> 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

> 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? I wasn't born until 1989 so I don't have an attachment to the 70's. I'm not saying it's even a problem, I'm just stating the fact that the prices going up on housing prices out the elements of a city that people complain are leaving. > 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. Actually I think taxing the corporations would be far more effective, but millionaires should be taxed too, especially the kind who keep non-primary residences in highrise buildings. The simple fact is that the wealthy people and the rich corporations just take up more space in a city, period. How many low-cost apartments could be built where the 1%'s high rise suites are now, that are only occupied 20 days out of the year? How many buildings have floors upon floors of empty space because a company doesn't need the room but doesn't want to give up their exclusive plot of land in an in-demand area? I'm not arguing for anything in particular, but the problem is all the current incentives are favoring developers to build expensive properties and living spaces in very in-demand areas, and it's causing a dearth of affordable housing that everyone claims to want but no one is ready to pay for or live near. You can't have it both ways; if you want the colorful and interesting aspects of a city, then yes, you must be ready to leave some of the money you could be making on the table and sell/rent to people who can't afford $2,500 per month in housing, or raise wages so you don't need a white collar job to afford them. Again, I don't care either way, it's not my problem to solve. I'm just stating fact. Edit: I guess the main thrust of what I'm saying is that cities know all of this, know both sides of the equation, but keep throwing up their hands at the plummeting levels of culture and "weird" that they all seem to want, whilist their lower-class residents are being evicted at insane rates to build more condos for tech workers like it's "just happening" and nobody knows why. They know exactly why, and if they really are against it, they should be pressuring their leadership to actually work on the problem instead of just blowing each other in the press for being so concerned about it while continuing to reap the rewards.