5 ms·

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 huma

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.

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.