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.
Just looking at the bay area, I've been... less than impressed by the direction gentrification is taking. Take San Francisco, for example... the Fillmore has perhaps been hit by gentrification worse than any other neighborhood in the city. What was once the heart of the black jazz musician community in the bay is becoming increasingly less black and is increasingly at risk of losing its connection with its history.
Oakland, which was once the black mecca of the bay, is also becoming increasingly less black... according to the most recent census, blacks are no longer the biggest minority... whites are. West Oakland, the historically black neighborhood of Oakland and the heart of the bay area blues scene, is quickly being gentrified away... even now it's a shadow of its former self. North Oakland is being gentrified too, and the Fruitvale neighborhood of East Oakland is likely next.
East Palo Alto used to be the only majority-black community on the Peninsula and still has the largest black community by far... however, this says more about the lack of blacks on the peninsula than the large number of blacks there are in EPA. EPA's black population has continued to dwindle thanks in large part to the continued gentrification of the areas of EPA near the 101 EPA/Palo Alto border and the area immediately east of the Ikea/Ravenswood shopping center. Now, the largest group in EPA by far is Latino; slowly but surely EPA is beginning to strongly mirror neighborhoods such as North Fair Oaks, East San Bruno and other communities along the peninsula that are east of El Camino Real. EPA's gentrification has happened at quite the exaggerated rate... this is understandable, though, considering that the land that EPA occupies is prime real estate.
The blacks in the bay are getting pushed farther north and east, with cities like Pittsburg, Fairfield, Antioch, Vallejo and more recently Concord being the most popular destinations. If the trends continue, eventually blacks will be pushed out of the bay area entirely.
Why is this happening now? In a lot of ways, I feel this has a whole lot to do with Silicon Valley. Being that the Valley has attracted a lot of upper-middle to upper class families to the bay, it's not surprising that poorer families are getting pushed out.
With all that being said, here's the question I ask you: Is this trend ultimately harmful to the cultural future of the bay area as a whole?
And it's not just the bay... All one has to do is look at Harlem in NY and Columbia Heights in DC to realize that it's happening everywhere. Thanks to Katrina, New Orleans is likely about to be gentrified en masse...
Is the American black community going to considerably decrease in the next 20 years? Where are they going to be pushed to? These are all relevant questions to me as a young black man...
St. Louis is in the infancy of mass scale gentrification. The past 10-20 years has seen a lot of neighborhood rehabilitation and small scale revitalization. This kind of rehabilitation has been continuing at an amazing rate, even during this recession. This decade the City of St. Louis has seen the first population gain in 50 years.
Now we have a guy named Paul McKee that has bought most of the land in the city's Detroit-like near northside and he has introduced plans to redevelop the area in an urban fashion. Its called the Northside Regeneration. It has its fans and its critics.....of course!
St. Louis is in the infancy of mass scale gentrification. The past 10-20 years has seen a lot of neighborhood rehabilitation and small scale revitalization. This kind of rehabilitation has been continuing at an amazing rate, even during this recession. This decade the City of St. Louis has seen the first population gain in 50 years.
Now we have a guy named Paul McKee that has bought most of the land in the city's Detroit-like near northside and he has introduced plans to redevelop the area in an urban fashion. Its called the Northside Regeneration. It has its fans and its critics.....of course!
Funny you mention Detroit... Detroit is the definition of a prime target for gentrification/urban renewal.
Shoot, if I had some spare money and heard of solid plans to renew Detroit (not necessarily gentrify but at least make it not be dying) I'd buy a house there and just wait for the inevitable revival.
St. Louis is in the infancy of mass scale gentrification. The past 10-20 years has seen a lot of neighborhood rehabilitation and small scale revitalization. This kind of rehabilitation has been continuing at an amazing rate, even during this recession. This decade the City of St. Louis has seen the first population gain in 50 years.
Now we have a guy named Paul McKee that has bought most of the land in the city's Detroit-like near northside and he has introduced plans to redevelop the area in an urban fashion. Its called the Northside Regeneration. It has its fans and its critics.....of course!
My guess is that the issues cities have had will migrate into the suburbs. St. Louis area would have a particular issue due to local politics and the city/county divide issue that is the number one barrier for regional growth. But this might be what starts the ball rolling for tearing down the divide and some level of city-suburb consolidation since any solving would have to be viewed as a 'marriage of equals' which is along the way of getting there. I could see in other cities, especially ones that are small in physical land area having a better chance of annexation if they are viewed as healthier.
It is leading to our cities and suburbs being on an even playing field. Eventually you will see the ghetto areas of our cities revitalized and those ghetto areas will make their way to the suburbs. Not to say that there will be no more city ghettos or that all suburbs will be ghetto, but there will be more of a balance in the future. I think city life will be viewed in more of a positive way in the future by the general population, with the suburban dream not being as popular. Eventually middle-class families will move into cities again after they are made safer and more kid friendly. Of course this will be a long process that I don't expect to come to fruition in our lifetimes.
We're looking at this from our small timeframes though. Gentrification is just another chaper in the history of our cities.
People talk about how historic black neighborhoods are losing their character and history - but really a lot of these neighborhoods didn't even have any black people in them 50 years ago. (I'm just using that as an example, not trying to make any specific point).
Here in Chicago you have neighborhoods that were built by poor Irish immigrants, then Polish people moved in, then hispanic immigrants moved in, then they fell on bad times and were run down and violent, then artists and hipsters came along, and now they're turning over with yuppies and new families. I also see people fret because the big gay neighborhood here is "losing its character" because it's being invaded by families with children. Well 20 years ago it was an impoverished hispanic neighborhood that was "invaded by gays".
Yes they're changing, but they always have been.
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.
