4 ms·

Why is gentrification bad?

eitally 11y ago
Because in order for cities to function properly, it's important that blue collar workers are able to afford to inhabit them. Un-governed gentrification and unreasonably low levels of low income housing result in situations like exist in the SFBA now, where many middle class households are either forced into extraordinarily long commutes (leads to higher stress, worse health and increased mortality) or cramped living in shared multi-family apartments/houses.
- Nutmog 11y ago
  What force makes people stay living in the same rented house no matter how bad it makes their life? Somehow people all across America are managing to survive despite not living in gentrified areas. Is SFBA the only place those middle class people can find a job? That sounds kind of unbelievable. Are they unmotivated to move because it's too much hard work? Afraid of losing friends and being unable to make new ones? I know these are costs but they really too high to bear? Personally, I live in a relatively small city and my income is far higher than my expenses. I once lived in London and the two were almost equal. Life was less comfortable then but I certainly didn't blame the rich bankers for pushing up my rent and bus fares.
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    "Is SFBA the only place those middle class people can find a job" Do you know how expensive it is to move? I mean, move across the country from the Bay Area? Should people be forced to move into the Central Valley, a 2+ hour train/public transit commute into the SFBA? What kind of crap quality of life is that?
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    >Somehow people all across America are managing to survive despite not living in gentrified areas. No, they're not. Employment, especially mid-to-high-wage employment, is geographically concentrated. Most of the land-area of the USA, so to speak, is poor, and getting poorer. Also, remember, 80% of the population actually lives in large metro-areas, not in the countryside.
  - eitally 11y ago
    The thing is, it partly depends on how you feel about societal well-being in general. If you believe these folks are valuable contributors to society, then you should naturally also believe it's important to help them continue doing so in ways that are not hazardous to their health, demeaning, or cause societal breakdowns (homelessness, drug abuse, child endangerment, etc). If you don't believe they're valuable contributors, I challenge you to describe how any high-CoL metro would successfully function without blue collar service workers.
  - cauterized 11y ago
    It's not just about the same house. It's also about moving away from friends, family and support structures that make life better no matter who you are and can make poverty more survivable. And it's about a city's inability to function without people who can pay the rent somewhere close enough to their low-wage jobs (in retail, bartending, waiting tables, etc - at the businesses which make the city desirable to live in in the first place) to make sense for them to work in the city instead of in another community.
  - lbebber 11y ago
    > I once lived in London and the two were almost equal. Life was less comfortable then but I certainly didn't blame the rich bankers for pushing up my rent and bus fares. I don't know your particular situation, but moving in a place you already know is expensive is an entirely different case than being priced out of a place you've already been living. (Plus it's hard to blame individual bankers or techies or whatever for it, it's more of a matter of public policy).
thearn4 11y ago
I think it is generally seen as a process that ends up pricing out and displacing the people who used to rent within an area (or even own, if property taxes end up spiking), thus dissolving the original community.
yomly 11y ago
It's a double edged sword: it generates wealth and regenerates an area. On the other hand people who may have lived there for 20+ years can get priced out of their own neighbourhood. Arguably, people have a right to continue living where theyve always lived, and should be able to live close to work. This is at least believed in the UK, in theory. Unfortunately, what normally happens is that house prices in the area grows exponentially fast and serves to only make the rich richer. Rental prices are usually pegged to housing prices and thus, the original inhabitants are pushed out.
dangerlibrary 11y ago
Decreased quality of life for those who rent and can no longer afford to live in the gentrified neighborhood. Increased property taxes for those who already own can force even long-time residents to move, regardless of whether they actually want to, simply because their home has suddenly and unexpectedly increased in value. You could argue that this is a windfall - but being forcibly displaced by increased cost of living isn't fun, even if you do get a bunch of money for your house (that you didn't want to sell in the first place). Also, change is scary.
- koolba 11y ago
  > Increased property taxes for those who already own can force even long-time residents to move, regardless of whether they actually want to, simply because their home has suddenly and unexpectedly increased in value. That's not really an issue in California as property tax growth is fixed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1... Cash poor home owners get "stuck" in their homes because if they sold and bought a new house, they'd have significantly greater property taxes. Theyre better off keeping the home and either living there or renting it out.
- uiri 11y ago
  In California, real property is only reassessed at market value when it is sold or transferred. So property taxes won't increase on long-time residents who don't move. Rent control is, I believe, intended to provide the same effect for long-time residents who rent instead of own. I agree that increases in other components of the cost of living of an area can have the same effect though.
  - sulam 11y ago
    It's also reassessed if you improve it in any substantial way. My property taxes doubled after a remodel. Some of that was the remodel, but roughly half was due to prices in the neighborhood going up since my wife and I originally bought the house. In my case we can afford these extra taxes, but I can easily imagine that in other circumstances this would be difficult. The alternative is doing work without permits, which comes with other risks.
a_humean 11y ago
Basic reason is that it displaces the existing population through increasing prices in housing and services and alienates the existing population socially and culturally. The only people that experience the benefits of gentrification are wealthy newcomers, whereas existing populations suffer varying degrees of harm with the gradual destruction of their communities.
true_religion 11y ago
Because changing environment unintentionally pressures previous long-standing residents into leaving the area, and causes discomfort as two divergent groups meet in the same location and one feels the other is destroying, ruining, or usurping their culture. It's not "bad" as a moral stance, but certainly some claim it is bad from their perspective if they end up on the losing end of gentrification. To give an example that more people might empathize with. Parts of central London used to be affordable by the mid to upper classes, but these scenic locations are now 100% owned by others who only buy them for use as vacation homes. It's an odd case of gentrification pushing relatively wealthy people out of an area so that extremely wealthy people can live there instead.
Joe8Bit 11y ago
It goes hand in hand with an increased cost of living (e.g. the nicer things get the more expensive it is to live there) which in turn causes a displacement of people and communities who lived there before the gentrification happened. In many western countries there is also a strong correlation between the above displacement and it overly effecting minorities, who due to economic/political/social disenfranchisement have congregated communities in low cost areas. If you are a member of the more affluent population who moves into a gentrified area, it's great, but if you're a part of the community who has lived there for a long time and you suddenly can't afford to any more, it's really not great at all (to it mildly). So in a narrow sense 'gentrification' isn't a bad thing, however put in the wider context it can have very significant negative effects on poorer communities. Especially when combined with a lack of social/affordable housing.
gilgoomesh 11y ago
Gentrification is fundamentally a dramatic increase in local prices. The change isn't usually driven by locals earning more but by new people moving in and pricing the former residents out of the market. It's great for the new residents. It is terrible for the old – particularly old residents who don't own their own home or are otherwise unable to capitalize on the price shift.
- lr4444lr 11y ago
  That sounds like a net zero, not a net "bad", which is what the OP was asking.
venomsnake 11y ago
Why is outsourcing bad? Change is all good and fancy, until you are the one left behind/on the receiving end. The West right now - especially US and UK have a bad track record of redistributing the gains.
Noughmad 11y ago
Because not many people own homes in the US. So if local prices go up, renters have to move elsewhere. If you own a house, chances are you still have to move because other services become too expensive for you, but at least you made a nice profit on the house. If you rent, it's a lose-lose situation.
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Because it means that society is rationing resources at a level of scarcity well above the actual level of scarcity. It means that some of the potential utility of just building more housing is being left on the table so that an artificial class conflict can be created between new and existing citizens.
mrgoldenbrown 11y ago
It often screws over the residents who worked hard to make an area desirable. A typical pattern goes like this: 1. An area is cheap because it is considered undesirable and all the rich folk move away. 2. Poor folks move there - artists, minorities, families. 3. These folk work for years to make the area safer, nicer to live in, more interesting. 4. Now that poor folk have improved the neighborhood, rich folk flood back in and buy up property or just drive up rents, pricing the original residents out. 5. Lower class folk forced to move to the next crappy neighborhood, and repeat the process.
mcguire 11y ago
In this case, the newcomers regard the residents generally as undesirable and specifically as criminals. In general, things which disrupt a community are not readily welcomed by the community.
puppetmaster3 11y ago
THANK you for comments, I honestly did not know that someone would be against it. I assume this is from a left POV, I see it as plus that a local business succeeds, or a new local hosting gets built, at worst more tax revenue = more services. I wonder to self if higher education is also viewed as bad, as it has same effect - higher local prices. So the outcome to anti-gentrification is the abandoned neighborhoods that investors would not want to develop. Not something we can solve, just a warning to business to not grow in the anti-gentrification areas.

Because in order for cities to function properly, it's important that blue collar workers are able to afford to inhabit them. Un-governed gentrification and unreasonably low levels of low income housing result in situations like exist in the SFBA now, where many middle class households are either forced into extraordinarily long commutes (leads to higher stress, worse health and increased mortality) or cramped living in shared multi-family apartments/houses.

Nutmog 11y ago
What force makes people stay living in the same rented house no matter how bad it makes their life? Somehow people all across America are managing to survive despite not living in gentrified areas. Is SFBA the only place those middle class people can find a job? That sounds kind of unbelievable. Are they unmotivated to move because it's too much hard work? Afraid of losing friends and being unable to make new ones? I know these are costs but they really too high to bear? Personally, I live in a relatively small city and my income is far higher than my expenses. I once lived in London and the two were almost equal. Life was less comfortable then but I certainly didn't blame the rich bankers for pushing up my rent and bus fares.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  "Is SFBA the only place those middle class people can find a job" Do you know how expensive it is to move? I mean, move across the country from the Bay Area? Should people be forced to move into the Central Valley, a 2+ hour train/public transit commute into the SFBA? What kind of crap quality of life is that?
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  >Somehow people all across America are managing to survive despite not living in gentrified areas. No, they're not. Employment, especially mid-to-high-wage employment, is geographically concentrated. Most of the land-area of the USA, so to speak, is poor, and getting poorer. Also, remember, 80% of the population actually lives in large metro-areas, not in the countryside.
- eitally 11y ago
  The thing is, it partly depends on how you feel about societal well-being in general. If you believe these folks are valuable contributors to society, then you should naturally also believe it's important to help them continue doing so in ways that are not hazardous to their health, demeaning, or cause societal breakdowns (homelessness, drug abuse, child endangerment, etc). If you don't believe they're valuable contributors, I challenge you to describe how any high-CoL metro would successfully function without blue collar service workers.
- cauterized 11y ago
  It's not just about the same house. It's also about moving away from friends, family and support structures that make life better no matter who you are and can make poverty more survivable. And it's about a city's inability to function without people who can pay the rent somewhere close enough to their low-wage jobs (in retail, bartending, waiting tables, etc - at the businesses which make the city desirable to live in in the first place) to make sense for them to work in the city instead of in another community.
- lbebber 11y ago
  > I once lived in London and the two were almost equal. Life was less comfortable then but I certainly didn't blame the rich bankers for pushing up my rent and bus fares. I don't know your particular situation, but moving in a place you already know is expensive is an entirely different case than being priced out of a place you've already been living. (Plus it's hard to blame individual bankers or techies or whatever for it, it's more of a matter of public policy).

thearn4 11y ago

I think it is generally seen as a process that ends up pricing out and displacing the people who used to rent within an area (or even own, if property taxes end up spiking), thus dissolving the original community.

yomly 11y ago

It's a double edged sword: it generates wealth and regenerates an area. On the other hand people who may have lived there for 20+ years can get priced out of their own neighbourhood. Arguably, people have a right to continue living where theyve always lived, and should be able to live close to work. This is at least believed in the UK, in theory. Unfortunately, what normally happens is that house prices in the area grows exponentially fast and serves to only make the rich richer. Rental prices are usually pegged to housing prices and thus, the original inhabitants are pushed out.

dangerlibrary 11y ago

Decreased quality of life for those who rent and can no longer afford to live in the gentrified neighborhood. Increased property taxes for those who already own can force even long-time residents to move, regardless of whether they actually want to, simply because their home has suddenly and unexpectedly increased in value. You could argue that this is a windfall - but being forcibly displaced by increased cost of living isn't fun, even if you do get a bunch of money for your house (that you didn't want to sell in the first place). Also, change is scary.

koolba 11y ago
> Increased property taxes for those who already own can force even long-time residents to move, regardless of whether they actually want to, simply because their home has suddenly and unexpectedly increased in value. That's not really an issue in California as property tax growth is fixed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1... Cash poor home owners get "stuck" in their homes because if they sold and bought a new house, they'd have significantly greater property taxes. Theyre better off keeping the home and either living there or renting it out.
uiri 11y ago
In California, real property is only reassessed at market value when it is sold or transferred. So property taxes won't increase on long-time residents who don't move. Rent control is, I believe, intended to provide the same effect for long-time residents who rent instead of own. I agree that increases in other components of the cost of living of an area can have the same effect though.
- sulam 11y ago
  It's also reassessed if you improve it in any substantial way. My property taxes doubled after a remodel. Some of that was the remodel, but roughly half was due to prices in the neighborhood going up since my wife and I originally bought the house. In my case we can afford these extra taxes, but I can easily imagine that in other circumstances this would be difficult. The alternative is doing work without permits, which comes with other risks.

a_humean 11y ago

Basic reason is that it displaces the existing population through increasing prices in housing and services and alienates the existing population socially and culturally. The only people that experience the benefits of gentrification are wealthy newcomers, whereas existing populations suffer varying degrees of harm with the gradual destruction of their communities.

true_religion 11y ago

Because changing environment unintentionally pressures previous long-standing residents into leaving the area, and causes discomfort as two divergent groups meet in the same location and one feels the other is destroying, ruining, or usurping their culture. It's not "bad" as a moral stance, but certainly some claim it is bad from their perspective if they end up on the losing end of gentrification. To give an example that more people might empathize with. Parts of central London used to be affordable by the mid to upper classes, but these scenic locations are now 100% owned by others who only buy them for use as vacation homes. It's an odd case of gentrification pushing relatively wealthy people out of an area so that extremely wealthy people can live there instead.

Joe8Bit 11y ago

It goes hand in hand with an increased cost of living (e.g. the nicer things get the more expensive it is to live there) which in turn causes a displacement of people and communities who lived there before the gentrification happened. In many western countries there is also a strong correlation between the above displacement and it overly effecting minorities, who due to economic/political/social disenfranchisement have congregated communities in low cost areas. If you are a member of the more affluent population who moves into a gentrified area, it's great, but if you're a part of the community who has lived there for a long time and you suddenly can't afford to any more, it's really not great at all (to it mildly). So in a narrow sense 'gentrification' isn't a bad thing, however put in the wider context it can have very significant negative effects on poorer communities. Especially when combined with a lack of social/affordable housing.

gilgoomesh 11y ago

Gentrification is fundamentally a dramatic increase in local prices. The change isn't usually driven by locals earning more but by new people moving in and pricing the former residents out of the market. It's great for the new residents. It is terrible for the old – particularly old residents who don't own their own home or are otherwise unable to capitalize on the price shift.

lr4444lr 11y ago
That sounds like a net zero, not a net "bad", which is what the OP was asking.

venomsnake 11y ago

Why is outsourcing bad? Change is all good and fancy, until you are the one left behind/on the receiving end. The West right now - especially US and UK have a bad track record of redistributing the gains.

Noughmad 11y ago

Because not many people own homes in the US. So if local prices go up, renters have to move elsewhere. If you own a house, chances are you still have to move because other services become too expensive for you, but at least you made a nice profit on the house. If you rent, it's a lose-lose situation.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

Because it means that society is rationing resources at a level of scarcity well above the actual level of scarcity. It means that some of the potential utility of just building more housing is being left on the table so that an artificial class conflict can be created between new and existing citizens.

mrgoldenbrown 11y ago

It often screws over the residents who worked hard to make an area desirable. A typical pattern goes like this: 1. An area is cheap because it is considered undesirable and all the rich folk move away. 2. Poor folks move there - artists, minorities, families. 3. These folk work for years to make the area safer, nicer to live in, more interesting. 4. Now that poor folk have improved the neighborhood, rich folk flood back in and buy up property or just drive up rents, pricing the original residents out. 5. Lower class folk forced to move to the next crappy neighborhood, and repeat the process.

mcguire 11y ago

In this case, the newcomers regard the residents generally as undesirable and specifically as criminals. In general, things which disrupt a community are not readily welcomed by the community.

puppetmaster3 11y ago

THANK you for comments, I honestly did not know that someone would be against it. I assume this is from a left POV, I see it as plus that a local business succeeds, or a new local hosting gets built, at worst more tax revenue = more services. I wonder to self if higher education is also viewed as bad, as it has same effect - higher local prices. So the outcome to anti-gentrification is the abandoned neighborhoods that investors would not want to develop. Not something we can solve, just a warning to business to not grow in the anti-gentrification areas.