Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-19-2018, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
5,464 posts, read 5,709,317 times
Reputation: 6098

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BPt111 View Post
NYC is most gentrified out of all cities Brooklyn, Harlem, Queens are getting gentrified. Even the South Bronx in early stages you can see hipsters walking their dogs through projects in Harlem and Bushwick. The lower income people moving out of NYC because high rents to cheaper cities.
Except this narrative is not supported by statistics.

1. The amount of white people actually decreased. Yuppies/hipsters are not enough to replace all other middle/upper middle class whites that have moved out of the city. In fact, this is the lowest % of white people that have ever lived in the city since records began.
1990 NYC was 43% white
2018 NYC is less than 33% white
2. The share of immigrants increased by ~7%.
3. The share of African-Americans remains fairly constant, they didn't get gentrified out.
4. Majority black neighborhoods that did not see any gentrification or any population replacement saw all crime drop at the exact same rate as the rest of the city.
5. NYC never demolished/relocated people from any projects. There are some projects in NYC, especially Manhattan, that have similar crime rates as suburbs in some parts of the country. The only thing that was done to the projects is building market rate rentals next to them, or 'infill' on the empty spaces inside projects grounds themselves, because the land prices skyrocketed when people realized that living next to projects is no big deal, since the crime is low.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-19-2018, 09:55 AM
 
453 posts, read 317,730 times
Reputation: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
Except this narrative is not supported by statistics.

1. The amount of white people actually decreased. Yuppies/hipsters are not enough to replace all other middle/upper middle class whites that have moved out of the city. In fact, this is the lowest % of white people that have ever lived in the city since records began.
1990 NYC was 43% white
2018 NYC is less than 33% white
2. The share of immigrants increased by ~7%.
3. The share of African-Americans remains fairly constant, they didn't get gentrified out.
4. Majority black neighborhoods that did not see any gentrification or any population replacement saw all crime drop at the exact same rate as the rest of the city.
5. NYC never demolished/relocated people from any projects. There are some projects in NYC, especially Manhattan, that have similar crime rates as suburbs in some parts of the country. The only thing that was done to the projects is building market rate rentals next to them, or 'infill' on the empty spaces inside projects grounds themselves, because the land prices skyrocketed when people realized that living next to projects is no big deal, since the crime is low.

Agree.

Its very racist to assume what only the arrival of white people lowered the crime in the city.
this "white savior" complex is the crux of the whole gentrification debate.
crime went up in NYC not because of black people or immigrants, crime went up because after WW2, the development of the suburbs, the GI bill, red lining etc, basically extracted the middle class out of the city center, which later drove the city to near bankruptcy int he late 70s. Since then communities have reorganized, reinvested and the city has improved.

Stealing the credit for the improvement of the city from the local communities and to pass it to white people is another example of how racist people can be.

Last edited by upthere22; 04-19-2018 at 10:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2018, 10:32 AM
 
16,212 posts, read 10,821,176 times
Reputation: 8442
Quote:
Originally Posted by upthere22 View Post
Agree.

Its very racist to assume what only the arrival of white people lowered the crime in the city.
this "white savior" complex is the crux of the whole gentrification debate.

crime went up in NYC not because of black people or immigrants, crime went up because after WW2, the development of the suburbs, the GI bill, red lining etc, basically extracted the middle class out of the city center, which later drove the city to near bankruptcy int he late 70s. Since then communities have reorganized, reinvested and the city has improved.

Stealing the credit for the improvement of the city from the local communities and to pass it to white people is another example of how racist people can be.
ITA with this.

People usually are heavily invested in the "white people good" "bad people bad" mantra and don't realize how this is a classically racist belief.

Also the idea that middle income people are always white and that a significant majority of black people are criminals/cause crime.

Often in urban areas the "first wave" of gentrifiers are not white - they are usually black people with a middle income who aren't criminals.

I've been a gentrifier and I'm black. Usually in black neighborhoods, black gentrifiers don't get press because we don't file law suits against our neighbors or call police all the time like often white gentrifiers do when it comes to their black neighbors. We also blend in better in a community so it is not a "sexy" story for media.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2018, 10:39 AM
 
16,212 posts, read 10,821,176 times
Reputation: 8442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
Except this narrative is not supported by statistics.

1. The amount of white people actually decreased. Yuppies/hipsters are not enough to replace all other middle/upper middle class whites that have moved out of the city. In fact, this is the lowest % of white people that have ever lived in the city since records began.
1990 NYC was 43% white
2018 NYC is less than 33% white
2. The share of immigrants increased by ~7%.
3. The share of African-Americans remains fairly constant, they didn't get gentrified out.
4. Majority black neighborhoods that did not see any gentrification or any population replacement saw all crime drop at the exact same rate as the rest of the city.
5. NYC never demolished/relocated people from any projects. There are some projects in NYC, especially Manhattan, that have similar crime rates as suburbs in some parts of the country. The only thing that was done to the projects is building market rate rentals next to them, or 'infill' on the empty spaces inside projects grounds themselves, because the land prices skyrocketed when people realized that living next to projects is no big deal, since the crime is low.
On the bold, it is interesting to me that people overlook the fact that black people are very heavily resistant most of the time to be gentrified out. There are always those who either own property so are not as susceptible to being gentrified (urban renters are more likely to be forced out than owners) and the fact that a majority of black people are not criminals and don't engage in criminal activity like people believe that we do.

On the PJs in NYC - #5 above is also correct. NYCHA, I'll be honest, in the housing industry is seen as lagging behind other housing authorities in the country in regards to mixed use/mixed income developments. I used to work in housing and it is a fact that the destruction of housing developments and scattering of former residents that is seen in other cities (like Chicago and Atlanta) has not occurred in NYC due to NYCHA not being as active in developing in this fashion. It is more interesting that NYC has lower crime rates today despite this than other cities (like Chicago and Atlanta).

Contrary to what people believe, even poor people are not as criminally prone as they like to believe. Also gang activity has heavily decreased across the entire country, including NYC and it never had the reputation of gang culture as other urban areas across the country had (like in LA or Chicago). They had gangs of course but it was not as pervasive as it was in other areas. Black people are also heavily involved in crime prevention contrary to what people believe. We do engage with law enforcement and demonstrations for decreasing crime in NYC in the past were heavily centered on black activists, even Al Sharpton who whites like to demonize, I only first heard of him in regards to his "stop the violence" campaigns in the late 1980s and 1990s. This is a common feature of black communities where you always have a dedicated group of people who actively work to decrease crime, provide social services programs to keep kids safe and off the streets, and to provide treatment facilities for people with issues like drug addiction.

It is sad IMO that so many non-black people and even other blacks themselves like to overlook the above and instead fall in line with some bizarro black inferiority mantra on crime and activism in regards to the black community.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2018, 08:22 PM
 
1,889 posts, read 1,324,413 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Zero View Post
Not exactly a complaint, but did you not see my post asking for clarification on whether those studies comparing state solvency include the federal funding received by each state when evaluating whether or not each one is better run? For example, Florida gets 33% of their budget from the Federal government, while New Jersey only gets 27%. It could be that Florida gets a disproportionate amount of Federal help, or it could be that Florida is able to lower their overall budget because of good governance. It’s a complicated analysis, so I like to try to understand the context behind the numbers.
I don't think competent analysts draw fiscal policy conclusions from unadjusted federal aid statistics.

That kind of data needs to be corrected for income demographics and poverty rates, rural areas receiving more subsidy from state highway funds, covert subsidies in the form of federal tax deductions, historic/cultural factors and so on.

Once examined on a state-by-state basis, we can then use this to adjust a state solvency ranking like the Norcross study. What the latter actually does is assume that aid is proportionate to need and that its effect as confounder is statistically insignificant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:27 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top