3 ms·

I don't think that's as simple as the article tries to make it out to be. As poorer people start moving into a neighborhood, the richer people will flee away e

by brabel 5y ago

I don't think that's as simple as the article tries to make it out to be. As poorer people start moving into a neighborhood, the richer people will flee away en masse. It seems to me that rich people will pay any amount of money just to make sure they're living where other rich people are, even if that means moving somewhere less convenient. As the poorer people start taking over a hood due to prices going down for whatever reason (e.g. building more "affordable" accommodation), it begins to deteriorate such that in a decade or two, it becomes a "rough" place with badly maintained houses, dirty streets, broken street lamps, youngster gangs roaming around and so on. That's not the default of the poor people themselves only, I think, but a combination of them naturally having lower standards (so they complain less about broken things to the local government - not sure I can accept that poorer areas are less maintained because there's no people living there who are in government), less money to keep up with maintenance (so houses deteriorate and stop looking cute), higher tendency of the youngsters in getting involved in gangs and crime (simply because many of them have far fewer opportunities in life, and they become aware of that very early) and so on. Where I live is not a rough hood by any means, but it's more "affordable" than many other places... and I can see at least some of these things happening here... the government doesn't keep the vegetation on public places nearly as well trimmed as in the rich areas, there's definitely less care with the quality of the street pavement, houses are not completely deteriorated but most are not in perfect shape either... I just need to walk around 20 mins to get into an area where everything changes and houses are all of a sudden perfectly well kept, the public areas are beautiful, even the people look "prettier". This segregation seems to happen naturally with humans everywhere.

makeitdouble 5y ago
This is a real dynamic seen times and times. The catch is, poor people's houses are not owned by poor people. "Rich" people don't need to live there to own the land and dictate prices up to a point. They'll flee away and rent the house basically, and they can afford to keep it at the highest price the market validates.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
This is function of house prices, not of natural segregation. When I was growing up in London the streets around me were fairly mixed. You could find public school educated lawyers, minor celebrities, and even a few financial types living close to factory and shop workers. As public housing was sold off and property prices were goosed towards the stratosphere the inevitable result was separation, because the poors were economically cleansed into poverty ghettos. Now houses on the street I grew up on - built as cheap and dense worker housing - sell for around £1m. I think the arrow of expense points in both directions. Building more nice neighbourhoods would lower prices. But one of the reasons nice neighbourhoods aren't built is because it's so easy to make money by building cheap trash housing and selling it to people who can barely afford it.
- alexashka 5y ago
  > one of the reasons nice neighbourhoods aren't built is because it's so easy to make money... Neighbourhoods require infrastructure, which require a functioning government. Easy money will always be made one way or another - neighbourhood quality is a political problem. It's like creating new software vs maintaining software. Most people can only maintain, sort of. It takes a different breed to create and an exotic, rare breed to create well. I'm not surprised that most politicians are pouring money from one government program bucket into another. That's all most people can do, is maintain. I'm surprised there hasn't been a single political movement worth a shit within my lifetime.
timeon 5y ago
> I don't think that's as simple as the article tries to make it out to be. Well I also don't think that's as simple as you are trying to make it. What you wrote is true sometimes. But it is not the rule. Social mix is broad topic in urbanism. There are many developments with some social housing included. And market housing there is not inhabited by poor people just because some poor live in the neighborhood.
cousin_it 5y ago
> higher tendency of the youngsters in getting involved in gangs and crime (simply because many of them have far fewer opportunities in life, and they become aware of that very early) They have no opportunities, so they make the most opportunity-reducing choice imaginable? Yeah right. This reminds me of the drunk from Little Prince who drinks to forget his shame of being a drunk. Luckily this explanation isn't true. Crime doesn't come from desperation. Crime comes from crime, it's a contagious social disease. Hang around with criminals enough and you'll soften to the idea yourself, even if you're from a rich family. Hang around with people who shun the idea of crime, and you'll shun it too, even if you're dirt poor.
deadpannini 5y ago
The article isn't trying to engage problems at the lowest end of the housing market, it's concerned with the strange dynamics of the middle 60% of the market.

by brabel 5y ago

makeitdouble 5y ago

This is a real dynamic seen times and times. The catch is, poor people's houses are not owned by poor people. "Rich" people don't need to live there to own the land and dictate prices up to a point. They'll flee away and rent the house basically, and they can afford to keep it at the highest price the market validates.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

This is function of house prices, not of natural segregation. When I was growing up in London the streets around me were fairly mixed. You could find public school educated lawyers, minor celebrities, and even a few financial types living close to factory and shop workers. As public housing was sold off and property prices were goosed towards the stratosphere the inevitable result was separation, because the poors were economically cleansed into poverty ghettos. Now houses on the street I grew up on - built as cheap and dense worker housing - sell for around £1m. I think the arrow of expense points in both directions. Building more nice neighbourhoods would lower prices. But one of the reasons nice neighbourhoods aren't built is because it's so easy to make money by building cheap trash housing and selling it to people who can barely afford it.

alexashka 5y ago
> one of the reasons nice neighbourhoods aren't built is because it's so easy to make money... Neighbourhoods require infrastructure, which require a functioning government. Easy money will always be made one way or another - neighbourhood quality is a political problem. It's like creating new software vs maintaining software. Most people can only maintain, sort of. It takes a different breed to create and an exotic, rare breed to create well. I'm not surprised that most politicians are pouring money from one government program bucket into another. That's all most people can do, is maintain. I'm surprised there hasn't been a single political movement worth a shit within my lifetime.

timeon 5y ago

> I don't think that's as simple as the article tries to make it out to be. Well I also don't think that's as simple as you are trying to make it. What you wrote is true sometimes. But it is not the rule. Social mix is broad topic in urbanism. There are many developments with some social housing included. And market housing there is not inhabited by poor people just because some poor live in the neighborhood.

cousin_it 5y ago

> higher tendency of the youngsters in getting involved in gangs and crime (simply because many of them have far fewer opportunities in life, and they become aware of that very early) They have no opportunities, so they make the most opportunity-reducing choice imaginable? Yeah right. This reminds me of the drunk from Little Prince who drinks to forget his shame of being a drunk. Luckily this explanation isn't true. Crime doesn't come from desperation. Crime comes from crime, it's a contagious social disease. Hang around with criminals enough and you'll soften to the idea yourself, even if you're from a rich family. Hang around with people who shun the idea of crime, and you'll shun it too, even if you're dirt poor.

deadpannini 5y ago

The article isn't trying to engage problems at the lowest end of the housing market, it's concerned with the strange dynamics of the middle 60% of the market.