What is gentrification and how does it happen? (Philadelphia, Media: apartments, condo)
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.
Are there areas that are going backward, i.e. degentrified and why? I understand nice neighborhoods of the 50s and 60s were transformed for the worse through deindustrialization and government housing policies. What are the factors today causing neighborhoods to decline?
Are there areas that are going backward, i.e. degentrified and why? I understand nice neighborhoods of the 50s and 60s were transformed for the worse through deindustrialization and government housing policies. What are the factors today causing neighborhoods to decline?
The main area seeing decline now is lower NE Philly. I attribute this to scared white folks moving to the burbs at the first sign of change.
Are there areas that are going backward, i.e. degentrified and why? I understand nice neighborhoods of the 50s and 60s were transformed for the worse through deindustrialization and government housing policies. What are the factors today causing neighborhoods to decline?
There are definitely neighborhoods going backwards, such as Olney/Upper North Philly, Northeast Philly, and Southwest Philly. The main factor causing these areas to decline is residents heading for the suburbs or other attractive areas. In some cases, it is "white flight," but, as a resident of Northeast Philly, I have also seen immigrants and minorities bolt for the 'burbs. Other factors include section 8 housing, poorly maintained apartments (ie. absentee landlords), declining house prices (people want to get out before their home hits a perceived "rock bottom"), and a general lack of desirability.
These are all blue collar or lower-middle class neighborhoods where the white population is older, the neighborhood population has been in decline for decades as their kids have moved to the 'burbs or further out in the northeast, they don't really invest in their houses in the way that would make them attractive to buyers with money to spend, they don't support local businesses so their main commercial streets are shabby looking but the strip malls further away all have full parking lots and these are typically neighborhoods without great transit connections to Center City.
Basically, these neighborhoods have already been going down the hill of decline for a decade or two but are just now approaching the cliff.
This is really subjective and is part of the problem in talking about the process....
no, it's not really. the only subjective part is whether it's good or bad. immigration isn't gentrification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly
As for Society Hill, there's a pretty good documentary from the late 40s called "A Place to Live" that highlighted the state of most of the older neighborhoods in the city.
it's a pretty poor documentary. plenty of Philadelphia looks as bad or worse today.
here's a shot of society hill from the 50's from phillyhistory.org
I think it's always a negative thing when a government comes in and kicks out poor residents and then uses tax money to build things for rich people. the elimination of government money and planning from the process is a good thing. now gentrification is a more natural process, old city would be a lot more interesting had people moved in and fixed up those old properties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly
In the 1960s most of the area east of ~7th St. was made up of houses that were 200-300 years old and lacked even the most basic of modern amenities. We're talking plumbing, electricity, gas, etc, etc. These were miserable places to live.
yes, some areas did need modernization, but the over dramatization y city fathers led to poorly thought out action. the richard allen homes they built actually ended up being worse, rather than transitional housing, they ended up building what amounted to prisons for the poor that devastated the surrounding neighborhoods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly
Most of the older parts of this city were really horrid in the 40s and 50s. It was like that in a lot of American cities then. Investment (and reinvestment) in real estate ground to a halt in 1929 and didn't start again for 25 years. A lot of older houses fell to pieces. It's part of the reason why there was such a push to just start over in the 50s and 60s, raze the older parts of the city and rebuild them from scratch. There wasn't a strong association back then between a lack of infrastructure and physical and social decay. It was popular to associate the problems of the day with "density".
most of the reason to raze came from title 1 monies that were made available, it ended up being a failure for the most part. there was little benefit to existing residents who were forcefully displaced and most of the new residents at the time were already city residents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly
When my older neighbors get all nostalgic for the South Philly of the 50s or 60s I take it with a huge grain of salt (and assume they're more upset about diversity than anything else). A lot of South Philly is nicer now than it ever was.
that's true, but if you lived in north philly, it would be the opposite...though south philly wasn't probably a decent place back then so maybe they did prefer the old place but things always change and many south philadelphians I've met are thankful their neighborhood didn't end up like point breeze or strawberry mansion.
this society hill photo is also interesting
"Most of the older parts of this city were really horrid in the 40s and 50s. It was like that in a lot of American cities then."
In the 1940s, my mother grew up in a small rowhome in Wilmington that had no plumbing. It had an outhouse in the backyard, and my grandfather built a kind of roof between the back door and the outhouse so they could at least be out of the rain when crossing the yard to use it. That always blows my mind (me being a child of every convenience the 80s had to offer).
Also, thanks for the thoughtful responses on the subject of whether gentrification will continue. That video is an interesting one.
no, it's not really. the only subjective part is whether it's good or bad. immigration isn't gentrification.
It's absolutely subjective because people only talk about it when it's visibly noticeable. Not when it's subtle . . . and your definition is your definition. Either people are "wealthier" or they aren't. Not sure what difference it makes if those wealthier people are coming from Jakarta, Puebla, Toronto, Denver or Cherry Hill . . . unless you're trying to say something without actually having to say it . . . and that's the sort of codeword that "gentrification" has become.
Quote:
it's a pretty poor documentary. plenty of Philadelphia looks as bad or worse today.
here's a shot of society hill from the 50's from phillyhistory.org
That's because most of the city was built after WWI so in 1950 much of the city was still pretty new. In fact, neighborhoods in South Philly, Southwest, most of the Northeast, parts of West Philly, Roxborough, Stenton, etc were built in the 1950s.
Most of core of the city that was built in the 18th & 19th Century was comprised of awful neighborhoods by the time the 50s rolled around.
Quote:
I think it's always a negative thing when a government comes in and kicks out poor residents and then uses tax money to build things for rich people. the elimination of government money and planning from the process is a good thing. now gentrification is a more natural process, old city would be a lot more interesting had people moved in and fixed up those old properties.
I mostly agree except that when the government is moving people out of squalid conditions so they can build infrastructure that is modern and necessary for health and public safety then no, it's not a bad thing. I'm the last person to defend slum clearance or expressway building or whatever but plumbing and electricity isn't always bad.
You can't leave everything up to the market. Not investing in infrastructure and schools and neighborhoods leaves you with Detroit. I'm not pro-rich but I'm realistic enough to know that someone has to pay the bills. Society Hill was a strategic move that had a big pay off. Disinvestment would've overwhelmed the rest of Center City and, eventually all of South Philly.
Quote:
yes, some areas did need modernization, but the over dramatization y city fathers led to poorly thought out action. the richard allen homes they built actually ended up being worse, rather than transitional housing, they ended up building what amounted to prisons for the poor that devastated the surrounding neighborhoods.
Yeah, building high density "reservations" for poor people is generally a bad idea but those places were actually really nice for the first 5-10 years and were far comfortable and sanitary than what they replaced. Poorly managed and poorly funded high rises were the wrong way to go.
You're still presenting a false dichotomy between doing something and doing nothing. Even if the goal was to modernize and rebuild people still would have to have been relocated - even if only temporarily. I would've much preferred that they city subsidize the preservation/restoration market but I can't turn the clock back and we can only deal with today's reality.
Quote:
most of the reason to raze came from title 1 monies that were made available, it ended up being a failure for the most part. there was little benefit to existing residents who were forcefully displaced and most of the new residents at the time were already city residents.
First - you realize that your pictures are from Old City - not Society Hill, right? 6th & Lombard was a long way from 2nd & Walnut which, at the time was still the financial center of Philadelphia. I think what the National Park Service did to Old City was a travesty - but there's nothing to do about that now.
Title 1 is for education. The money to raze in cities all over the country came mostly from the FHWA for expressway building. I think most expressways that run through cities were a terrible idea and they should've stuck to existing transportation corridors or greenfields.
In any case, there may have not been a long-term benefit for some residents but the short-term benefits were clear as well as the long-term benefits to a neighborhood like Society Hill and the patrimony of Philadelphia. Poor people can't maintain these old houses. I can barely afford it but if the successive residents over the years hadn't let this place get into such a bad state of disrepair it would be a lot cheaper and easier for me.
Quote:
that's true, but if you lived in north philly, it would be the opposite...though south philly wasn't probably a decent place back then so maybe they did prefer the old place but things always change and many south philadelphians I've met are thankful their neighborhood didn't end up like point breeze or strawberry mansion.
this society hill photo is also interesting
North Philly, west of Broad St., was built for the new money industrialists. The people who eventually move on to build up Chestnut Hill and the Main Line. Not just anyone could buy their houses when they sold but each eventual sale passed on to someone a rung down on the socio-economic ladder. That's what happens with real estate. It becomes old and obsolete, expensive to maintain and the people who can afford it buy something brand new. Not saying it's right. Just the way it is.
Youre post is so offbase its hard to know where to start. The photos are clearly marked and theyre society hill/old city. Second if people are happy in supposedly squalid conditions theres little justification in forcefully moving them into poorly designed, poorly planned warehouses for the now undesirable city residents. North philly has plenty of worker housing. Lastly, as inarguable proof that youve been sold a bill of goods, there are numerous trinities and other old buildings in center city, southwark, northern liberties, and fishtown that have been modernized over the years with plumbing, wiring, and real kitchens. Theyre all desirable places to live. Most modern conveniences we take for granted today were relatively new back then. The idea that society hill waa done to benefit the poor is a bald faces lie. Most of the core city was, in fact not built in the 50's. Another bald faced lie. There were 2.2 milion people living in south, west, north, and nw philly BY... 1950....at a time when northeast philly was sparsely populated. Your history is flat out wrong.thats not an insult. Just a fact, we all have to learn sometime.
I'm sure ill take flak for this, but I'm glad they forcefully turned Society Hill from a slum into a beautiful neighborhood. It's a centrally located, über historic area that is an intrinsic part of Philadelphia and American history. Having such an important area as a slum was just unacceptable. Now, that area is one of our showcase neighborhoods and deservedly so. One can argue about the details but drastic action was needed.
I wouldn't be in favor of such heavy-handedness in normal circumstances, but Society Hill was not a normal neighborhood.
The greatest cities in the world were frequently shaped by very heavy hands.
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.
