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.
Exactly. You need to figure out why the area is gentrifying and see if you can find alternatives.
If people are moving because they want to be close to transit, then that means building more new housing near transit. No all problems have a so,union, but some can be negated. It is usually a supply problem.
If you have worries about gentrification I think you need to shift your focus away from the entire concept of "gentrification". It is actually much simpler - it is affordable housing. There will always be shifts in populations in any urban neighborhood, it is a natural thing that will always happen. Two neighborhoods in Chicago where there is strong opposition to "gentrification" from Hispanic community groups are Humboldt Park and Pilsen - the names of the neighborhoods show that they most definitely have not always been Hispanic, but they have been working class immigrant neighborhoods for a very long time.
The real concern should be about people living on limited incomes being able to live in a safe neighborhood with decent transit - it isn't just about service and factory workers having good neighborhoods to live in (which I very much value) it's also about the fact that you can't have a functional city if you don't have convenient housing for workers at all income levels.
Don't worry about gentrification, worry about affordable housing.
One way is to look at the posts on social networking to see cities where people are pissed off cause too many people are moving there. Austin fits the bill. I go on regularly and say semi rude things like "Don't Move Here". I do it partly as a joke but also it is a saying someone came up with and it fits how many really feel.
So I think it is not just gentrification but whole cities that may be avoided from not just conscience but also too many people is an indicator that the city's fun factor may soon be diminished by a crowd factor.
The real concern should be about people living on limited incomes being able to live in a safe neighborhood with decent transit - it isn't just about service and factory workers having good neighborhoods to live in (which I very much value) it's also about the fact that you can't have a functional city if you don't have convenient housing for workers at all income levels.
Don't worry about gentrification, worry about affordable housing.
Bad Gnome says "From what I've seen they have only been driven out of once cheap neighborhoods. "
That sounds like it is ok then to you.
I think the OP's whole point was he does not want to be a part of that system and I am glad.
I do not understand the attitude that if you are displacing the poor or working class it is ok and they can just move. Why are poor citizens less valued to many? They are not less valued to me. I heard all persons are created equal somewhere's.
Jade brought up some really good points.
The OP can join groups in whatever city they end up in that support affordable housing and other groups that address issues for the poor, working class.
I have seen Austin's changes since 1984 and in 1999 we considered moving to East Austin to get an older home. We gave it serious thought. I did not want to be a part of gentrifying it. I being white(more or less), middle class, my husband being Hispanic, middle class (his family from the Eastside originally) had a different mix than all white folks. Even we decided not to move there. I am glad because while the property is worth more the taxes would be painful to pay and seriously the hipster factor is sorta nauseating on the scale and pace it is happening.
I have seen in Ft. Worth (1993-1996) a nice mix of the poor and the gentrifiers co-existing and am not sure it still exists there but it was to a level were it helped the poor to get neighborhoods that were safer and the wealthy either got to keep their family homes or some fixer-upper types got good deals on decaying mansions or older starter homes. A balance is great.
Working for affordable housing helps a whole city this attitude that it only helps super poor or homeless has to change. It helps low income people. PEOPLE, fellow citizens. People who may have good hearts and good morals and values. I do not know why some people picture them as being all single, drug addicted men who are despicable. It is a lousy stereotype. It is often hard working families, people I love and call friends. I have friends some who are rich, some middle and some poor and I do not want to live in a city that does not have a good mix of people.
I wanted to get feedback from fellow progressives and liberals on the issue of gentrification. I'm graduating from college at the end of the year and I'm looking at different cities that I can move to. All things being equal, I would rather live in the urban core compared to the burbs. I do not inspire to be a yuppie but I may be a little too mainstream to be a hipster. All of this boils down to how do I address the issue of gentrification; specifically, how do I be apart of the solution instead of being part of the problem without living in a place where I would fear getting mugged?
By not worrying about it.
Since you obviously view gentrification as a problem, you really have two choices. (1) Move to an area where it's basically already complete and there aren't any poors left that don't live in welfare housing. This is unlikely as recent college graduates don't tend to make that much money. (2) Live in a stealth van such or otherwise be homeless such that you are not raising the cost of living in your infinitesimally small way.
Both options sound lousy to me. Ironically moving to the bad neighborhood is probably the worst think you could do if you really think that gentrification is a problem. The "up and coming" neighborhoods are usually quite far into gentrification. For example, a lot of people call Uptown or Temescal in Oakland "up and coming." They're pretty gentrified. You'll do more "harm" moving to either of those than you would Upper Rock Ridge.
Of course, it really depends where you are. What's true for the Bay Area is not true in much the country. Moving to a high-crime area in Detroit you could do a lot of good. The people leaving Detroit aren't leaving because it's too expensive as is true for most of the people leaving SF/Oakland.
If you have worries about gentrification I think you need to shift your focus away from the entire concept of "gentrification". It is actually much simpler - it is affordable housing. There will always be shifts in populations in any urban neighborhood, it is a natural thing that will always happen. Two neighborhoods in Chicago where there is strong opposition to "gentrification" from Hispanic community groups are Humboldt Park and Pilsen - the names of the neighborhoods show that they most definitely have not always been Hispanic, but they have been working class immigrant neighborhoods for a very long time.
The real concern should be about people living on limited incomes being able to live in a safe neighborhood with decent transit - it isn't just about service and factory workers having good neighborhoods to live in (which I very much value) it's also about the fact that you can't have a functional city if you don't have convenient housing for workers at all income levels.
Don't worry about gentrification, worry about affordable housing.
Exactly! The problem is, too many cities are only building high end housing, so the "regular people" are forced into the up and coming areas. That's what is happening where I live, people priced out of SF take their SF sized budgets and bid 20% over asking price in the middle class+ areas. This pushes the middle class people into the up and coming areas and forces out the poorer residents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
Both options sound lousy to me. Ironically moving to the bad neighborhood is probably the worst think you could do if you really think that gentrification is a problem. The "up and coming" neighborhoods are usually quite far into gentrification. For example, a lot of people call Uptown or Temescal in Oakland "up and coming." They're pretty gentrified. You'll do more "harm" moving to either of those than you would Upper Rock Ridge.
Yup those areas have been "gentrified" for a while, they are just missing amenities (groceries) to make the transition complete. Although I might not consider Uptown as a gentrified place. There was hardly any housing there before. Basically it was created from scratch as a new neighborhood, so there weren't a lot of people to force out.
Temescal will never have a full grocery store. Safeway is right across the street and it's too small a neighborhood. Uptown is unlikely. There's a Whole Paychecks not too far away but a bit past convenient walking distance, especially for the part closer to downtown. It could use something like a Trader Joe's, but again there's one too close by for a second store to make sense. Maybe City Target, except there's a Target less than two miles away. Still, possible.
Temescal will never have a full grocery store. Safeway is right across the street and it's too small a neighborhood. Uptown is unlikely. There's a Whole Paychecks not too far away but a bit past convenient walking distance, especially for the part closer to downtown. It could use something like a Trader Joe's, but again there's one too close by for a second store to make sense. Maybe City Target, except there's a Target less than two miles away. Still, possible.
I saw an article recently about Target looking for a spot downtown.
A grocery in Uptown, or really greater downtown south of Grand is definitely needed, since West Oakland doesn't have a grocery store, and of course Jack London is missing one (besides Chinatown). I can't think of a location at the moment though. Unless one of those entitled high rises puts a grocery at the bottom.
Another grocery, Sprouts is starting construction shortly at 30th and Broadway. IF anything I am overserved by grocery stores. In my 1.5-2 mile radius, I've got 2-3 Safeways, Whole Foods, 2 Trader Joes and the Piedmont Grocery (an indie store) and Market Hall (gourmet food mart). And West Oakland, with 70k residents has nothing in the 3 mile radius (besides the terrible Pack and Save in Emeryville that is actually pretty far for most people, 3 miles). The very definition of a food desert.
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.
