Gentrification good or bad (Philadelphia, Clark: renter, crime, homes)

[123noname321]

This topic really has me split . Yes gentrification brings money and investment into poorer neighborhoods that need that. Property values rise and people want to live in that neighborhood like NoLibs or Graduate Hospital. However gentrification usually forces the longtime, usually minority, residents out of their neighborhoods and seems to only relocate the poverty and the crime that follows. For example Northeast Philly where I live has been said to be on the decline escpecially Holmesburg where a few days a few teens were stabbed which got me thinking about this. Also one thing I love about Philly is that we are a grittier blue collar city than other Northeast Cities like Boston after reading another thread so is the gentrification taking away from what makes Philly, Philly and is it worth it if we are just relocating the poor?

[MikeNigh]

If those moving in are pushing out those already there simply by paying more without improving the area, then I don't see how that is good for either party.

How is gentrification any different than an area losing a lot of high paying jobs? In that scenario all the high paid populace is also forced out. I think both scenarios are caused by uncontrollable forces. If they could be controlled they shouldn't.

[Clark Park]

If you're a property owner gentrification is good.

If you're a renter it is bad.

[ElijahAstin]

It has positive and negative aspects; it's not to be confused with a cure for poverty.

Other than that? It is what it is. No one racial/socioeconomic group has the inherent right to be "in control" of any neighborhood.

[Snwmn5]

Originally Posted by 123noname321

This topic really has me split . Yes gentrification brings money and investment into poorer neighborhoods that need that. Property values rise and people want to live in that neighborhood like NoLibs or Graduate Hospital. However gentrification usually forces the longtime, usually minority, residents out of their neighborhoods and seems to only relocate the poverty and the crime that follows. For example Northeast Philly where I live has been said to be on the decline escpecially Holmesburg where a few days a few teens were stabbed which got me thinking about this. Also one thing I love about Philly is that we are a grittier blue collar city than other Northeast Cities like Boston after reading another thread so is the gentrification taking away from what makes Philly, Philly and is it worth it if we are just relocating the poor?

I think it really depends who you ask. I also agree that one of my favorite things about Philly is the blue collar/middle class culture that has been so strong here in comparison to other cities. In fact, when you ask people from other places to describe Philly it's often something about "blue collar" or "tough" or "hard-working." But for a lot of the people who live in Philadelphia now, who didn't grow up experiencing that culture in say the Northeast, or Roxborough, or Port Richmond, or wherever, gentrification is nothing but good cause it means more restaurants, music venues, bars, amenities, etc in Center City and the surrounding core neighborhoods. I don't think a lot of consideration is given to what's happening outside of those areas. And then if you ask people from the traditional middle class neighborhoods, many are going to complain about the city getting worse. I think this trend of the middle class moving on and gentrification/development in the neighborhoods surrounding Center City is clearing shifting a lot of the poverty and problems further out.

From the Pew Charitable Trusts survey on the middle class in Philadelphia, it looks like recently from 2000 to 2010 though things improved with the upper class growing, lower class shrinking, and the decline of the middle class slowing to only 1% over those ten years. Maybe this is stabilizing a bit as a whole. I think neighborhoods in Northeast Philly can definitely survive without completely declining, but it's all about if people value living there and want to stay because those sections are not going to see the influx of young people with money from outside the city that Fishtown, or Point Breeze, or even Roxborough (which seems to get young families who previously rented/lived in Manayunk) are seeing. People have to continue leaving for decline to move in.

[cattusbabe]

Originally Posted by Clark Park

If you're a property owner gentrification is good.

If you're a renter it is bad.

I agree. It is about as simple as that.

[pman]

Originally Posted by 123noname321

This topic really has me split . Yes gentrification brings money and investment into poorer neighborhoods that need that. Property values rise and people want to live in that neighborhood like NoLibs or Graduate Hospital. However gentrification usually forces the longtime, usually minority, residents out of their neighborhoods and seems to only relocate the poverty and the crime that follows. For example Northeast Philly where I live has been said to be on the decline escpecially Holmesburg where a few days a few teens were stabbed which got me thinking about this. Also one thing I love about Philly is that we are a grittier blue collar city than other Northeast Cities like Boston after reading another thread so is the gentrification taking away from what makes Philly, Philly and is it worth it if we are just relocating the poor?

It's not as simple as that and the underlying issue is far more complex. the number of people living in northern liberties has tripled so it's not like rich people moved in and pushed out poor people. the neighborhood has been revitalized from an area that was neither home to many people nor home to many businesses (anymore). in graduate hospital hundreds of vacant properties were renovated and returned to use. aside from a few poverty pimps, I don't think anyone would consider this aspect a bad thing. the reality is that not all revitalization is gentrification but people often conflate the two. the reality is the blue collar image was largely a temporary thing and represents a period where the wealthy had been leaving but the working and middle class stayed. over the years, the middle aslo left and the working class barely exists anymore because that type of work is gone. these are much bigger problems than just gentrification. a friend of mine grew up in a "northeast" like neighborhood in southwest philly. long before fishtown was cool that neighborhood collapsed. the reality is "gentrification" isn't pushing people into the northeast, without it, the northeast would still be having problems and the core neighborhoods would still be bad. and look at those neighborhoods, sprring garden was built for people with money, when they left, it became poor. its a cycle. the northeast housing is becoming dated just as the rowhomes before them. lastly, middle and working class areas are hit the hardest by the schools. when the northeast had more money they could send kids to parochial schools but as the area gets poorer,people are forced out into the burbs if they don't want their kids in the PSD.

[ThomasDarcy]

Originally Posted by MikeNigh

If those moving in are pushing out those already there simply by paying more without improving the area, then I don't see how that is good for either party.

How is gentrification any different than an area losing a lot of high paying jobs? In that scenario all the high paid populace is also forced out. I think both scenarios are caused by uncontrollable forces. If they could be controlled they shouldn't.

Well, the difference is that gentrification ends up creating jobs, not losing them. So while its true that rents rise and low-income renters have to move (which is just as bad as high income people leaving, as you point out), gentrification has positive externalities on the rest of the city that losing jobs doesn't have.

It increases tax revenue, it increases job opportunities for others (hey, someone has to work at those new gastropubs and coffee shops), and it makes the city more attractive to tourists (who also create jobs and bring in tax revenue).

And since tax revenue is what pays for city services, gentrification is a positive thing at least for the low-income residents who don't have to move (in other neighborhoods, say).

Of course, if you are a low-income property owner in a gentrifying neighborhood, you just hit the jackpot...

[rotodome]

At this particular point in time, gentrification is an overwhelmingly positive thing for Philly, which is a city that faces enormous problems with high levels of poverty, and overcoming decades of disinvestment and outright abandonment.

That is NOT to say that gentrification is by nature a positive thing, or will always be a good thing for Philly.

When gentrification means displacing poverty with productive taxpayers, then it's easy to see the positives.
When it means displacing the middle class, and/or local interesting communities that give a place its character, then it's another story.

[pman]

Originally Posted by rotodome

At this particular point in time, gentrification is an overwhelmingly positive thing for Philly, which is a city that faces enormous problems with high levels of poverty, and overcoming decades of disinvestment and outright abandonment.

That is NOT to say that gentrification is by nature a positive thing, or will always be a good thing for Philly.

When gentrification means displacing poverty with productive taxpayers, then it's easy to see the positives.
When it means displacing the middle class, and/or local interesting communities that give a place its character, then it's another story.

keep in mind the relativity of displacement. over fifty years north central philadelphia population dropped from 270k to less than 100k people. adding a few thousand people isn't going to magically displace a large number of people. for all the people who say philly was known as a blue collar city that ignores the fact that the blue collar view if a 70's view, people have largely viewed philly as a dangerous ghetto since at least the 80's. anyway, it's not really about displacement since there is A LOT of room. I think the bigger issue is people are uncomfortable with change