6 ms·

It's always hilarious to see arguments that people fixing up a run down neighborhood is terrible. That improvement is unfair to the people who ran it down or d

by shaftoe 12y ago

It's always hilarious to see arguments that people fixing up a run down neighborhood is terrible. That improvement is unfair to the people who ran it down or didn't own anything there to begin with. Let's just have things stay crappy and life will be fair to all.

gress 12y ago
It's always depressing to see casual dismissals based on the just-world fallacy and misrepresentation.
infosample 12y ago
shaftoe, as a thought experiment consider why the neighborhood is run down. Did the people run down the neighborhood because that's what they like? How was the economic situation for these people? How were the schools, the hospitals, the law enforcement? Was there housing discrimination? How were their politicians? What was the funding like compared to other neighborhoods? In other words, how was the neighborhood before it was crappy and how did it become so?
- otterley 12y ago
  How are these matters relevant to the opinion that improving neighborhoods is a good thing?
  - infosample 12y ago
    "That improvement is unfair to the people who ran it down" Assumption 1: The residents are the people who ran down the neighborhood. Assumption 2: Gentrification improves the neighborhood. My previous comment addresses the first assumption. Feel free to disagree. If a neighborhood is just real estate, assumption two is valid. If a neighborhood is a community of people, and gentrification moves a lot of the people, you have not improved the neighborhood, you displaced it. Once we question these assumptions, perhaps we can address the root problems.
    - otterley 12y ago
      "If a neighborhood is a community of people, and gentrification moves a lot of the people, you have not improved the neighborhood, you displaced it." Maybe; maybe not. If crime and other social and environmental ills are reduced after the previous inhabitants have been displaced, I'd contend it's an improvement.
      - infosample 12y ago
        I agree, any reduction is an improvement. I have no problem admitting that I just don't know if we fixed the problem or moved the problem. On one hand, overall crime in the U.S. is down and crime in New York City is really down. I just wonder, is the goal of gentrification to fix neighborhood's ills or cheap rent in a cool area that happens to be a fantastic real estate investment? I'm having a hard time understanding how moving people from the suburbs to the inner city and back improves anything aside from a specific geographic area for a while.
  - gaius 12y ago
    It really depends on what you mean by improving. It might mean something directly quantifiable like crime rates, or it might be something intangible, like it just being cool and fashionable to live there. The hipsters see the latter and descend like vultures on it. In the process, they do improve the neighbourhood in a quantifiable way - house prices. But they destroy what brought them there in the first place. And here's the thing: the hipsters don't need to do this. They already live somewhere. Why not stay there and live their hipster lives? That's what makes people angry - they just invade and colonize, destroying communities and driving people out of their homes for fun.
- gaius 12y ago
  ... And how is it helped by a £2 beer now costing £5, and a burger costing £20? Thats the problem with hipsters - they buy the property out from under some residents, then make it impossible for those that remain to afford anything. They are like locusts. Eventually (as we see in London) they even price themselves out of an area, then move onto the next to destroy. E.g. from Stoke Newington to Dalston. What about the people there already, who can't afford to shop at Wholefood Market?
  - curun1r 12y ago
    Why do you target your rage at the hipsters paying £5 for a beer rather than the bartender charging £5 for that beer? Or, perhaps, his landlord, for raising is rent to the point where he needs to charge £5? I guarantee that the hipster would rather pay £2. The whole issue of gentrification seems to always come around to blaming the people who move in rather than the people who profit off of them, be they existing home owners, local businesses or real estate developers. If the displaced want to cast this as a class war, follow through on the metaphor. Profiteering is considered criminal in times of war. Those profiting from the influx of money need to be held accountable.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - omegaham 12y ago
      Your last paragraph makes me unsure where you're actually standing on this, but I think that the issue with the hipsters is that they are financially indifferent. Since they're wealthy compared to the locals, they have the interesting condition of wanting to look like bohemian beatniks while enjoying modern luxuries. You end up with the kid who wants to live in a little loft in Harlem but also wants wifi for his laptop. And he's willing to pay for it. Also, since he's not strapped for money, he's willing to pay extra if it means that he gets the ambiance he's looking for. That's why formerly dingy dive bars start selling $5 Pabst Blue Ribbons, shitty apartments start adding amenities and increasing the prices, and everything follows from there. Personally, I don't really blame anyone, although I chuckle at the fact that there are people who want to pretend that they're poor while demanding luxuries used by 1% of the world.
bronbron 12y ago
> people fixing up a run down neighborhood Whoa there, let's not put words in people's mouths. Gentrification has benefits and drawbacks, like everything else. First, and foremost, the neighborhoods aren't always run down. The Missions and the Williamsburgs of the world aren't the only places undergoing gentrification. Sometimes they're just neighborhoods largely populated by immigrants (Greenpoint in Brooklyn), or traditional working-class neighborhoods (Potrero Hill in SF). Being populated by immigrants or working-class folks doesn't make a neighborhood run-down. Second, what does it mean to "fix up" a neighborhood? I'd argue it's really just replacing the historic culture with the culture of the new residents (which is usually rich, mostly white people). Sure, one nice effect is a huge reduction in crime, but you're also often replacing historic establishments with rich people tropes (e.g. Murry's -> Whole Foods). Harlem will probably be a really safe place to be in 20 years, but isn't it going to be a little bit of a shame when the Apollo gets replaced with a coffee shop?
- hifier 12y ago
  A lot of the gentrifying neighborhoods in NYC have histories that go much too far back to be attributed to the current residents, even if they've been there 50+ years. Maintaining a late 1800s brownstone is not cheap and without proper care these historic areas will just slowly deteriorate. I think it is an absolute positive that money is returning to these areas. IMO, current residents have no more of a right to live somewhere than any newcomer.
  - bronbron 12y ago
    > A lot of the gentrifying neighborhoods in NYC have histories that go much too far back to be attributed to the current residents That's kind of a silly argument (Harlem's 50+ year residents were most certainly in Harlem during the race riots), but regardless that wasn't really my point anyway. The incoming community always brings their culture with them, with very little incentive to preserve the existing culture. They have no reason to keep a Murry's around - they want a Whole Foods. The Russian Orthodox cathedral looks cool, sure, but a new luxury high-rise could be built in that spot instead. > IMO, current residents have no more of a right to live somewhere than any newcomer. That's also not really the point. It's not about who has a right to live where. It's about making sure we collectively don't tread over artifacts without taking a step back and evaluating what we're doing as a society. By the time we decide something has historical value and should be preserved, it might be way too late.

by shaftoe 12y ago

gress 12y ago

It's always depressing to see casual dismissals based on the just-world fallacy and misrepresentation.

infosample 12y ago

shaftoe, as a thought experiment consider why the neighborhood is run down. Did the people run down the neighborhood because that's what they like? How was the economic situation for these people? How were the schools, the hospitals, the law enforcement? Was there housing discrimination? How were their politicians? What was the funding like compared to other neighborhoods? In other words, how was the neighborhood before it was crappy and how did it become so?

otterley 12y ago
How are these matters relevant to the opinion that improving neighborhoods is a good thing?
- infosample 12y ago
  "That improvement is unfair to the people who ran it down" Assumption 1: The residents are the people who ran down the neighborhood. Assumption 2: Gentrification improves the neighborhood. My previous comment addresses the first assumption. Feel free to disagree. If a neighborhood is just real estate, assumption two is valid. If a neighborhood is a community of people, and gentrification moves a lot of the people, you have not improved the neighborhood, you displaced it. Once we question these assumptions, perhaps we can address the root problems.
  - otterley 12y ago
    "If a neighborhood is a community of people, and gentrification moves a lot of the people, you have not improved the neighborhood, you displaced it." Maybe; maybe not. If crime and other social and environmental ills are reduced after the previous inhabitants have been displaced, I'd contend it's an improvement.
    - infosample 12y ago
      I agree, any reduction is an improvement. I have no problem admitting that I just don't know if we fixed the problem or moved the problem. On one hand, overall crime in the U.S. is down and crime in New York City is really down. I just wonder, is the goal of gentrification to fix neighborhood's ills or cheap rent in a cool area that happens to be a fantastic real estate investment? I'm having a hard time understanding how moving people from the suburbs to the inner city and back improves anything aside from a specific geographic area for a while.
- gaius 12y ago
  It really depends on what you mean by improving. It might mean something directly quantifiable like crime rates, or it might be something intangible, like it just being cool and fashionable to live there. The hipsters see the latter and descend like vultures on it. In the process, they do improve the neighbourhood in a quantifiable way - house prices. But they destroy what brought them there in the first place. And here's the thing: the hipsters don't need to do this. They already live somewhere. Why not stay there and live their hipster lives? That's what makes people angry - they just invade and colonize, destroying communities and driving people out of their homes for fun.
gaius 12y ago
... And how is it helped by a £2 beer now costing £5, and a burger costing £20? Thats the problem with hipsters - they buy the property out from under some residents, then make it impossible for those that remain to afford anything. They are like locusts. Eventually (as we see in London) they even price themselves out of an area, then move onto the next to destroy. E.g. from Stoke Newington to Dalston. What about the people there already, who can't afford to shop at Wholefood Market?
- curun1r 12y ago
  Why do you target your rage at the hipsters paying £5 for a beer rather than the bartender charging £5 for that beer? Or, perhaps, his landlord, for raising is rent to the point where he needs to charge £5? I guarantee that the hipster would rather pay £2. The whole issue of gentrification seems to always come around to blaming the people who move in rather than the people who profit off of them, be they existing home owners, local businesses or real estate developers. If the displaced want to cast this as a class war, follow through on the metaphor. Profiteering is considered criminal in times of war. Those profiting from the influx of money need to be held accountable.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - omegaham 12y ago
    Your last paragraph makes me unsure where you're actually standing on this, but I think that the issue with the hipsters is that they are financially indifferent. Since they're wealthy compared to the locals, they have the interesting condition of wanting to look like bohemian beatniks while enjoying modern luxuries. You end up with the kid who wants to live in a little loft in Harlem but also wants wifi for his laptop. And he's willing to pay for it. Also, since he's not strapped for money, he's willing to pay extra if it means that he gets the ambiance he's looking for. That's why formerly dingy dive bars start selling $5 Pabst Blue Ribbons, shitty apartments start adding amenities and increasing the prices, and everything follows from there. Personally, I don't really blame anyone, although I chuckle at the fact that there are people who want to pretend that they're poor while demanding luxuries used by 1% of the world.

bronbron 12y ago

> people fixing up a run down neighborhood Whoa there, let's not put words in people's mouths. Gentrification has benefits and drawbacks, like everything else. First, and foremost, the neighborhoods aren't always run down. The Missions and the Williamsburgs of the world aren't the only places undergoing gentrification. Sometimes they're just neighborhoods largely populated by immigrants (Greenpoint in Brooklyn), or traditional working-class neighborhoods (Potrero Hill in SF). Being populated by immigrants or working-class folks doesn't make a neighborhood run-down. Second, what does it mean to "fix up" a neighborhood? I'd argue it's really just replacing the historic culture with the culture of the new residents (which is usually rich, mostly white people). Sure, one nice effect is a huge reduction in crime, but you're also often replacing historic establishments with rich people tropes (e.g. Murry's -> Whole Foods). Harlem will probably be a really safe place to be in 20 years, but isn't it going to be a little bit of a shame when the Apollo gets replaced with a coffee shop?

hifier 12y ago
A lot of the gentrifying neighborhoods in NYC have histories that go much too far back to be attributed to the current residents, even if they've been there 50+ years. Maintaining a late 1800s brownstone is not cheap and without proper care these historic areas will just slowly deteriorate. I think it is an absolute positive that money is returning to these areas. IMO, current residents have no more of a right to live somewhere than any newcomer.
- bronbron 12y ago
  > A lot of the gentrifying neighborhoods in NYC have histories that go much too far back to be attributed to the current residents That's kind of a silly argument (Harlem's 50+ year residents were most certainly in Harlem during the race riots), but regardless that wasn't really my point anyway. The incoming community always brings their culture with them, with very little incentive to preserve the existing culture. They have no reason to keep a Murry's around - they want a Whole Foods. The Russian Orthodox cathedral looks cool, sure, but a new luxury high-rise could be built in that spot instead. > IMO, current residents have no more of a right to live somewhere than any newcomer. That's also not really the point. It's not about who has a right to live where. It's about making sure we collectively don't tread over artifacts without taking a step back and evaluating what we're doing as a society. By the time we decide something has historical value and should be preserved, it might be way too late.