their rents raised to the point where they would have to move out. The houses were 102 years old and had been used as offices for decades. They were in perfect condition.
As soon as the ink on the deed was dry, he not only kicked the tenants out, he began demolishing the houses and all the trees you see in one picture. What isn't shown in the picture in the link below is a rhododendron bush as big as a tree that had been there for decades along with a lilac bush and a small evergreen tree all surrounding a grassy space. People sat and ate their lunch there from the offices nearby. The grounds were kept immaculate. Sure, this area needed "revitalization."
The tear down began rapidly before anyone could try and bring this to court. This is very common in these neighborhoods. But one of the houses was saved. The developed got such bad publicity that although the demolition had begun he gave the NA two weeks to find a buy and move the house off the property. A couple in the neighborhood took up the challenge, bought the house for two dollars and proceeded to have it moved around corner to a vacant lot where it now sits having been divided up into apartments. The neighborhood association backed them up. So did the people who didn't belong to the association. People chipped in to help pay for the house movers.
It was a precarious move. The Credit Union allowed them to move it through their parking lot next door but it was a real knuckle biter that it would make it. The whole neighborhood came out to watch.
The new building is ugly as sin especially when you think of the elegant houses and the beautiful little green space it has replaced. This is a detraction from the neighborhood. Now because the building has so many tenants and smoking is not allowed, they linger outside on the streets to smoke. The sidewalks are littered with crushed cigarette butts. They are crowded with people trying to sit on the small grassy area on the side of the building which spills over to the small apartment complex next door and disturbs the tenants living there. Dogs are allowed and people aren't picking up after them as the incumbent neighbors who took pride in their neighborhood always did. They are noisy at late hours because on ground level there is a small coffee shop with outdoor seating. There is no parking space provided for the 77 apartments so the streets are overcrowded.
It seems to be the way people want to live these days. Stuffed into tiny apartments, paying exorbitant prices for them and destroying the green around them. That's what gentrification has come to mean in some neighborhoods. People do try to save their neighborhoods but it's a losing battle. You can't fight city hall most of the time and you can't fight the people with the most money. But sometimes small victories do happen.
We bought into a neighborhood that was transitioning- it seemed like it could've flipped either direction, better or worse- that, while not necessarily "the hood", did have some rougher spots/edges and not the best reputation. This was 19 years ago and we have experienced what I would term as pretty well full gentrification.
For this neighborhood very little of its transformation has been negative for most of its residents. A very good historic housing stock has benefited from new owners appreciating the original architecture and with financial resources to rehab and renovate homes and buildings that often were nearly falling down from the deferred maintenance of elderly or cash strapped owners, mostly keeping within the surrounding architectural and density context. The business district especially has essentially been reborn from a handful of dusty, out of date stores to a whole village of independent boutiques, restaurants and pubs serving an audience that it draws from throughout the county. A row of 100 year old buildings that had been vacant for decades was restored and renovated and filled with great local and independent businesses.
Because of a very strong local PDO (Planned Development Ordinance) overlaying the very Historic protective city zoning, the mostly 100 y.o. buildings both commercial and residential have mostly remained and only gotten better while there has been enough new development to give it a real character of a vital community in 2015 and not stuck 100 years ago. The zoning is very specific to encourage a certain dense village, no more than three stories (very rare) but built right to the sidewalk along just two business/residential streets and a couple of pockets of multi-family allowed but the vast majority of the neighborhood has actually been down-zoned from multi-family to SFR in the remaining areas out to the beautiful local canyons.
Yes there are more hipsters, beards, craft beers, artisan foods, wares and tattoos, but there are also more families, beautiful houses and gardens, a new top rated charter school and many community minded events that tie us all together in a very friendly, charming and vibrant "village" directly adjacent a large downtown city. The elderly folks that have owned here forever can easily stay, their property taxes often are less than $500, and when they pass on the houses change hands and almost invariably become much nicer and, yes, much more expensive, but that is coastal California for you more than a few fixed up houses and shops.
There is a downside to a bit less diversity in the neighborhood, but most folks are still represented. But with modest sized Craftsman and Spanish Bungalows going for just this side of $1M and often over, (we bought for $179K) and 1 BR basement Apts going for over $2000/mo. a certain demographic is now much more represented then the former working, military and middle management class that defined this area for so many decades that I now miss.
All I can say is that we bought at a damn good time, and have landed in a community that we liked when we arrived, rough around the edges that it was, to now astounded to how wonderful it has become and feeling like we will never leave having found a little slice of (now expensive) paradise by the sea. Gentrification ain't all bad.
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.
