9 ms·

"what everyone hates about urban change and gentrification – first come the creatives and their coffee shops, then the young professionals, then the luxury high

by omonra 11y ago

"what everyone hates about urban change and gentrification – first come the creatives and their coffee shops, then the young professionals, then the luxury high-rises and corporate chains that push out original residents" I personally have no problem with it. And if we're talking about crappy and dangerous neighborhoods that are becoming upscale - I love it. If anything I think it's the sort of process that benefits majority of population while extracting a cost on a minority. If we look at total effect, it's certainly net positive.

TulliusCicero 11y ago
Fun related fact: when an area is gentrifying, more development is actually correlated with LESS displacement for the existing residents, not more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/12/the-poor-are-better-off-when-we-build-more-housing-for-the-rich/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/12/the-p... "...the California Legislative Analyst’s Office recently released some positive data backing up this point: Particularly in the Bay Area since 2000, the researchers found, low-income neighborhoods with a lot of new construction have witnessed about half the displacement of similar neighborhoods that haven’t added much new housing."
- ehnto 11y ago
  My uneducated guess might be that the new developments add more density and thus lower land/rent prices overall. I am not sure about that though. In my city as well, new development often come with affordability requirements for the exact reason of not displacing the existing community. Adelaide, Australia has a really cool process for careful urban development. The city makes sure many existing buildings stay put and that new developments accommodate them in various ways. It specifically limits high rises, with the term mid-rise mixed use zoning being able to describe most of the dense areas. The quip about coffee shops, creatives then professionals still rings true. But it stops short of high rises, and intentionally tries to mix all residents and wealth brackets.
nefitty 11y ago
I can't help interpreting your opinion as, "it's ok to kick the poor people out, as long as the upper classes, government and businesses prosper." People aren't numbers to throw into a mean function. That "net positive" argument is what has been used to excuse globalization's "there have to be some losers" philosophy, which disproportionately affects those already in poverty. A sense of community is one of the few things poor neighborhoods can offer their inhabitants. When those impoverished people are elbowed out and away from each other to make way for another coffee shop, it becomes hard to sympathize with the moneyed class's desire for late-night gourmet poke. Edit: Taking a look at TulliusCicero's WaPo link is making me reconsider my position.
- sgillen 11y ago
  What exactly would you offer as an alternative to globalization? Purely curious.
  - nefitty 11y ago
    I basically trust the process of globalization. "You don't go to war with your trading partners." The main fault I pointed out has to do with a lack of protectionary measures for the sections of society most at risk. I think this also has relevance to the gentrification debate, though looking into the data it seems like governments continue failing on that front. I wasn't smart enough to come up with an alternative to capitalism when I was 15, I'm not smart enough to come up with an alternative to globalization now.
    - davorb 11y ago
      > "You don't go to war with your trading partners." http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-war-one-first-war-was-impossible-then-inevitable/ http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-w...
      - tim333 11y ago
        Well, you're less likely to go to war with your trading partners.
johnmarinelli 11y ago
i honestly can't tell if trolling or not.
retube 11y ago
> If anything I think it's the sort of process that benefits majority of population while extracting a cost on a minority. If we look at total effect, it's certainly net positive. Absolutely. Otherwise we'd all be still living in wooden shacks tilling the fields. Change inevitably effects some people negatively, but without it things can't, on average, get better.
doktrin 11y ago
> "what everyone hates about urban change and gentrification – first come the creatives and their coffee shops, then the young professionals, then the luxury high-rises and corporate chains that push out original residents" > I personally have no problem with it. And if we're talking about crappy and dangerous neighborhoods that are becoming upscale - I love it. "everyone" in this context meaning "everyone who holds the views of the author" Here in PGH, "everyone" would mean student activists who are busy decrying the tearing down of several high rise projects in a part of town that had been on a downward slope since the late 70's. Neighborhoods that only a few years ago "closed at dark" (literally) due to pervasive criminality are now economic hubs. At least in this case, most people seem to be quite happy with economic development in what used to be no-go areas. Nonetheless, there's a vocal minority of affluent art students who are busy putting up graffiti about "preserving culture". You can't ever make everyone happy, but the author's "everyone" isn't in fact everyone.
- colanderman 11y ago
  I think you used "to decry" to mean exactly the opposite of its actual meaning. ("To decry" means to denounce as harmful, not to promote.)
  - doktrin 11y ago
    I think you misread. Revisit my original post : > "everyone" would mean student activists who are busy decrying the tearing down of several high rise projects The student activists, in this case, are in fact very much against the tearing down of said highrise projects. I'm surprised that wasn't clear.
    - colanderman 11y ago
      I'm still confused, because in one sentence, you talk about affluence bringing luxury high-rises, while in a later sentence, you talk about activist art students who want to preserve graffiti. Are the high-rises whose removal the students decry not the luxury ones, or is it a different group of activist students from those who like graffiti who are the ones who want to keep the luxury high-rises? Or are the activist art students supporters of both luxury high-rises and graffiti? I'm confused :)
StevePerkins 11y ago
> "what everyone hates about urban change and gentrification..." I don't mean to be inflammatory, but I've never understood exactly what "everybody" sees as the desired state. When white people move out of urban centers, it is "white flight"... a negative phenomenon. When white people move into urban centers, it is "gentrification"... also a negative phenomenon. Are white people just considered inherently evil, and their existence a negative phenomenon? Short of total income redistribution, and mandatory relocation (as ethnic groups tend to coalesce even without gaps in income)... what exactly is the inequality and diversity solution that "everyone" wants?
- noxToken 11y ago
  I see your point, but it's not just moving in/out. It's the subtext of why. I don't think anyone can be faulted for fleeing a neighborhood in the name of safety. The same can likely be said for moving into more impoverish areas that have the potential to grow into prosperous neighborhood. This holds true regardless of race. If someone is just throwing those terms around just because people move in or out of neighborhoods, then they're missing the overall context of what those terms mean. > what exactly is the inequality and diversity solution that "everyone" wants? I don't think this can be easily addressed. Most people want their neighborhoods safe with drivable streets and walkable paths. Some see culture in the history of their neighborhoods. Others want modern architecture and amenities. It really depends on who you ask.
- omonra 11y ago
  I don't think the people who are upset about both white flight and gentrification think of things in 'white people' terms. Rather they focus on blacks (or whichever minority the whites happen to be fleeing or displacing). It's a natural liberal tendency to focus on the 'underprivileged'. I believe it stems from the (unconscious) belief that the whites will look out for themselves - but blacks et al need to be helped. White man's burden 2.0, if you will. For example in today's NYT there is a long article about lack of black pitchers in the US baseball league (they don't count spanish speaking blacks as aa). And there is a regular recurring piece about lack of black players in certain NFL positions (while they're actually 70% of all players). Meanwhile I've never seen a similar article about dearth of white players in the NBA or the NFL. To an outside observer this might appear racist - but the journalist writing these pieces probably think that looking out for minorities is just what good people do. And whites will manage to take care of themselves.

by omonra 11y ago

TulliusCicero 11y ago

Fun related fact: when an area is gentrifying, more development is actually correlated with LESS displacement for the existing residents, not more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/12/the-poor-are-better-off-when-we-build-more-housing-for-the-rich/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/12/the-p... "...the California Legislative Analyst’s Office recently released some positive data backing up this point: Particularly in the Bay Area since 2000, the researchers found, low-income neighborhoods with a lot of new construction have witnessed about half the displacement of similar neighborhoods that haven’t added much new housing."

ehnto 11y ago
My uneducated guess might be that the new developments add more density and thus lower land/rent prices overall. I am not sure about that though. In my city as well, new development often come with affordability requirements for the exact reason of not displacing the existing community. Adelaide, Australia has a really cool process for careful urban development. The city makes sure many existing buildings stay put and that new developments accommodate them in various ways. It specifically limits high rises, with the term mid-rise mixed use zoning being able to describe most of the dense areas. The quip about coffee shops, creatives then professionals still rings true. But it stops short of high rises, and intentionally tries to mix all residents and wealth brackets.

nefitty 11y ago

I can't help interpreting your opinion as, "it's ok to kick the poor people out, as long as the upper classes, government and businesses prosper." People aren't numbers to throw into a mean function. That "net positive" argument is what has been used to excuse globalization's "there have to be some losers" philosophy, which disproportionately affects those already in poverty. A sense of community is one of the few things poor neighborhoods can offer their inhabitants. When those impoverished people are elbowed out and away from each other to make way for another coffee shop, it becomes hard to sympathize with the moneyed class's desire for late-night gourmet poke. Edit: Taking a look at TulliusCicero's WaPo link is making me reconsider my position.

sgillen 11y ago
What exactly would you offer as an alternative to globalization? Purely curious.
- nefitty 11y ago
  I basically trust the process of globalization. "You don't go to war with your trading partners." The main fault I pointed out has to do with a lack of protectionary measures for the sections of society most at risk. I think this also has relevance to the gentrification debate, though looking into the data it seems like governments continue failing on that front. I wasn't smart enough to come up with an alternative to capitalism when I was 15, I'm not smart enough to come up with an alternative to globalization now.
  - davorb 11y ago
    > "You don't go to war with your trading partners." http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-war-one-first-war-was-impossible-then-inevitable/ http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-w...
    - tim333 11y ago
      Well, you're less likely to go to war with your trading partners.

johnmarinelli 11y ago

i honestly can't tell if trolling or not.

retube 11y ago

> If anything I think it's the sort of process that benefits majority of population while extracting a cost on a minority. If we look at total effect, it's certainly net positive. Absolutely. Otherwise we'd all be still living in wooden shacks tilling the fields. Change inevitably effects some people negatively, but without it things can't, on average, get better.

doktrin 11y ago

> "what everyone hates about urban change and gentrification – first come the creatives and their coffee shops, then the young professionals, then the luxury high-rises and corporate chains that push out original residents" > I personally have no problem with it. And if we're talking about crappy and dangerous neighborhoods that are becoming upscale - I love it. "everyone" in this context meaning "everyone who holds the views of the author" Here in PGH, "everyone" would mean student activists who are busy decrying the tearing down of several high rise projects in a part of town that had been on a downward slope since the late 70's. Neighborhoods that only a few years ago "closed at dark" (literally) due to pervasive criminality are now economic hubs. At least in this case, most people seem to be quite happy with economic development in what used to be no-go areas. Nonetheless, there's a vocal minority of affluent art students who are busy putting up graffiti about "preserving culture". You can't ever make everyone happy, but the author's "everyone" isn't in fact everyone.

colanderman 11y ago
I think you used "to decry" to mean exactly the opposite of its actual meaning. ("To decry" means to denounce as harmful, not to promote.)
- doktrin 11y ago
  I think you misread. Revisit my original post : > "everyone" would mean student activists who are busy decrying the tearing down of several high rise projects The student activists, in this case, are in fact very much against the tearing down of said highrise projects. I'm surprised that wasn't clear.
  - colanderman 11y ago
    I'm still confused, because in one sentence, you talk about affluence bringing luxury high-rises, while in a later sentence, you talk about activist art students who want to preserve graffiti. Are the high-rises whose removal the students decry not the luxury ones, or is it a different group of activist students from those who like graffiti who are the ones who want to keep the luxury high-rises? Or are the activist art students supporters of both luxury high-rises and graffiti? I'm confused :)

StevePerkins 11y ago

> "what everyone hates about urban change and gentrification..." I don't mean to be inflammatory, but I've never understood exactly what "everybody" sees as the desired state. When white people move out of urban centers, it is "white flight"... a negative phenomenon. When white people move into urban centers, it is "gentrification"... also a negative phenomenon. Are white people just considered inherently evil, and their existence a negative phenomenon? Short of total income redistribution, and mandatory relocation (as ethnic groups tend to coalesce even without gaps in income)... what exactly is the inequality and diversity solution that "everyone" wants?

noxToken 11y ago
I see your point, but it's not just moving in/out. It's the subtext of why. I don't think anyone can be faulted for fleeing a neighborhood in the name of safety. The same can likely be said for moving into more impoverish areas that have the potential to grow into prosperous neighborhood. This holds true regardless of race. If someone is just throwing those terms around just because people move in or out of neighborhoods, then they're missing the overall context of what those terms mean. > what exactly is the inequality and diversity solution that "everyone" wants? I don't think this can be easily addressed. Most people want their neighborhoods safe with drivable streets and walkable paths. Some see culture in the history of their neighborhoods. Others want modern architecture and amenities. It really depends on who you ask.
omonra 11y ago
I don't think the people who are upset about both white flight and gentrification think of things in 'white people' terms. Rather they focus on blacks (or whichever minority the whites happen to be fleeing or displacing). It's a natural liberal tendency to focus on the 'underprivileged'. I believe it stems from the (unconscious) belief that the whites will look out for themselves - but blacks et al need to be helped. White man's burden 2.0, if you will. For example in today's NYT there is a long article about lack of black pitchers in the US baseball league (they don't count spanish speaking blacks as aa). And there is a regular recurring piece about lack of black players in certain NFL positions (while they're actually 70% of all players). Meanwhile I've never seen a similar article about dearth of white players in the NBA or the NFL. To an outside observer this might appear racist - but the journalist writing these pieces probably think that looking out for minorities is just what good people do. And whites will manage to take care of themselves.