3 ms·

> Why is being "priced out" of same place you already live at perceived as something worse than not being able to afford to move into some neighborhood to begi

> Why is being "priced out" of same place you already live at perceived as something worse than not being able to afford to move into some neighborhood to begin with? 1) The people being priced out are often the people that made the neighborhood nicer to live in. Developers don't improve neighborhoods, people do. And these people are usually the first to go when developments move in and drive up the cost, because they are often the most vulnerable to the price increases. (Your artists, musicians, students, young families, folks on shoestring budgets opening hipster coffee shops and restaurants, etc) 2) It's not so much that all these people feel like they deserve to live in this one particular nice place. You don't see people complaining that they can't live in gated communities or mansions. It's that nearly every lower-class or middle-class urban place that was even slightly nice to live in is rapidly becoming "rich-people-only". Where does that end? Are middle class people eventually going to economically banned from all urban environments nationwide? Because that's the trajectory we're currently headed in, unless some massive correction happens. > why people who already live somewhere (but rent and don't own) Renters are highest risk, but it's not just renters who get displaced. Property owners can also get displaced through gentrification -- owning property does not make someone immune to this problem

mc32 11y ago
It's usually the people who move in (or not moving in) who change neighborhoods. It's the internal migrants, like in North Dakota, or immigrants or professional class who change neighborhoods for the better. This is why poor areas _want_ "gentrifiers" to come in to invigorate places in stagnation or decline. It's atypical for improvement to be grass roots. Anyone who has lived in a typical urban core from the 90s knows that poor neighborhoods don't just start having cleaner streets, more shops and services out of the blue displacing liquor stores and repair shops and weeds.
golergka 11y ago
> (Your artists, musicians, students, young families, folks on shoestring budgets opening hipster coffee shops and restaurants, etc) But eh — those guys actually have to move _in_ to gentrification to happen. And before they move in, it's usually really ordinary poor people moving out: because, believe it or not, "starving" liberal art major is not as poor as an illegal immigrant family with 5 kids. > It's that nearly every lower-class or middle-class urban place that was even slightly nice to live in is rapidly becoming "rich-people-only". Where does that end? I'm not from US, so I may not be seeing what you're talking about exactly, but you're talking about late-stage gentrifying here. But early stage gentrifying is the opposite: it makes poor, awful areas into those nice middle-class areas to begin with. So by the time you (we're talking about low-middle class, right?) have to move out when the area is full of elite condos, there's another neighbourhood that just became trendy enough for you to move it. > Property owners can also get displaced through gentrification -- owning property does not make someone immune to this problem Don't see a real difference here: it's all just free market mechanisms regulating situations where a lot of different people compete for the same thing.

mc32 11y ago

It's usually the people who move in (or not moving in) who change neighborhoods. It's the internal migrants, like in North Dakota, or immigrants or professional class who change neighborhoods for the better. This is why poor areas _want_ "gentrifiers" to come in to invigorate places in stagnation or decline. It's atypical for improvement to be grass roots. Anyone who has lived in a typical urban core from the 90s knows that poor neighborhoods don't just start having cleaner streets, more shops and services out of the blue displacing liquor stores and repair shops and weeds.

golergka 11y ago

> (Your artists, musicians, students, young families, folks on shoestring budgets opening hipster coffee shops and restaurants, etc) But eh — those guys actually have to move _in_ to gentrification to happen. And before they move in, it's usually really ordinary poor people moving out: because, believe it or not, "starving" liberal art major is not as poor as an illegal immigrant family with 5 kids. > It's that nearly every lower-class or middle-class urban place that was even slightly nice to live in is rapidly becoming "rich-people-only". Where does that end? I'm not from US, so I may not be seeing what you're talking about exactly, but you're talking about late-stage gentrifying here. But early stage gentrifying is the opposite: it makes poor, awful areas into those nice middle-class areas to begin with. So by the time you (we're talking about low-middle class, right?) have to move out when the area is full of elite condos, there's another neighbourhood that just became trendy enough for you to move it. > Property owners can also get displaced through gentrification -- owning property does not make someone immune to this problem Don't see a real difference here: it's all just free market mechanisms regulating situations where a lot of different people compete for the same thing.