4 ms·

"it's changing the character of the neighborhood" So what? What's wrong with change?

aaronbrethorst 13y ago
The character of the neighborhood is what's drawing in a lot of these new people, and it is what they are inadvertently destroying by moving in. The only solution, as I see it, is increasing density and creating more housing that's affordable, whether you're on an Amazon SDE budget, or a bartender budget.
potatolicious 13y ago
Change isn't intrinsically bad. Change is bad when it removes characteristics of the neighborhood that caused people to move there in the first place. See: Belltown in Seattle. Originally an artist neighborhood (as gentrifying neighborhoods tend to be), now completely devoid of art. Originally featured eclectic eateries and cafes, which attracted wealthier residents who liked the bohemian feel. Nowadays it's high-end chains and a lot of ostentatious lounges/clubs. It's gotten to the point where Belltown is no longer really a desirable place to live, and the interest is now in Capitol Hill, where there is still an artistic/bohemian scene. Change isn't bad, but in this case the pattern seems to be: residents move in attracted to X, driving X out in the process, everyone wonders where X went, and this starts the migration to another neighborhood in the search of X... Repeat ad infinitum.
- eric_cc 13y ago
  Interesting. The same thing tends to happen to web communities.
- aaronbrethorst 13y ago
  > the interest is now in Capitol Hill, where there is still an artistic/bohemian scene. For now this is true, but I think many of these people are moving to the CD by necessity where they can still afford to rent or purchase. Of course, the exodus to the CD has had its own issues (http://www.centraldistrictnews.com/2011/12/gentrification-kills-painted-on-fence-of-modern-home-at-19th-and-jefferson/ http://www.centraldistrictnews.com/2011/12/gentrification-ki...). What I think is very interesting is that the revitalization of the waterfront may change this dynamic by causing more people to move to Pioneer Square thereby relieving pressure on Capitol Hill. I'd actually consider doing this if it wasn't for the muggings, crazy people stabbing soccer fans, and it lacking the fundamentals of a livable neighborhood (e.g. a supermarket).
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    The CD and Georgetown may be the best long-term solutions for the art community. The former has too much of a crime problem still to gentrify quickly. The latter has something of a permanent noise problem that might make the neighborhood gentrification-proof, or at least put a ceiling on it.
- thetrb 13y ago
  If everybody wants to move where the artists are then maybe people should start paying the artists so that they can still afford to live there. I know it's not as easy as that, but there's something odd about the situation you're describing.
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    There is, I have some theories, but so does everyone else I suppose. The trick with Seattle - and other tech-heavy places - is that the gentrifiers belong to a demographic that is generally not invested in the arts. NYC's gentrification has driven a lot of artists out for certain, but it's also kept many by virtue of the fact that many of its wealthiest are curators and tastemakers of various art media (see: publishing, fashion, music, etc). The population has a vested interest in seeing the arts stick around. This isn't a perfect solution, since the "wealthy patron of the arts" demographic is skewed towards certain media and genres, so other artists may yet be left behind. But it's something. Whereas in a place like Seattle people just don't really give a crap about art. How many Amazonians and Microsofties actually regularly go to art shows? How many have even been on the First Thursday events in any neighborhood? The first step to successful tech gentrification is for techies to give a shit about the arts. But good luck with that.
    - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
      > How many have even been on the First Thursday events in any neighborhood? Few, at best. And it's not just Amazon or Microsoft. I was at a mobile developer meetup in Pioneer Square that coincidentally happened to land on the first Thursday of this month. Nary a word was shared with any other attendee about the richness in the arts happening right outside of our event. Made me rather sad, to be honest.
- iyulaev 13y ago
  Change isn't intrinsically bad. Change is bad when it removes characteristics of the neighborhood that caused people to move there in the first place. Isn't this NIMBYism, just from a different demographic?
  - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
    Most NIMBYs don't want to see more development. Not to put words in potatolicious' mouth (err, keyboard), but I think we both want to see more affordable housing (and therefore more density) in Seattle's core.

The character of the neighborhood is what's drawing in a lot of these new people, and it is what they are inadvertently destroying by moving in. The only solution, as I see it, is increasing density and creating more housing that's affordable, whether you're on an Amazon SDE budget, or a bartender budget.

potatolicious 13y ago

Change isn't intrinsically bad. Change is bad when it removes characteristics of the neighborhood that caused people to move there in the first place. See: Belltown in Seattle. Originally an artist neighborhood (as gentrifying neighborhoods tend to be), now completely devoid of art. Originally featured eclectic eateries and cafes, which attracted wealthier residents who liked the bohemian feel. Nowadays it's high-end chains and a lot of ostentatious lounges/clubs. It's gotten to the point where Belltown is no longer really a desirable place to live, and the interest is now in Capitol Hill, where there is still an artistic/bohemian scene. Change isn't bad, but in this case the pattern seems to be: residents move in attracted to X, driving X out in the process, everyone wonders where X went, and this starts the migration to another neighborhood in the search of X... Repeat ad infinitum.

eric_cc 13y ago
Interesting. The same thing tends to happen to web communities.
aaronbrethorst 13y ago
> the interest is now in Capitol Hill, where there is still an artistic/bohemian scene. For now this is true, but I think many of these people are moving to the CD by necessity where they can still afford to rent or purchase. Of course, the exodus to the CD has had its own issues (http://www.centraldistrictnews.com/2011/12/gentrification-kills-painted-on-fence-of-modern-home-at-19th-and-jefferson/ http://www.centraldistrictnews.com/2011/12/gentrification-ki...). What I think is very interesting is that the revitalization of the waterfront may change this dynamic by causing more people to move to Pioneer Square thereby relieving pressure on Capitol Hill. I'd actually consider doing this if it wasn't for the muggings, crazy people stabbing soccer fans, and it lacking the fundamentals of a livable neighborhood (e.g. a supermarket).
- potatolicious 13y ago
  The CD and Georgetown may be the best long-term solutions for the art community. The former has too much of a crime problem still to gentrify quickly. The latter has something of a permanent noise problem that might make the neighborhood gentrification-proof, or at least put a ceiling on it.
thetrb 13y ago
If everybody wants to move where the artists are then maybe people should start paying the artists so that they can still afford to live there. I know it's not as easy as that, but there's something odd about the situation you're describing.
- potatolicious 13y ago
  There is, I have some theories, but so does everyone else I suppose. The trick with Seattle - and other tech-heavy places - is that the gentrifiers belong to a demographic that is generally not invested in the arts. NYC's gentrification has driven a lot of artists out for certain, but it's also kept many by virtue of the fact that many of its wealthiest are curators and tastemakers of various art media (see: publishing, fashion, music, etc). The population has a vested interest in seeing the arts stick around. This isn't a perfect solution, since the "wealthy patron of the arts" demographic is skewed towards certain media and genres, so other artists may yet be left behind. But it's something. Whereas in a place like Seattle people just don't really give a crap about art. How many Amazonians and Microsofties actually regularly go to art shows? How many have even been on the First Thursday events in any neighborhood? The first step to successful tech gentrification is for techies to give a shit about the arts. But good luck with that.
  - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
    > How many have even been on the First Thursday events in any neighborhood? Few, at best. And it's not just Amazon or Microsoft. I was at a mobile developer meetup in Pioneer Square that coincidentally happened to land on the first Thursday of this month. Nary a word was shared with any other attendee about the richness in the arts happening right outside of our event. Made me rather sad, to be honest.
iyulaev 13y ago
Change isn't intrinsically bad. Change is bad when it removes characteristics of the neighborhood that caused people to move there in the first place. Isn't this NIMBYism, just from a different demographic?
- aaronbrethorst 13y ago
  Most NIMBYs don't want to see more development. Not to put words in potatolicious' mouth (err, keyboard), but I think we both want to see more affordable housing (and therefore more density) in Seattle's core.