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.
Sorry to use "SanFran" instead of "San Francisco", I wanted to make sure the whole thing fit!
Which neighborhoods in those cities are "hard targets" when it comes to gentrification?
My old boss was from Bensonhurst. The subject of the hipster takeover of Brooklyn came up once, and he leaned over to me and said "if they try that [bleep] in Bensonhurst we'll [bleep]ing kill them, I'm not kidding." But then I've heard that hipsters are just barely starting to creep up into Harlem.
I also get the impression that the Tenderloin (SF) isn't getting gentrified any time soon. Then again, years ago I never thought they'd be able to gentrify the Mission District (SF). That used to be deep barrio, like East Los or Tortilla Flats or something. I guess the general density of the SF peninsula helped make that possible. In L.A., it'll be a long long time before anyone tries that deep in the Eastside; it might happen eventually, as they're already taking over Echo Park, but the sprawled nature alone works against it, I think.
My old boss was from Bensonhurst. The subject of the hipster takeover of Brooklyn came up once, and he leaned over to me and said "if they try that [bleep] in Bensonhurst we'll [bleep]ing kill them, I'm not kidding." But then I've heard that hipsters are just barely starting to creep up into Harlem.
Gentrifiers usually go for closer-in city neighborhoods. As for Bensonhurst, it's too far to be hip, it was never a bad neighborhood, just a white mostly working-class one. Its demographics have drastically changed in the last two decades, it's about evenly Asian and White now, though few blacks have moved in perhaps due to its reputation.
For NYC it's anywhere that is too far from public transporation. That's why Williamsburg was so prime for a hipster takeover, the L train left you right on the other side of the river from Manhattan. You have to start getting into the middle or north part of the Bronx, Staten Island, and the Queens/Nassau County border to get away from it. Anyplace within an hour subway ride of Manhattan is free game.
What gets me is how they've managed to get into neighborhoods that I previously thought would be untouchable, such as San Francisco's Mission District. That used to be the barrio, like, deep hood. It was a real shooting gallery. I went through there several years ago and there were Volvos and Bugaboos. What's next, the Tenderloin? Hunter's Point!?
Heck, they're even taking over Oakland. The artistes and weirdos that got driven out of San Francisco started moving over there, living off the grid in abandoned warehouses in neighborhoods where gunshots were heard nightly. At the time I thought "awesome", it's like hardcore bohemian utopia all over again, and this time in a town hardcore enough to keep the wimpier hipsters and the gentrifiers away. But then I should have seen what was coming next....
I mean, not just anybody can set up shop in a place where stray bullets are an actual danger and where you have to be vetted by the local gangbangers to even be permitted to reside there.
Back in L.A. I've heard they're creeping into Boyle Heights. Boyle Heights! They've already taken over Echo Park.
My understanding is the Tenderloin has stayed not gentrified by design - political forces in San Francisco want a neighborhood for low-income people to remain close to the city center. So they use rent control to keep the rents low, and block any market-rate development from the area.
On the other hand, there is redevelopment taking place down by Hunters Point - tons of new construction which mostly Asian people are moving into. I don't know if it's classic gentrification (the hipsters stay in the Mission District) but it's a change in economic class.
In Portland and Seattle the neighborhoods that seem more resistant to gentrification are the ones that have more suburban commercial development and more ranch homes and 70s style apartments than older buildings. No one wants to open a cool bar or restaurant in a mall or on the edge of a parking lot filled with big box stores. The neighborhoods that get gentrified these days are usually the ones that have an old commercial strip from the pre-auto era. Somewhat dense, sort of street-car suburbs with old storefronts close together(maybe a few old apartment buildings). And for housing stock it helps to have old Craftsman-style homes or older styles packed together--or older apartment buildings. A lot of neighborhoods have a mix, but in general people want to find this older style of development. You see this in Portland where neighborhoods that have this mix tend to have homes with higher value than an adjacent neighborhoods settled a little later with mostly post-war ranch homes will be cheaper and different demographically. You can basically chart where the waves of gentrification end--somewhere on the eastside--around Killingsworth on the north and towards the east side of Mt. Tabor on the east--though it's slowly becoming 82nd as an eastern boundary. The really spread out suburban areas with more sparse ranch houses tend to be less attractive to people seeking a certain lifestyle.
My understanding is the Tenderloin has stayed not gentrified by design - political forces in San Francisco want a neighborhood for low-income people to remain close to the city center. So they use rent control to keep the rents low, and block any market-rate development from the area.
A lot of cities have this sort of "Skid Row" district(actually called Skid Row in a few places like Los Angeles). The reason being, it's easier to keep one central district for the homeless and down and out living in SRO, methadone clinics and that sort of thing, rather than having them spread all over surrounding neighborhoods. Sort of a "contain the problem" approach. Both Portland and Seattle have downtown areas, Old Town/Chinatown for Portland and around Pioneer Square for Seattle, where they have similar situations, though nothing like the Tenderloin. At the same time, these areas become places where it's a little cheaper to start a new restaurant or bar--so you get a spillover effect in terms of nightlife and that sort of thing--though people don't want to live there...
In Portland and Seattle the neighborhoods that seem more resistant to gentrification are the ones that have more suburban commercial development and more ranch homes and 70s style apartments than older buildings. No one wants to open a cool bar or restaurant in a mall or on the edge of a parking lot filled with big box stores. The neighborhoods that get gentrified these days are usually the ones that have an old commercial strip from the pre-auto era. Somewhat dense, sort of street-car suburbs with old storefronts close together(maybe a few old apartment buildings). And for housing stock it helps to have old Craftsman-style homes or older styles packed together--or older apartment buildings. A lot of neighborhoods have a mix, but in general people want to find this older style of development. You see this in Portland where neighborhoods that have this mix tend to have homes with higher value than an adjacent neighborhoods settled a little later with mostly post-war ranch homes will be cheaper and different demographically. You can basically chart where the waves of gentrification end--somewhere on the eastside--around Killingsworth on the north and towards the east side of Mt. Tabor on the east--though it's slowly becoming 82nd as an eastern boundary. The really spread out suburban areas with more sparse ranch houses tend to be less attractive to people seeking a certain lifestyle.
I'd agree, but as you head east, and find older construction, often even the Craftsmen-style streetcar suburb neighborhoods are seen as somewhat undesirable, as instead there's intact Victorian neighborhoods to gentrify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deezus
A lot of cities have this sort of "Skid Row" district(actually called Skid Row in a few places like Los Angeles). The reason being, it's easier to keep one central district for the homeless and down and out living in SRO, methadone clinics and that sort of thing, rather than having them spread all over surrounding neighborhoods. Sort of a "contain the problem" approach. Both Portland and Seattle have downtown areas, Old Town/Chinatown for Portland and around Pioneer Square for Seattle, where they have similar situations, though nothing like the Tenderloin. At the same time, these areas become places where it's a little cheaper to start a new restaurant or bar--so you get a spillover effect in terms of nightlife and that sort of thing--though people don't want to live there...
This seems to be mostly a West Coast thing. As far as I know, only The Bowery in NYC was something similar in the east. It may be that due to the racial element (targeted low-income neighborhoods in the Northeast or Midwest would have turned overwhelmingly non-white) there was less desire to keep such areas close in to downtown.
I'd agree, but as you head east, and find older construction, often even the Craftsmen-style streetcar suburb neighborhoods are seen as somewhat undesirable, as instead there's intact Victorian neighborhoods to gentrify.
On the West Coast, neighborhoods with Victorian houses are almost always among the first to gentrify. That's why if you can find a Victorian home under $500,000 it's like a mirage at this point... There might be some older ones that are still in need of remodeling in a few neighborhoods on the edge of San Francisco, but everything is expensive in San Francisco for the most part. Most major West Coast cities saw a huge boom starting right at the tail-end of the Victorian era and then --roughly starting around 1900-1930, so a lot of older neighborhoods are from this period with a mix of Victorian, Craftsman,(or Mediterranean-style homes from the 20s in California) and older town homes or apartments. The denser inner cores of almost every major West Coast city--the neighborhoods with older apartment buildings and denser retail close to downtown--are almost entirely gentrified as this point--except for Los Angeles(or maybe Oakland)...
Quote:
This seems to be mostly a West Coast thing. As far as I know, only The Bowery in NYC was something similar in the east. It may be that due to the racial element (targeted low-income neighborhoods in the Northeast or Midwest would have turned overwhelmingly non-white) there was less desire to keep such areas close in to downtown.
I think it's close to that, though I think it's also that due to the fact that there wasn't as much "white flight" in West Coast cities the inner neighborhoods were quicker to gentrify. So at this point you have these islands subsidized poverty in the middle of downtown surrounded by redeveloped areas. There isn't as many low income or rundown areas further out in the city that homeless people or SRO hotels are going to be located(the poorer suburbs on the West Coast aren't really going to be places for the homeless)--so the issues in these remaining Skid Row areas become magnified.
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.
