Why are people against gentrification? (Atlanta, Marietta: real estate, renters, condos)

[Forhall]

Just curious...why does it seem many in Atlanta are against gentrification? It is gentrification that is leading to our expanding skyline. Gentrification is causing our schools to get better, and our streets safer. Its increasing investment into the city, brining new companies and industries, and further bringing in more highly educated residents.

The argument against it that I hear is always old residents get pushed out. But what does that really mean? Most people love watching their formerly unsafe neighborhood become desirable and safe. Those that leave do so because their home is now worth more than they ever imagined, and they can cash out. The public schools where they seen their children get better and add programs that allow lower income residents to compete with private school graduates. Why is any of this bad?

Lastly, I don't understand why the "original residents" are somehow more worthy than the new residents? It is the new, gentrifying residents who take an interest in the community. It is the gentrifiers who organize clean ups and restoration of parks, who donate to restore historical town squares and buildings, clean up and reuse old cafes and store fronts. It is gentrifiers who set up farmers markets, organize events, and really restore communities to their original glory. Why is it these people, who move in and become active participants in better the neighborhood around them, who are vilified...while no one seems to take into account that it is the original residents who let the neighborhood fall into disrepair.

Gentrification is what is keeping the historical charm of Atlanta and restoring her to her original glory. The alternative would be of everyone turned their backs and let each of these neighborhoods be run into the ground.

[cqholt]

Long time residents, many minorities, are concerned that they will get pushed out due to rising rents and property values. Also, many developers/real estate people use predatory calling to get these residents to sell too low. Long time residents are upset at local leaders and municipalities that only after higher income residents begin to move in, that their services improve.

[ATLTJL]

The biggest problem I see is that people are so eager to move close to the amenities they want...bars, restaurants, nightlife, arts and culture. But after a while, it seems, they turn and then decide they want these things out. And then, it's only a matter of time before they are surrounded by more houses and condos. Eventually, they turn their neighborhoods into new versions of the very thing they were trying to get away from in the first place: sterility.

I've watched it for decades. When they built Metropolis, I thought how cool it would be to live right on Peachtree. Walk to Velvet Room and Vision and drink as much as you want and then just stumble home. Who wouldn't want that? It only took a year or two before they pushed those guys out. They don't even have a unique bar in the building anymore, it turned into a Taco Mac. Live by a Taco Mac! Hooray, you can do that in Alpharetta, Marietta, or Suwanee!!!

You can see it right here. Right after Music Midtown, there are people already complaining about it. So if you get rid of that, then all you have is a big open green space you can use. How is living by that any different than living by Little Mulberry Park in Dacula?


In the Old Fouth Ward, everyone cheered as Krog Street Market and Ponce City Market opened their historic doors. But what do these establishments really do? They serve subpar food at inflated prices. You really didn't need these areas for that, Buckhead Life Group was already serving that need quite nicely. What would I have done differently? I would have created a space for smaller, local eateries with good menus and reasonable prices to enter. I'd rather see Metro Fresh, Homegrown, and even the Vortex have space there than Yalla, Fred's, and Holeman & Finch. All they really did was create Streets of Buckhead East with slightly more interesting, yet rougher around the edges construction.

Of course I'm using hyperbole here. But that's my big problem with gentrification, new residents trying to push out the businesses and activities that made the area cool to begin with.

[residinghere2007]

Originally Posted by Forhall

Just curious...why does it seem many in Atlanta are against gentrification? It is gentrification that is leading to our expanding skyline. Gentrification is causing our schools to get better, and our streets safer. Its increasing investment into the city, brining new companies and industries, and further bringing in more highly educated residents.

The argument against it that I hear is always old residents get pushed out. But what does that really mean? Most people love watching their formerly unsafe neighborhood become desirable and safe. Those that leave do so because their home is now worth more than they ever imagined, and they can cash out. The public schools where they seen their children get better and add programs that allow lower income residents to compete with private school graduates. Why is any of this bad?

Lastly, I don't understand why the "original residents" are somehow more worthy than the new residents? It is the new, gentrifying residents who take an interest in the community. It is the gentrifiers who organize clean ups and restoration of parks, who donate to restore historical town squares and buildings, clean up and reuse old cafes and store fronts. It is gentrifiers who set up farmers markets, organize events, and really restore communities to their original glory. Why is it these people, who move in and become active participants in better the neighborhood around them, who are vilified...while no one seems to take into account that it is the original residents who let the neighborhood fall into disrepair.

Gentrification is what is keeping the historical charm of Atlanta and restoring her to her original glory. The alternative would be of everyone turned their backs and let each of these neighborhoods be run into the ground.

In general, I am not against gentrification personally. Gentrification is natural in regards to change. Change is constant and neighborhoods have been gentrifying in America for decades.

However on the bold, I will note that that is not always true. Original residents also did/do all the above. They created the neighborhood that initially attracted "urban pioneers." When those specific urban pioneers move in, they seek to make the neighborhood fit their own particular view of what it should be. They also, if they are white (just have to plainly state that) or if they are very high income individuals, will be taken more seriously by elected officials and city departments and their desires/wants for a community will many times be listened to and acted upon whereas the original minority residents have been organizing and attempting to get specific changes in their communities for years.

IMO there is a racial component for areas that are seeing white gentrifiers come into a majority minority community. Whites get listened to more by both black and white elected officials it seems while minorities are just ignored until something outrageous happens. And FWIW this is true IMO all over the country in some degree. Therefore white gentrifiers in particular incite negative views from original minority residents who get upset that they weren't listened to/acted upon when they made the same or similar suggestions or demands upon local government versus when some new resident moves in and basically asks for the same stuff who is white and they get listened to.

[TheTravelinMan]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

Of course I'm using hyperbole here. But that's my big problem with gentrification, new residents trying to push out the businesses and activities that made the area cool to begin with.

I agree with many of your points but I do think its important to realize that its mostly market forces at work. It's not so much that local businesses like Velvet Room, etc were consciously 'pushed out' of Peachtree and more the case that they couldn't afford the increasing rents and a corporate entity like TacoMac with deeper pockets can.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by TheTravelinMan

I agree with many of your points but I do think its important to realize that its mostly market forces at work. It's not so much that local businesses like Velvet Room, etc were consciously 'pushed out' of Peachtree and more the case that they couldn't afford the increasing rents and a corporate entity like TacoMac with deeper pockets can.

Specific emphasis on this. Most of these bars that closed along Peachtree did not own the property they sat on.

[TheTravelinMan]

Originally Posted by residinghere2007

In general, I am not against gentrification personally. Gentrification is natural in regards to change. Change is constant and neighborhoods have been gentrifying in America for decades.

However on the bold, I will note that that is not always true. Original residents also did/do all the above. They created the neighborhood that initially attracted "urban pioneers." When those specific urban pioneers move in, they seek to make the neighborhood fit their own particular view of what it should be. They also, if they are white (just have to plainly state that) or if they are very high income individuals, will be taken more seriously by elected officials and city departments and their desires/wants for a community will many times be listened to and acted upon whereas the original minority residents have been organizing and attempting to get specific changes in their communities for years.

IMO there is a racial component for areas that are seeing white gentrifiers come into a majority minority community. Whites get listened to more by both black and white elected officials it seems while minorities are just ignored until something outrageous happens. And FWIW this is true IMO all over the country in some degree. Therefore white gentrifiers in particular incite negative views from original minority residents who get upset that they weren't listened to/acted upon when they made the same or similar suggestions or demands upon local government versus when some new resident moves in and basically asks for the same stuff who is white and they get listened to.

Well, many of these neighborhoods aren't exactly contributing much to the local governments tax base so if you aren't putting much in how much can you reasonably expect to be getting out?

[Clayton white guy]

When people pay their taxes, they deserve municipal services: PERIOD. Even renters have landlords that pay city taxes. If the city thinks that properties are not "pulling their weight" in the tax digest, they do reassessments annually. Homeowners and landlords, of course, have the right to appeal what they consider unfair rises in their assessments. This is how property taxes work, as most of y'all know.

[TheTravelinMan]

Originally Posted by Clayton white guy

When people pay their taxes, they deserve municipal services: PERIOD. Even renters have landlords that pay city taxes. If the city thinks that properties are not "pulling their weight" in the tax digest, they do reassessments annually. Homeowners and landlords, of course, have the right to appeal what they consider unfair rises in their assessments. This is how property taxes work, as most of y'all know.

Yes but the property taxes paid by many of these neighborhoods is a lot less than those paid by other neighborhoods. It's like expecting a half a pizza when you've only paid enough to cover one slice.

[ATLTJL]

Most of these bars that closed along Peachtree did not own the property they sat on.

I seem to recall these businesses not being given the option to renew their leases.

Probably much of that IS the market...the original owners sold to new owners who wanted to do something different with the space. But we also see a lot of new residents not wanting to be around the older, grittier businesses, like we are seeing on Cheshire Bridge nowadays.