4 ms·

Being artists, old, hipster, gay/lesbian, etc shouldn't give anyone special rights to claim that they need to be specially immunized from the pressures of the w

Being artists, old, hipster, gay/lesbian, etc shouldn't give anyone special rights to claim that they need to be specially immunized from the pressures of the world. It's just a fact that people who make something, invent, come up with a good idea, make a place better, eventually are going to be disappointed by the masses who take up their ideas/places and lack the same reverence for what they created by replacing it with money. Many of the inventors of, say radio/cellphones, medicines, technologies, or chefs, painters, architects, fashion designers, would probably be rolling in their graves with what the mass market has done with their original lofty ideas. It happens to everyone, and you move on. If you're lucky you take advantage of some of the value of what you created. It's no different for people who own a house, live in a community that became hot. They created something (and, by the way, many did not, they just lived there), and now what they created is appealing enough that more people want to live where they live. For those that owned property, they get plenty out of the deal. For those that don't and rented, well, gentrification is not the first time that someone who rents loses out compared to being a property holder. That's a wholly separate issue. Feel free to suggest how to change human nature and the way people and the masses behave.

soganess 7y ago
The machinery being critiqued is not the same thing as an individual asking for special treatments. If most instances of a place growing desirable because human(vs financial) investment results in said place being overrun by an influx of wealth disparity that eventually restructures the space into a corporate-safe shell of its former self then there will be a chilling effect that stops the former from happening. You can show up to a place and not immediately outbid all your neighbors for the most desirable spots. Having wealth is not the same as exercising wealth. Nor is gentrification a single instance, its the accepted mechanism that those with more wealth employee to claim the non-tangible identities created by those with less. It's the emergent result of this socialized desire for something "cool and authentic"(whatever that nonsense means) buckled up with tools afforded by a normalization of conspicuous consumption. We are eroding the individual identities of American cities, the people who are being displaced do lose something more than the opportunity to live in a geographic location, and pretending it's inevitable/"just how things are" will eventually result in a nationwide reduction in non-financial investing in cities. It stinks for everyone, even those doing the gentrifying. Where will one move too when all the cool places are gone? I know I sound like Jimmy Carter telling everyone to wear a cardigan and turn the heater down, but we all just need to learn to let things be. Even if they are exciting, especially if they are exciting.
- supernova87a 7y ago
  You speak as if the one and only important metric of a place is how many street murals and tattoo parlors there are. And that coolness of a place should be enough justification to prevent anyone else from enjoying its benefits. Loss of coolness == bad, huh? What about gentrification as a force for reducing crime, raising property values in a place (yes, actual uncouth $ value for people who invested, even unwittingly, and now receive value beyond just being able to get a good burrito), and housing people who previously were searching and couldn't afford to live elsewhere? Just because gentrification comes with some corporate associations doesn't mean it isn't supporting and benefiting millions of actual people. People who, yes, probably aren't fluent in a 2nd language, can't make a good empanada themselves, and are more boring than the people they replace. But who bring stability, more prosperity and resources, and safety margin of not falling back into urban decay? Who are you to say that their use of a community is less worthy than the former occupants? Who gets to decide? Who gets to decide, day to day, and house by house, when someone living there dies or moves, who is "worthy" to move in to replace them? Or are you also suggesting that no one ever be allowed to move in there unless they pass some sort of coolness test? And, by the way, do you mourn the one-before occupants who were displaced by the current creatives / "desireables" so concerned with gentrification now?
  - pharke 7y ago
    Gentrification seems to be a form of domestic tourism. It at least grows from the same vine as the travelers lust for authentic experience of a culture. A few tourists here and there do little harm but mobs of them can completely skew the local economy towards servicing their needs.
xtiansimon 7y ago
>> "Being artists, old, hipster, gay/lesbian, etc shouldn't give anyone special rights to claim that they need to be specially immunized from the pressures of the world." Really? pressures of the world? Those peeps you mention know a whole lot about the world--prolly any one knows more than the two of us combined. Pressures from the free market and capitalism is more like it. I rewatched the scifi movie IRobot last week. You know the one where Will Smith's character hates robots. Robots are everywhere doing great things for people--helping the elderly, doing crappy jobs--but his prejudice blinds him from all the good. He's obviously obsessed and paranoid. No way, the three laws make it impossible for anything bad to happen. What could go wrong? That was fun movie.

soganess 7y ago

The machinery being critiqued is not the same thing as an individual asking for special treatments. If most instances of a place growing desirable because human(vs financial) investment results in said place being overrun by an influx of wealth disparity that eventually restructures the space into a corporate-safe shell of its former self then there will be a chilling effect that stops the former from happening. You can show up to a place and not immediately outbid all your neighbors for the most desirable spots. Having wealth is not the same as exercising wealth. Nor is gentrification a single instance, its the accepted mechanism that those with more wealth employee to claim the non-tangible identities created by those with less. It's the emergent result of this socialized desire for something "cool and authentic"(whatever that nonsense means) buckled up with tools afforded by a normalization of conspicuous consumption. We are eroding the individual identities of American cities, the people who are being displaced do lose something more than the opportunity to live in a geographic location, and pretending it's inevitable/"just how things are" will eventually result in a nationwide reduction in non-financial investing in cities. It stinks for everyone, even those doing the gentrifying. Where will one move too when all the cool places are gone? I know I sound like Jimmy Carter telling everyone to wear a cardigan and turn the heater down, but we all just need to learn to let things be. Even if they are exciting, especially if they are exciting.

supernova87a 7y ago
You speak as if the one and only important metric of a place is how many street murals and tattoo parlors there are. And that coolness of a place should be enough justification to prevent anyone else from enjoying its benefits. Loss of coolness == bad, huh? What about gentrification as a force for reducing crime, raising property values in a place (yes, actual uncouth $ value for people who invested, even unwittingly, and now receive value beyond just being able to get a good burrito), and housing people who previously were searching and couldn't afford to live elsewhere? Just because gentrification comes with some corporate associations doesn't mean it isn't supporting and benefiting millions of actual people. People who, yes, probably aren't fluent in a 2nd language, can't make a good empanada themselves, and are more boring than the people they replace. But who bring stability, more prosperity and resources, and safety margin of not falling back into urban decay? Who are you to say that their use of a community is less worthy than the former occupants? Who gets to decide? Who gets to decide, day to day, and house by house, when someone living there dies or moves, who is "worthy" to move in to replace them? Or are you also suggesting that no one ever be allowed to move in there unless they pass some sort of coolness test? And, by the way, do you mourn the one-before occupants who were displaced by the current creatives / "desireables" so concerned with gentrification now?
- pharke 7y ago
  Gentrification seems to be a form of domestic tourism. It at least grows from the same vine as the travelers lust for authentic experience of a culture. A few tourists here and there do little harm but mobs of them can completely skew the local economy towards servicing their needs.

xtiansimon 7y ago

>> "Being artists, old, hipster, gay/lesbian, etc shouldn't give anyone special rights to claim that they need to be specially immunized from the pressures of the world." Really? pressures of the world? Those peeps you mention know a whole lot about the world--prolly any one knows more than the two of us combined. Pressures from the free market and capitalism is more like it. I rewatched the scifi movie IRobot last week. You know the one where Will Smith's character hates robots. Robots are everywhere doing great things for people--helping the elderly, doing crappy jobs--but his prejudice blinds him from all the good. He's obviously obsessed and paranoid. No way, the three laws make it impossible for anything bad to happen. What could go wrong? That was fun movie.