4 ms·

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

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.

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.