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.
My major qualm about gentrification is exactly what I said, but a lot of my concern is how it was done in much of the country. Sometimes to make an omelet you have to break some eggs, but in New York's case they broke way too many eggs for way to specific a demographic. Bringing in national chain stores actually doesn't help communities too much, which is what Times Square became a magnet for (although NYC probably could use their version of the strip development, it's a complicated issue). As well the process took out way too much of the middle class and lower class neighbourhoods all over Manhattan (and Brooklyn) and turned them into luxury apartments there wasn't enough of a market for. All this just pushed the problem out to Newark, Nassau, and even Bridgeport.
I think we defenitely agree something had to be done, I think we might be getting tripped over the specifics. Frankly, I think we disagree on the nature and root of the **** poor conditions in bad areas in general although I do lament that there are a few jackholes that ruin it much more than it needs to be; you said you think its a "loud annoying minority" and I certainly can get behind that. They should be ignored until they commit or conspire to commit a crime, but not held up as representative of their community.
I wish I could post more and better right now, I'm rushing to finish work.
~Cheers
Last edited by Beeker2211; 03-09-2010 at 02:58 PM..
There is no doubt that gentrification of an area pushes some people out. But let's face it, a lot of those people were those living in government housing or in rent controlled apartments. If you were paying $500 a month to live in NYC, then consider yourself lucky. It amazes me that some people really thought that they would go the rest of their lives in rent control and flipped out over buildings going co-op. You aren't entitled to a rent controlled apartment and if you are in gov't housing, then it means you may have to move.
What about the people who benefited? I used to live in Florida and I can't tell you how many people watched their property values go through the roof and were able to sell their place, move down south, pay cash for a huge house and still have money left over.
But honestly, IMO, gentrification is really being too generous when describing New Haven or Hartford. These are simply cities that are seeing less crime. A better neighborhood is not a gentrified neighborhood and I know you see that.
I don't know how old you are but when we talk about cities being gentrified or even being improved, we are dating ourselves as generation x or y. Talk to baby boomers or better yet, people who are now in their 80's and 90's and they can tell all about how these cities were beautiful, clean and crime free. Look at what Brooklyn was in the 50's when it was safe, then the 70's, full of crime, then what it is now. People who have lived in New Haven for the past 50 years are going to remember the city when it was clean and had low crime. They don't see it changing. They see it as "taking their city back". I may not ever be able to afford to live in a gentrified neighborhood, but I can walk down the street and feel safe. I can take advantage of what the city has to offer as far as entertainment. When the streets are full of crime, the only people benefiting are the criminals. Not the residents.
so when you hear these people trying to sound like they are from the streets and talking about how Manhattan is Disneyland, you can bet they are under the age of 50, most likely under 30. So I have more sympathy for the people who "lost" their cities the first time around when they became crime havens than I do the people who "lost" their streets when they improved.
JMO, and I hope I'm wrong, I don't see CT cities ever being close to what they were in the 50's and 60's. I think the most that will happen is they will improve and not be full of crime and drugs. But getting back to what they were? Sadly I don't think so.
Last edited by Yankeerose00; 03-09-2010 at 04:43 PM..
Someone told me that but I cannot find the data. CT is definitely on of the richest states but New Haven and Hartford don't rate near the poorest in the country. Maybe he was talking about income disparity? Can anyone shed light on this?
That is what they say. I was born in Waterbury, and lived in downtown waterbury for the first 5 years of my life until I moved to Orlando, FL in 1995.
I returned to CT in 2001 and I can say that from 2001-2006 when I lived there Waterbury has some very poor areas (Town Plot, South End, Downtown) Hartford has the north end, New Haven has a lot but Im not sure where (don't know New Haven too well)
Meriden's west side was pretty bad, particularly by Lewis Ave and Springdale Rd, and the housing projects around downtown Meriden were pretty bad as well
In spite of being in Fairfield County I think Bridgeport may well be the worst in the entire state looks wise.
The ones I know most are Meriden and Waterbury, they have some extremely poor parts but both also have some very nice parts. They're both decent cities to live in overall
Intelom...Again You have some great points! I believe it was in the new haven register or one of the local new haven paper such as the advocate. Again it was about 5 years ago so!
...I agree new haven (downtown) is better than it has been in 10-20 years ( my family agrees also) ..but The outer rings and scummy areas have been getting worse because New haven Dose not know how to deal with it. Also the people in this area, love bragging how Ghetto there area is, and how dangerous. Being a substitute teacher in The area, i hear it every day. I asked once" wouldn't it be nice to have a nice area where you can be proud of, and not have to worry about violence" and the kids go, "typical white boy answer, we like the hood" I had no answer for that!
You should know why "the white boy" replied like that or for that matter any boy from the inner city would reply like. Your asking a child to be ashamed where they come from and admitt it out loud, you wouldn't. Children are placed in there environment they didn't choose it. And, society keeps placing the blame of poverty, gangs, inner city on the children. Why because the majority are african -american you can assume they can bare that weight. The inner- city was formed and designed for it's purpose - to keep a certain type, kind of people out of your neighbor hood. And if they could change it and move out to "your" better neighborhood they wouldn't be welcomed and eventually that neighborhood would become the new ghetto.. because upper class would move away,value would go down, and education wouldn't be that great again.
I agree with mostly everyone here, there is some strong points. My issue is there wouldn't be a big gap in upper class & lower class, if the working world was fair. I see people scrambling for jobs here in Bpt.. Me working in Corporate I don't see many people my color not just in this company, but I temped at several before getting in. I know there is a lot of blacks who are qualified; but white people (not all, but most) do not want to work side by side with african-americans, for many reasons. I know plenty of people whom want to send their children to private schools but can't afford it. “Try living without options of schooling for your children.” Many would like to buy or fix up their homes, but can't afford it. IMO upper class tries so hard daily to make sure there is a big gap between them and the inner city. If you’re really concerned move there, you and some people from your community and watch the city clean it up for you.
Where did you find this information? Considering that Yale moved into New Haven from Old Saybrook over 200 years ago, I would be very surprised if it was true. The current state of the city is by all accounts considerably better than it was ten or twenty years ago.
There are still serious income disparities between downtown, Westville, and especially East Rock and other parts of New Haven (Newhallville, the Hill, etc.). I went to school in Fairfield and had many classmates who refused to set foot in Bridgeport because they were afraid they would be instantly robbed or shot.
New Haven has serious problems in its schools, which also contributes to the disparities between cities and towns. Most people don't put their children in New Haven public schools unless they have no other choice.
You are invited to view an [URL="http://www.yale.edu/timeline/1701/index.html"]illustrated timeline of Yale’s history[/URL] in addition to reading the brief overview on this page.
Yale’s roots can be traced back to the 1640s, when colonial clergymen led an effort to establish a college in New Haven to preserve the tradition of European liberal education in the New World. This vision was fulfilled in 1701, when the charter was granted for a school “wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences [and] through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Publick employment both in Church and Civil State.” In 1718 the school was renamed “Yale College” in gratitude to the Welsh merchant Elihu Yale, who had donated the proceeds from the sale of nine bales of goods together with 417 books and a portrait of King George I. http://www.yale.edu/about/images/yale_charter.jpgYale Charter
Yale College survived the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) intact and, by the end of its first hundred years, had grown rapidly. The nineteenth and twentieth centuries brought the establishment of the graduate and professional schools that would make Yale a true university. The Yale School of Medicine was chartered in 1810, followed by the Divinity School in 1822, the Law School in 1824, and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in 1847 (which, in 1861, awarded the first Ph.D. in the United States), followed by the schools of Art in 1869, Music in 1894, Forestry & Environmental Studies in 1900, Nursing in 1923, Drama in 1955, Architecture in 1972, and Management in 1974.
International students have made their way to Yale since the 1830s, when the first Latin American student enrolled. The first Chinese citizen to earn a degree at a Western college or university came to Yale in 1850. Today, international students make up nearly 9 percent of the undergraduate student body, and 16 percent of all students at the University. Yale’s distinguished faculty includes many who have been trained or educated abroad and many whose fields of research have a global emphasis; and international studies and exchanges play an increasingly important role in the Yale College curriculum. The University began admitting women students at the graduate level in 1869, and as undergraduates in 1969.
Yale College was transformed, beginning in the early 1930s, by the establishment of residential colleges. Taking medieval English universities such as Oxford and Cambridge as its model, this distinctive system divides the undergraduate population into twelve separate communities of approximately 450 members each, thereby enabling Yale to offer its students both the intimacy of a small college environment and the vast resources of a major research university. Each college surrounds a courtyard and occupies up to a full city block, providing a congenial community where residents live, eat, socialize, and pursue a variety of academic and extracurricular activities. Each college has a master and dean, as well as a number of resident faculty members known as fellows, and each has its own dining hall, library, seminar rooms, recreation lounges, and other facilities.
Today, Yale has matured into one of the world’s great universities. Its 11,000 students come from all fifty American states and from 108 countries. The 3,200-member faculty is a richly diverse group of men and women who are leaders in their respective fields. The central campus now covers 310 acres (125 hectares) stretching from the School of Nursing in downtown New Haven to tree-shaded residential neighborhoods around the Divinity School. Yale’s 260 buildings include contributions from distinguished architects of every period in its history. Styles range from New England Colonial to High Victorian Gothic, from Moorish Revival to contemporary. Yale’s buildings, towers, lawns, courtyards, walkways, gates, and arches comprise what one architecture critic has called “the most beautiful urban campus in America.” Yale's [URL="http://www.yale.edu/westcampus/"]West Campus[/URL], located 7 miles west of downtown New Haven on 136 acres, was acquired in 2007 and includes 1.6 million square feet of research, office, and warehouse space that provides opportunities to enhance the University’s medical and scientific research and other academic programs. The University also maintains over 600 acres (243 hectares) of athletic fields and natural preserves just a short bus ride from the center of town.
I am not sure that Hartford was ever the "poorest" city. Maybe if you limited the list to the 100 largest metropolitan areas or something like that. This is because Hartford itself just covers 17 square miles of the metropolitan area and includes most of the poorest neighborhoods.
JViello's discription is true if you drive up Albany Avenue. It passes through Hartford's northend which is poor and then enters the west end and then West Hartford's country club neighborhood which is very wealthy. It can be a pretty drastic change but you don't see quite as much of a difference in other partsof the city.
As for his comments on the rich "brat" he mentions, I think you find this everywhere. Jay
Acutally, Hartford was the 2nd in the US in terms of poverty and it was based on numbers...not square miles. Look it up for yourself, here is what I found:
"With thirty per cent of the population living below the poverty line, Hartford's rate of poverty is second in the United States only to Brownsville, Texas.[19] About 28.2% of families were below the poverty line, including 41.0% of those under age 18 and 23.2% of those age 65 or over."
As for the "rich brat" comment and "finding that everywhere"....Um, you would only find that where rich people live. ???? So "everywhere"? Where are the "rich brats" in Hartford?? Let me clarify that...where are the "rich brats" LIVING in Hartford????
You just proved what I said. Hartford itself is a small part of a large metropolitan area. It is also the poorest part so of course it is one of the poorest cities. The metropolitan area is one of the wealthiest.
Yes, there are people with money in Hartford. Have you ever seen the homes in the West End? Some very large and very nice homes. I am sure there are even a brat or two there. Jay
I agree with mostly everyone here, there is some strong points. My issue is there wouldn't be a big gap in upper class & lower class, if the working world was fair. I see people scrambling for jobs here in Bpt.. Me working in Corporate I don't see many people my color not just in this company, but I temped at several before getting in. I know there is a lot of blacks who are qualified; but white people (not all, but most) do not want to work side by side with african-americans, for many reasons. I know plenty of people whom want to send their children to private schools but can't afford it. “Try living without options of schooling for your children.” Many would like to buy or fix up their homes, but can't afford it. IMO upper class tries so hard daily to make sure there is a big gap between them and the inner city. If you’re really concerned move there, you and some people from your community and watch the city clean it up for you.
I grew up in CT in what was referred to as the "ghetto", it was actually public housing and I am caucasian. Okay breathe...I know that's shocking to hear. Actually there were a lot of white people living there as well as blacks, hispanics, and mixed races. I grew up with people of ALL races so to say that "whites" don't like working with "blacks" is a racist statement. I work with a lot of African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, etc....and it's no big deal...people, to me, are people regardless of the color of your skin.
You are missing the bigger picture here. Okay now I understand and agree there is a LOT of race issues all over the country (racial profiling for example) and I do NOT agree with that. It disgusts me that people are so ignorant in this day and age but that is another topic. The issue you seem to be missing is not based on race, it is based on MONEY. As for jobs in CT...it's often said it's not WHAT you know but WHO you know. The upper middle class have more connections, more 'WEALTHIER" connections. So instead of someone coming from a poverty environment graduating college and busting their butt for a decent paying job...the kids of the wealthier households already have connections lined up through their family where they can graduate and get a higher paying job. You say that upper middle class makes sure there is a gap between them and the inner city and that most people you know cannot afford to send their kids to private school or buy or fix up their own home. Well count me in! I can barely afford to survive nevermind even THINK of having a child in the situation I'm in. I cant afford my own house, I cant afford a condo, I can BARELY afford an apt in this state. CT is a state of HAVE AND HAVE NOTS.
I agree the upper middle class makes sure there is a gap...but it is a gap between the rich and poor. Hartford has some of the highest property taxes in the state and is one of the most poverty ridden cities in the nation. You would think that, knowing this, the state would do something about that to give people (esp. children) a fighting chance to survive. But CT doesn't. IMO, it's a state that likes to keep it's poor poor and keep the wealthy getting wealthier. Also, most of the "wealthier" people in CT could give two about the poor. So when it would come to raising their property taxes they respond with things like "we worked our butt of to become wealthy" "why should we have to help THEM out", etc etc. Now I agree that some wealthier people did work their butt of and may have had poorer upbringings, however that is few and far between and those are usually the one's who try to help the inner city. However, most people do not understand that when you are poor, living in a "ghetto", with parents (or a parent/grandparent) who can barely survive...you don't learn certain things which put you at a disadvantage. For instance...you don't learn about how to save, how to apply to a college...what you do learn is how to SURVIVE and thats it. Survive to live another day and when your exposed to that lifestyle it's hard to get out. Imaging growing up not knowing if your going to eat that day. Your first thought isnt "I'm going to go to a good college and be a doctor"...your thought is...how am I going to eat??? And yes, when you see older kids rolling in dough from illegal means while the people who are trying to survive by working a min wage job can't eat...which path would YOU choose????
I personally think that CT needs to stop with the "I'm black...your white" attitudes and come together. Specifically the poverty stricken and the "poorer" people need to come together and DEMAND change! Demand that property taxes in poverty stricken neighboorhoods come down, demand that there is affordable housing, demand that children don't go to bed hungry, demand that there are neighboorhood programs for children to learn a better way of life. However, that will never happen if we don't unite...regardless of race.
I personally think that CT needs to stop with the "I'm black...your white" attitudes and come together.
That has already been done. Hello, it's 2010.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tryingtomakeitinCT
Specifically the poverty stricken and the "poorer" people need to come together and DEMAND change! Demand that property taxes in poverty stricken neighboorhoods come down, demand that there is affordable housing, demand that children don't go to bed hungry, demand that there are neighboorhood programs for children to learn a better way of life. However, that will never happen if we don't unite...regardless of race.
Yes, and demand that everyone else pays for it for them.
I personally think that CT needs to stop with the "I'm black...your white" attitudes and come together. Specifically the poverty stricken and the "poorer" people need to come together and DEMAND change! Demand that property taxes in poverty stricken neighboorhoods come down, demand that there is affordable housing, demand that children don't go to bed hungry, demand that there are neighboorhood programs for children to learn a better way of life. However, that will never happen if we don't unite...regardless of race.
Sorry to be the one to say it, but the slums cannot change until the people in them change. Until then, CT will continue down two different paths: haves and have nots.
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.
admitt it out loud, you wouldn't!!
Children are placed in there environment they didn't choose it. And, society keeps placing the blame of poverty, gangs, inner city on the children. Why because the majority are african -american you can assume they can bare that weight. The inner- city was formed and designed for it's purpose - to keep a certain type, kind of people out of your neighbor hood. And if they could change it and move out to "your" better neighborhood they wouldn't be welcomed and eventually that neighborhood would become the new ghetto.. because upper class would move away,value would go down, and education wouldn't be that great again. 
