5 ms·

"Don't hate the player, hate the game." It's almost a tautology that only long term residents are around long enough to feel the negative effects of gentrifica

"Don't hate the player, hate the game." It's almost a tautology that only long term residents are around long enough to feel the negative effects of gentrification directly. I've been in my home for 15 years and only in the last 5 or so have I come to really understand what this trend has done to the community. My initial response to the current wave of millionaire neighbors is to resent the gentrifiers with all that wealth who don't see what they're doing. But a quick look in the mirror confirms the awful truth... I was just like them when I moved here 15 years ago. Sure I wasn't as rich as the current crop, but the exact degree of wealth surely would not have been terribly meaningful to the lifelong renter residents who were slowly being displaced by middle class people looking for a bargain on a home at that time. The system we have created around real estate and home ownership is optimized to erode culture and atomize community. We like to pretend that this is somehow inevitable, the will of the market, but we need to own it - this is the world we have built for ourselves. So yeah, I do understand the anger at individuals - because there's nothing else to be angry at. It feels like being angry at the system itself is futile.

hef19898 6y ago
This. Recently I had a discussion with a neighbor who owns the multi-apartment building next to our house about that very topic. All around our in our quarter, old buildings get renovated or torn down and rebuilt. Small bakeries close and the whole neighborhood is somewhat changing. And then it struck me. 7 years ago we built our house here, in what used to be a slot of an old small factory. In the middle of buildings with smaller apartments, mostly rented out. And there we come, young well of couple building a house for us on a land plot large enough for, what, 6-8 appartments. In a sense, we were the first ones, or at least among the first ones.
- silexia 6y ago
  Gentrification is a bad word for a positive outcome. When people come to a neighborhood and invest a lot of money and making it a nicer place, it benefits the current residence who can sell their homes for higher prices if they wish. If the current residents wish to stay, they benefit from the improvements.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    I have to disagree. In the neighborhoods most like to suffer gentrification, people rent and don't own their living space. Increasing real estate prices only mean higher rents, making it impossible for existing residents to stay, long term, in their apartments. Only owners can sell, usually to investors. This is a major rent driver. Up to the poitn were small grocery shops can#t afford it anymore and have to close. And I am not sure how us building a house for us, and only us, had any positive impact on any of our neighbors.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
> The system we have created around real estate and home ownership is optimized to erode culture and atomize community. We like to pretend that this is somehow inevitable, the will of the market, but we need to own it - this is the world we have built for ourselves. How is it not the will of the market? I don’t see any option other than to limit people’s freedom to move about the city/state/country.
- spaced-out 6y ago
  What's pushing people out is the rising cost of property, caused by more and more money bidding for less space. If the government had done more to create more space, prices would not have risen so dramatically. What if government policy for the last few decades had been to keep housing as affordable as possible. So if average rent in a city started increasing, the government would make sure new apartments and got built and/or expanded roads and public transit to help people live farther away without a longer commute.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    We'd end up with megacities who'd continuously expand and grow denser, swallowing their surroundings in that case, wouldn't we?
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      Those two things are the opposite of one another. If a city grows denser, the size of its footprint is smaller. Suppose you create a lot of high density housing in the city. Housing costs decline. People who used to have to live with their parents get their own place. People have shorter commutes. The population of the city hasn't changed. Maybe if you're the only city doing this then it's a competitive advantage and people move there from other cities to take advantage of the lower cost of living. But if all cities do this then there is no relative advantage and all that happens is that housing is more affordable and people waste less time sitting in traffic.
      - 6y ago

hef19898 6y ago

This. Recently I had a discussion with a neighbor who owns the multi-apartment building next to our house about that very topic. All around our in our quarter, old buildings get renovated or torn down and rebuilt. Small bakeries close and the whole neighborhood is somewhat changing. And then it struck me. 7 years ago we built our house here, in what used to be a slot of an old small factory. In the middle of buildings with smaller apartments, mostly rented out. And there we come, young well of couple building a house for us on a land plot large enough for, what, 6-8 appartments. In a sense, we were the first ones, or at least among the first ones.

silexia 6y ago
Gentrification is a bad word for a positive outcome. When people come to a neighborhood and invest a lot of money and making it a nicer place, it benefits the current residence who can sell their homes for higher prices if they wish. If the current residents wish to stay, they benefit from the improvements.
- hef19898 6y ago
  I have to disagree. In the neighborhoods most like to suffer gentrification, people rent and don't own their living space. Increasing real estate prices only mean higher rents, making it impossible for existing residents to stay, long term, in their apartments. Only owners can sell, usually to investors. This is a major rent driver. Up to the poitn were small grocery shops can#t afford it anymore and have to close. And I am not sure how us building a house for us, and only us, had any positive impact on any of our neighbors.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

> The system we have created around real estate and home ownership is optimized to erode culture and atomize community. We like to pretend that this is somehow inevitable, the will of the market, but we need to own it - this is the world we have built for ourselves. How is it not the will of the market? I don’t see any option other than to limit people’s freedom to move about the city/state/country.

spaced-out 6y ago
What's pushing people out is the rising cost of property, caused by more and more money bidding for less space. If the government had done more to create more space, prices would not have risen so dramatically. What if government policy for the last few decades had been to keep housing as affordable as possible. So if average rent in a city started increasing, the government would make sure new apartments and got built and/or expanded roads and public transit to help people live farther away without a longer commute.
- luckylion 6y ago
  We'd end up with megacities who'd continuously expand and grow denser, swallowing their surroundings in that case, wouldn't we?
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Those two things are the opposite of one another. If a city grows denser, the size of its footprint is smaller. Suppose you create a lot of high density housing in the city. Housing costs decline. People who used to have to live with their parents get their own place. People have shorter commutes. The population of the city hasn't changed. Maybe if you're the only city doing this then it's a competitive advantage and people move there from other cities to take advantage of the lower cost of living. But if all cities do this then there is no relative advantage and all that happens is that housing is more affordable and people waste less time sitting in traffic.
    - 6y ago