Why is Gentrification bad? (Baltimore, California: apartment complex, renter, condo)

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

The removal of housing projects in Southeast Baltimore has nothing to do with gentrification?

[KLynch10]

Certainly Pg county, Overlea, Edgewood and Woodlawn are some the negative affects of urban neighborhood gentrification.

[KLynch10]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

The city of Baltimore needs to gentrify like DC is doing and quick.

Baltimore has come a long way in the last 10 years, and I think the next 10 will be the same.

DC has two major advantages, an enormous high paying stable job market, and politicians who knew if the faster they gentrified, the more they'd pawn their problems off on MD and VA.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by KLynch10

Baltimore has come a long way in the last 10 years, and I think the next 10 will be the same.

You think? I don't think B'more has come nearly far enough...
but mostly I don't think it can't afford to continue with that shuffling pace.

high paying stable job market ... faster they gentrified

A solidly middle class, mostly home owning, steadily working, income (and property) tax paying citizenry needs to be at least 60%... plus the actually high earning and wealthy for at least another 10%... add up to a 70-80% mix of the productive as the minimum needed for any city to work. In order to support a population of the others, the un and under productive services consuming others, their number can't exceed 20% of the whole.

Achieving this demographic in Baltimore (again, btw) will require both increasing the number and proportion of the productive but also decreasing the others. At present, the others represent closer to 40% of the (+/- 600,000) total population which is just unworkable. The "gentrification" being discussed in this thread is an example of that needed effort.

It needs to be done on a larger scale like what is beginning in Cleveland

If the solid jobs those solid middle class citizens need aren't produced in sufficient numbers then the total population number will needs to reduced. If that happens then there is even less capacity to afford those others; not the other way around.

[jrh0341]

I could be totally wrong here, but I think part of the negative connotation of the word comes from earlier era when "gentrification" had a very thinly veiled racial aspect to it. I think many people are reminded of gentrificiation projects that came off as let's go to that black community, adjust pricing to force out the poor negroes, and then put up some starbucks over where they used to live.

(clearly I'm overdramatizing there)

The other side of it is, when gentrification involves displacing the current residents, that makes a statement. The signs says "we are improving this community", but the events say "we have big plans for this neighbohood but YOU poor people are not a part of it." We're here to clear out the undesirable, run down parts of this area, which in the eyes of poor residents, includes THEM.

Not saying that this is what its all about, just talking about how things can be perceived. I would really like to see a lot of areas get cleaned up. I do understand how some people might feel though.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by jrh0341

The signs says "we are improving this community", but the events say
"we have big plans for this neighbohood but YOU poor people are not a part of it." ...
We're here to clear out the undesirable, run down parts of this area, which in the eyes of poor residents,
includes THEM.

Not saying that this is what its all about...

No; you have it. That is exactly what it's all about.

The problems crop up when well meant sympathy for these people and their plight
is twisted into a sort of guilt through politics that has been allowed to get in the way
of making the needed improvements to the structures and all the economic improvements that will yield.

[Woodlands]

Originally Posted by jrh0341

I could be totally wrong here, but I think part of the negative connotation of the word comes from earlier era when "gentrification" had a very thinly veiled racial aspect to it. I think many people are reminded of gentrificiation projects that came off as let's go to that black community, adjust pricing to force out the poor negroes, and then put up some starbucks over where they used to live.

(clearly I'm overdramatizing there)

The other side of it is, when gentrification involves displacing the current residents, that makes a statement. The signs says "we are improving this community", but the events say "we have big plans for this neighbohood but YOU poor people are not a part of it." We're here to clear out the undesirable, run down parts of this area, which in the eyes of poor residents, includes THEM.

Not saying that this is what its all about, just talking about how things can be perceived. I would really like to see a lot of areas get cleaned up. I do understand how some people might feel though.

Certainly one could argue the racial aspect in some instances.. but in the case of Hampden, Canton, and Federal Hill its not race its income.. since those complaining about being displaced are of the same race as the majority of the folks moving in. I am reminded of a recent trip to a wine bar in Hampden. Some rather attractive young professional women were having a happy hour drink outside and some guys in ravens jerseys and with a clear "bmo twang" came out of the 7-11 with pizza boxes and brown bags that they may have picked up from up th street.. They were on their way up the ave.. They stopped and tried to strike up a brief conversation with the ladies and a very overzealous waiter attempted to shoo them away... They began to curse him and he gestured across the street to one of Bmores finest who sauntered up and dismissed the gentleman with just a stern stare and a hand on his side arm. The group moved on.. grumbling about how "they" have taken over our neighborhood.. and "WE" live here too... etc etc. You can also look at events like HonFest and the controversy surrounding that and other cultural "rubs" that come with a changing community. All those involved in the scrum I mentioned above were all of the same race including the Police Officer.

I agree with what some have said its usually not gentrification itself that is the problem its the pace of it that usually causes the problems from some of the cultural shifts in the "norms" of those neighborhoods. I may have been able to hang on the corner of Baltimore Street in Patterson Park 10 years ago and drink my liquor and mind my own business and no one would have cared.. NOW.. someone calls the police and they shoo me away.. could be another example..Others that I have heard.. is "Lets close down XYZ school in our neighborhood the kid are hoodlum or destroy property" Some of the kids may be from the neighborhood (or bused in some cases) and many of those complaining either dont have kids or kids attend private schools

By and large in Baltimore it seems that racial gentrification is not as common as income gentrification. The demolition of the housing project on MLK that were replaced with mixed income housing.. the residents displaced were mainly African American.. the new residents are also mainly African American. Same could be said for Frankford Estates in NE, Orchard Ridge in East.

DC likely sees more racial gentrification than Bmo

[KLynch10]

Originally Posted by MrRational

You think? I don't think B'more has come nearly far enough...
but mostly I don't think it can't afford to continue with that shuffling pace.

Think about how different Patterson Park, South Federal Hill, Canton, Brewers Hill, Harbor East, Hampden, the UMD areas used to be? Plus we've seen many projects come down by little italy, and Hopkins. And you've seen major developments go up at Clipper Mill, UB/Mica Area and more.

Baltimore not long ago was a place where it was really nice up north, and the southern and downtown part was there to basically be avoided other than grab dinner at little Italy, that was next to project towers, or go to Fells, which was kinda cool but also sketchy.

We are starting to see much progress in the Washington Hill/Upper Fells/Hopkins area, Pig Town, Greek Town, Station North Arts, Remington and other areas, and major projects about to take off in West Downtown, Westport, Gateway South and more. I think 10 years from now, you'll also look at them as great city neighborhoods and areas as well.

Can things move faster....absolutely, do I want things to move faster... absolutely... but there are a lot of cooks in the kitchen right now and working hard. The next step, we have to get rid of all politicians used to the old network of Baltimore Politics.

[B.K.]

Same could be said for Frankford Estates in NE, Orchard Ridge in East.

Woodlands is correct: I live right down the street from the recent Frankford Estatesdevelopment, and while the racial demographic has not changed much, the economic demographic certainly has: perhaps you will remember the low-rent, decrepit den of vice apartment complex that used to occupy that site? As to Orchard Ridge, while much of it still appears to be under-inhabited, all of Gardenville/Frankford/Cedonia is delighted that the blighted projects along the former "Freedom Way" are finally gone.
There is an aspect of racial gentrification I have not seen mentioned, and you may either condemn or condone Mayor/Governor O'Malley for this one: the integration of thousands of (often illegal or "non-documented") Hispanics into older, poor or lower middle-class E/SE neighborhoods. While large-scale displacement of the black population is not occurring in these areas, I've long suspected that there may be an element of racism involved: the old "Well, at least they work" argument.

[EdwardA]

Originally Posted by MrRational

You think? I don't think B'more has come nearly far enough...
but mostly I don't think it can't afford to continue with that shuffling pace.



A solidly middle class, mostly home owning, steadily working, income (and property) tax paying citizenry needs to be at least 60%... plus the actually high earning and wealthy for at least another 10%... add up to a 70-80% mix of the productive as the minimum needed for any city to work. In order to support a population of the others, the un and under productive services consuming others, their number can't exceed 20% of the whole.

Achieving this demographic in Baltimore (again, btw) will require both increasing the number and proportion of the productive but also decreasing the others. At present, the others represent closer to 40% of the (+/- 600,000) total population which is just unworkable. The "gentrification" being discussed in this thread is an example of that needed effort.

It needs to be done on a larger scale like what is beginning in Cleveland

If the solid jobs those solid middle class citizens need aren't produced in sufficient numbers then the total population number will needs to reduced. If that happens then there is even less capacity to afford those others; not the other way around.

I read this article yesterday and was stunned that Baltimore doesn't even have a land bank. It speaks to the level of incompetence at the highest levels of government in this city for far too long.