5 ms·

I mean the shortest and simplest explanation is that the lower-earning people who made these cities interesting in the first place are getting priced out of the

I mean the shortest and simplest explanation is that the lower-earning people who made these cities interesting in the first place are getting priced out of their homes. The only people who can afford to live in New York, San Francisco, etc. are white collar workers, who's other big feature is also white. I get the supply and demand laws but there comes a point where we have to decide of continuous and infinite growth at the cost of literally every other metric of importance to a city is worth burning it down for.

haskellandchill 8y ago
Do we get to decide?
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Yes, but not as easily or as obviously as people would like. You've got a nice city. Tech starts moving in. Prices start rising. You have a few options: 1. Make the city an undesirable place for tech (via taxes, regulation, or whatever). This has the downside that it may cost the jobs of people who currently live there (and are some of the highest-paid people in the city). 2. Build a bunch more housing, so that lower-income people don't get priced out. This keeps the diversity of the city, but changes the physical characteristics. Some consider the physical characteristics to be part of the charm of the city. 3. Do neither of those things (note that both of them have their downside). This leads to new, high-paid jobs, no new housing, and lower incomes being priced out. As far as I can see, those are the only options. There is no option where everything just stays the way people like it.
  - crdoconnor 8y ago
    >Some consider the physical characteristics to be part of the charm of the city. Especially people fighting to keep the value of their home equity up.
    - FussyZeus 8y ago
      Point of order: the value of their property was already very high and going up when the changes (tech industry, finance, whatever) began happening, what they're fighting to keep going is the growth in that value.
Analemma_ 8y ago
> I get the supply and demand laws but there comes a point where we have to decide of continuous and infinite growth at the cost of literally every other metric of importance to a city is worth burning it down for. People keep saying this, and my response is: what is your solution? Rents aren't going up (solely) because of sinister plutocratic plots; it's because people want to move to New York. Big cities are where the jobs are, and Millenials hate suburbs, so that's where white-collar workers are going. Is your plan to forbid people from moving to New York so you can freeze time in the 70's? People complaining about gentrification hem and haw when you ask them this forthright, and then try to dodge the question and pretend there's a simple solution involving rent control or millionaire taxes. But at some point you have to face facts and understand that, as long as the dynamics of the modern economy keeps favoring big cities, you can't stop gentrification without forbidding people from moving in.
- lmm 8y ago
  > But at some point you have to face facts and understand that, as long as the dynamics of the modern economy keeps favoring big cities, you can't stop gentrification without forbidding people from moving in. Or building more homes and lowering housing standards.
  - Analemma_ 8y ago
    I agree, but the people griping about gentrification (including the author of this article) almost always make sure to toss in unsupported claims that this won't fix the problem and will actually make it worse, and then usually follow that up by saying people advocating for more housing are just being bribed by developers. It's infuriating, and one of the reasons why, as much of a tax-the-rich democratic socialist as I am, I have no damn patience for the NIMBY segment of the urban Left.
- sp332 8y ago
  Is your plan to forbid people from moving to New York so you can freeze time in the 70's? I don't see why people outside NYC wanting to move in means people already in NYC must accommodate them. SF for example prevents buildings over 4 stories in the downtown area. I live in a much smaller city that mandated brick fronts on all buildings on the main street. And from one perspective it's petty and limiting but my point is, yes NYC residents get to choose what about their city is important to them and protect it. That includes preventing people from moving in if it comes to that.
ebikelaw 8y ago
San Francisco hasn't experienced "continuous and infinite growth" in your lifetime. San Francisco has in fact been largely frozen in amber, until a recent but modest by historical standards building spurt.
- necubi 8y ago
  According to the numbers here [0], SF has grown just 12% since 1950, compared to a 213% increase in US population overall. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco

haskellandchill 8y ago

Do we get to decide?

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Yes, but not as easily or as obviously as people would like. You've got a nice city. Tech starts moving in. Prices start rising. You have a few options: 1. Make the city an undesirable place for tech (via taxes, regulation, or whatever). This has the downside that it may cost the jobs of people who currently live there (and are some of the highest-paid people in the city). 2. Build a bunch more housing, so that lower-income people don't get priced out. This keeps the diversity of the city, but changes the physical characteristics. Some consider the physical characteristics to be part of the charm of the city. 3. Do neither of those things (note that both of them have their downside). This leads to new, high-paid jobs, no new housing, and lower incomes being priced out. As far as I can see, those are the only options. There is no option where everything just stays the way people like it.
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  >Some consider the physical characteristics to be part of the charm of the city. Especially people fighting to keep the value of their home equity up.
  - FussyZeus 8y ago
    Point of order: the value of their property was already very high and going up when the changes (tech industry, finance, whatever) began happening, what they're fighting to keep going is the growth in that value.

Analemma_ 8y ago

> I get the supply and demand laws but there comes a point where we have to decide of continuous and infinite growth at the cost of literally every other metric of importance to a city is worth burning it down for. People keep saying this, and my response is: what is your solution? Rents aren't going up (solely) because of sinister plutocratic plots; it's because people want to move to New York. Big cities are where the jobs are, and Millenials hate suburbs, so that's where white-collar workers are going. Is your plan to forbid people from moving to New York so you can freeze time in the 70's? People complaining about gentrification hem and haw when you ask them this forthright, and then try to dodge the question and pretend there's a simple solution involving rent control or millionaire taxes. But at some point you have to face facts and understand that, as long as the dynamics of the modern economy keeps favoring big cities, you can't stop gentrification without forbidding people from moving in.

lmm 8y ago
> But at some point you have to face facts and understand that, as long as the dynamics of the modern economy keeps favoring big cities, you can't stop gentrification without forbidding people from moving in. Or building more homes and lowering housing standards.
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  I agree, but the people griping about gentrification (including the author of this article) almost always make sure to toss in unsupported claims that this won't fix the problem and will actually make it worse, and then usually follow that up by saying people advocating for more housing are just being bribed by developers. It's infuriating, and one of the reasons why, as much of a tax-the-rich democratic socialist as I am, I have no damn patience for the NIMBY segment of the urban Left.
sp332 8y ago
Is your plan to forbid people from moving to New York so you can freeze time in the 70's? I don't see why people outside NYC wanting to move in means people already in NYC must accommodate them. SF for example prevents buildings over 4 stories in the downtown area. I live in a much smaller city that mandated brick fronts on all buildings on the main street. And from one perspective it's petty and limiting but my point is, yes NYC residents get to choose what about their city is important to them and protect it. That includes preventing people from moving in if it comes to that.

ebikelaw 8y ago

San Francisco hasn't experienced "continuous and infinite growth" in your lifetime. San Francisco has in fact been largely frozen in amber, until a recent but modest by historical standards building spurt.

necubi 8y ago
According to the numbers here [0], SF has grown just 12% since 1950, compared to a 213% increase in US population overall. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco