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.
These hipsters who come to these newly gentrified areas are mostly white lefties, who are supposed to care about the poor and oppressed yet they are driving the oppression. So they can have their art galleries and hipster delis they are willing to displace poor minorities and the elderly. Even if some can manage to stay the hipsters tear down their neighborhoods making it an alien place to the natives.
The gentrifiers know exactly what they are doing, they may claim to want diversity but they do what they can to make it uncomfortable to impossible for the original neighborhood people to stay.
Legends of Chamberlain Heights did a hilarious satire of this..."The G Word", season 2, episode 1.
These trends go in cycles. Right now, urban areas are all the rage. Not too many years ago, they were terrible to live in. I don't think the pendulum will swing too far back toward rural areas, but I think some of these trends will cool over time.
These trends go in cycles. Right now, urban areas are all the rage. Not too many years ago, they were terrible to live in. I don't think the pendulum will swing too far back toward rural areas, but I think some of these trends will cool over time.
Yeah the term “inner city “ is outdated . Now people want to live in the inner city .
Many areas in L.A that used to be notorious gang areas to be avoided are now hip .
Echo park and Highland Pak are two examples . Our downtown area wasn’t considered “cool” until relatively recently . It was avoided by most locals unless they had to work there in the office buildings etc . But now it’s one of the coolest places to live .
Boyle Heights is right next to downtown L.A so of course there is interest in the area now .
Lots of these old structures in Boyle heights are falling apart too so they could use some improvement . This is one of the oldest or the oldest parts of Los Angeles .
Interestingly it used to actually be a very diverse area and was the center of the Jewish community n L.A .
Yeah the term “inner city “ is outdated . Now people want to live in the inner city .
Many areas in L.A that used to be notorious gang areas to be avoided are now hip .
Echo park and Highland Pak are two examples . Our downtown area wasn’t considered “cool” until relatively recently . It was avoided by most locals unless they had to work there in the office buildings etc . But now it’s one of the coolest places to live .
Boyle Heights is right next to downtown L.A so of course there is interest in the area now .
Lots of these old structures in Boyle heights are falling apart too so they could use some improvement . This is one of the oldest or the oldest parts of Los Angeles .
Interestingly it used to actually be a very diverse area and was the center of the Jewish community n L.A .
How about Palms?
A friend of mine used to call it "Rancho Apocalypse", but my sister says its cool.
This just speaks to the dangers of not only socialism, but government schools.
I wonder why no one has brought up the literal ethnic cleansing that Latinos have been, and still are,
perpetrating against blacks in L.A. a few years ago:
What the gentrification compalints are really about, at their root, is white people moving into POC neighborhoods. They dislike it because many POC will eventually leave as a result. Though, many will stay. This argument is ethno-politically numb given that POC rail against white flight when they decide that they can afford to live in a white neighborhood. This all comes down to a demand for POC ethnic preference of the demographic decision making process. When they decide to live with white people, white flight is wrong. When white people decide to live with POC, white proximity is wrong.
First the royal people of color with liberal's help imposed themselves on whites in the white urban areas and essentially ruined those white neighborhoods. Then white people let them have those urban areas, and left fellow whites of less means to drown, and moved to the suburbs. Then the liberals sent their people of color soldiers to the white suburbs and ruined them and ran whites back to the urban areas leaving whites of lessor means to drown. Today gentrification is attempting to price out bad neighbors. Diversity is not going to allow something like price to stop them from imposition.
Complaints about gentrification largely aren't about "pricing", at their root. If one has a complain, they have to be honest lest their argument ring hollow.
For example, in Eastern cities (my point of reference), where gentrification protest also occur, complaints about an increase in property taxes are moot because, most often, homes are not re-assessed. They generally aren't even assessed to near the value that they are / were at before the gentrification.
Moreover, the school districts are generally failing spectacularly for want of funds. There are also protests about this. And yet then there is a complaint about property tax re-assessment (which doesn't occur anyhow)? Which do people want: more taxes badly funded schools? It's one or the other, but in reality it will continue to be the latter.
Rents also tend to rise slowly in gentrified neighborhoods. But guess what also rises? Jobs and wages. If a neighborhood is gentrifying, it means that the economy is expanding in that area. Therefore, its an area for a working economy. No one ever promised low income people that they would be able to live or continue to live in areas that are above their pay-grade in a growing economy, nor retirees that they would or should live in an area that is better for working people.
Last, renters, to include myself, really aren't an invested part of the community. They are largely transient, statistically speaking, and thus they really have no legitimate complaint about being priced out of the community where they are renting. The nature of renting is that you rent where you can afford, until you can afford to buy (if ever). Homeowners comprise the functional / financial lifeblood of a community. Their property values rise with gentrification. No sane person would complain about owning a home in a gentrified neighborhood versus an economically impoverished one. Everything improves, in regard to quality of life, in a gentrified neighborhood.
What the gentrification compalints are really about, at their root, is white people moving into POC neighborhoods. They dislike it because many POC will eventually leave as a result. Though, many will stay. This argument is ethno-politically numb given that POC rail against white flight when they decide that they can afford to live in a white neighborhood. This all comes down to a demand for POC ethnic preference of the demographic decision making process. When they decide to live with white people, white flight is wrong. When white people decide to live with POC, white proximity is wrong.
I would think that the West Coast, particularly Silicon Valley, would be the biggest example of gentrification and where it can lead.
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.
