5 ms·

It's not quite that simple. Building up can ruin the character of the neighborhood, which is often a big part of the allure. I do think we're chronically under

by drob 13y ago

It's not quite that simple. Building up can ruin the character of the neighborhood, which is often a big part of the allure. I do think we're chronically underbuilding in a lot of places (SF being an extreme example), but the existence of steel and elevators is not a panacea for the "gentrification problem".

anoncowherd 13y ago
> Building up can ruin the character of the neighborhood, which is often a big part of the allure. Well then, less allure would lead to lower prices, right? What's not to like?
- marvin 13y ago
  That's all well and good. But all the wealthy people who already live there will probably use their political clout to prevent new construction.
  - ghaff 13y ago
    And this is inherently wrong, why? People (of whatever their net worth) vote, speak at meetings, and talk to their representatives to try and pursue outcomes that they prefer. One of those outcomes may be maintaining a particular character for a neighborhood. It's complicated. Greater good for the larger city or whatever and all that. But I don't see anything devious about residents having a say in what their community looks like.
    - eropple 13y ago
      > And this is inherently wrong, why? Because the world does not exist for the benefit of the rich and privileged; not simply the "rolling in Maserati" rich but those in a position to enact those gentrifying policies--who are overwhelmingly upper-income and capable of exerting more time to get what they want, have more money to apply to their causes, and generally are better-educated and able to execute. The "selfish vote" amongst the privileged is indeed a problem. A lack of social responsibility and a refusal to understand that those unlike you must too be able to live are moral failings. They are wrong, and situations that increase the effectiveness and value of the selfish vote amongst people with privilege are undesirable.
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        > Because the world does not exist for the benefit of the rich and privileged No? Does it exist for the benefit of the poor then? -They sure keep voting for more wealth transfers and taxes on the rich, and they keep getting them too! Note that I'm just an ordinary middle-class white person. I just wanted to point out that the world does not exist for any group's benefit. We're all just people, all just individuals here.
        eropple 13y ago
        > Does it exist for the benefit of the poor then? No. But we have ample historical evidence that huge wealth and privilege disparity does not lead to societal stability. The selfish vote of those rich and privileged seeks to increase this disparity. The selfish vote of the poor does not.
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        The Rich-Enough don't actually vote to change things, they buy politicians and make deals behind the scenes.
jseliger 13y ago
It's not quite that simple. Building up can ruin the character of the neighborhood, which is often a big part of the allure. I don't think I've ever seen an example of this reflected in prices. Do you know of any, or of any studies of this phenomenon?
- jcrites 13y ago
  I don't know if this is a great example, but: http://www.leavenworth.org/ http://www.leavenworth.org/ It's sort of a Bavarian themed down-town and city in Washington state. Its allure and attraction to tourists depends on its theme. I say I don't know if it's a great example because I have no direct evidence about prices, but I assume the reasonable volume of tourists and business must raise prices compared to other cities.

by drob 13y ago

anoncowherd 13y ago

> Building up can ruin the character of the neighborhood, which is often a big part of the allure. Well then, less allure would lead to lower prices, right? What's not to like?

marvin 13y ago
That's all well and good. But all the wealthy people who already live there will probably use their political clout to prevent new construction.
- ghaff 13y ago
  And this is inherently wrong, why? People (of whatever their net worth) vote, speak at meetings, and talk to their representatives to try and pursue outcomes that they prefer. One of those outcomes may be maintaining a particular character for a neighborhood. It's complicated. Greater good for the larger city or whatever and all that. But I don't see anything devious about residents having a say in what their community looks like.
  - eropple 13y ago
    > And this is inherently wrong, why? Because the world does not exist for the benefit of the rich and privileged; not simply the "rolling in Maserati" rich but those in a position to enact those gentrifying policies--who are overwhelmingly upper-income and capable of exerting more time to get what they want, have more money to apply to their causes, and generally are better-educated and able to execute. The "selfish vote" amongst the privileged is indeed a problem. A lack of social responsibility and a refusal to understand that those unlike you must too be able to live are moral failings. They are wrong, and situations that increase the effectiveness and value of the selfish vote amongst people with privilege are undesirable.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      > Because the world does not exist for the benefit of the rich and privileged No? Does it exist for the benefit of the poor then? -They sure keep voting for more wealth transfers and taxes on the rich, and they keep getting them too! Note that I'm just an ordinary middle-class white person. I just wanted to point out that the world does not exist for any group's benefit. We're all just people, all just individuals here.
      - eropple 13y ago
        > Does it exist for the benefit of the poor then? No. But we have ample historical evidence that huge wealth and privilege disparity does not lead to societal stability. The selfish vote of those rich and privileged seeks to increase this disparity. The selfish vote of the poor does not.
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        The Rich-Enough don't actually vote to change things, they buy politicians and make deals behind the scenes.

jseliger 13y ago

It's not quite that simple. Building up can ruin the character of the neighborhood, which is often a big part of the allure. I don't think I've ever seen an example of this reflected in prices. Do you know of any, or of any studies of this phenomenon?

jcrites 13y ago
I don't know if this is a great example, but: http://www.leavenworth.org/ http://www.leavenworth.org/ It's sort of a Bavarian themed down-town and city in Washington state. Its allure and attraction to tourists depends on its theme. I say I don't know if it's a great example because I have no direct evidence about prices, but I assume the reasonable volume of tourists and business must raise prices compared to other cities.