4 ms·

What the author is alluding to is the phenomena of landlords forcing a resident to leave outright, or raising rent beyond the level that existing tenants can pa

What the author is alluding to is the phenomena of landlords forcing a resident to leave outright, or raising rent beyond the level that existing tenants can pay, resulting in the existing tenant being forced to leave. This is usually done to make more money. However, I agree with what you're saying: what did people think would happen?! In renting a place, the landlord does not have to keep the rent the same. This is a risk that comes with renting. > Don’t assume that because you have more money that you have to right to take someone else’s home away. Don’t treat an existing community like your personal playground. I just... what? No one here is playing dirty, no one is targeting anyone else. The rules of the economic system that we all live in say that these things are possible events, and maybe ones we should all be prepared for. Also, you can't destroy a community. Communities exist when people exist. Communities can change, like when the people that exist in a community change. But humans will still be there, doing their human thing. And I think that's what this is really about; change that the author doesn't like.

lepto 12y ago
"Also, you can't destroy a community. Communities exist when people exist." If a neighborhood block has the same residents for 20 years, who have street parties and have their kids play and grow together, and then all those families leave (for whatever reason) and the new residents never talk to each other (for whatever reason), yeah I think you could say a community died there.
- lelandbatey 12y ago
  I'm not totally sure, let's explore this a bit. There are two definitions for "community" when I look this up: 1. "A group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common." 2. "A feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals." By the first definition, I don't agree with you. If there are people living near one another, then a community exists. By the second definition, you're at least somewhat correct. When the people are gone/have changed, then that "feeling of fellowship" has disappeared/become unrecognizably different. I don't think it's wrong to be frustrated or saddened when we lose things like relationships. But I don't think we should demonize others.
Daishiman 12y ago
> Also, you can't destroy a community. Communities exist when people exist. Communities can change, like when the people that exist in a community change. But humans will still be there, doing their human thing. And I think that's what this is really about; change that the author doesn't like. Clearly you've never lived through the process of gentrification then, because this shit happens a lot.
- lelandbatey 12y ago
  I will admit, I have not lived through the process of urban gentrification, but I have lived through a significant cultural change due to an influx of people. I grew up here[0], in a house from the 70's surrounded by other houses from the 70's, all of which was out in the middle of the woods. There was a nice culture that came with living there. Starting in 2000, what had been many square miles of forest starting just 1000 feet north of our home was logged and in just under 2 years the huge housing development called "Redmond Ridge" went up. It was all cookie-cutter houses, tiny yards, and Microsoft employees. You can see all of this if you zoom out of the location I linked here[0]. With this came more traffic, which brought more road construction, and more development. It put a lot more strain on the surrounding schools, which had to expand, and generally alienated what had been a very woodsy, cowtown sort of people. As you can see, the entire area is a mix of extremely suburban mixed with the remains of a more rural community. I realize that this doesn't come close to the experience of being pushed out of your home. But I do have a very small understanding of having large cultural changes thrust upon you. Having gone through that, why would one be angry with Microsoft, or their employees, or local government, etc? Doing something that frustrates you doesn't make them evil. [0] - https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6738223,-122.0327392,18z https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6738223,-122.0327392,18z
  - nl 12y ago
    Isn't your "communities cannot be destroyed, just changed" argument just a semantic point? I'd imagine that few would describe "Redmond Ridge" as a "very woodsy, cowtown". It's fine to say that "woodsy, cowtown" community has just changed, but if you can no longer see that community it's pretty easy to argue it has gone (aka been destroyed). I strongly agree that change isn't necessarily bad, and I think gentrification often gets a bad rep for what is often a significant improvement. But I don't see how you can argue that communities don't get destroyed by it.
nl 12y ago
The rules of the economic system that we all live in say that these things are possible events, and maybe ones we should all be prepared for. The author's point is that the community system is more important (to him) than the economic system. It may surprise many who are mostly familiar with the economics-based system we all live with, but prior to the 1980's economics was usually a second-order concern when talking about city (and even country) development. In some places you still see this - there was a recentish HN discussion which talked about some particular issue in Spain, and the cognitive misalignment between people who had lived in Spain and considered the society impact first and those who lived in the US and considered the economic impact was quite striking. At some point unfortunately many will want a answer as to which way of thinking is right. Generally the economic view will win then, because it's easy to measure and reason about the economic impact of things, whilst alternative models of thought tend to be less based on metrics. (I wish I knew if the downvotes were because I offended "economic-system thinkers" by pointing out other world-views or if I offended "non-economic-system thinkers" by pointing out that non-economic systems tend to be hard to measure)

lepto 12y ago

"Also, you can't destroy a community. Communities exist when people exist." If a neighborhood block has the same residents for 20 years, who have street parties and have their kids play and grow together, and then all those families leave (for whatever reason) and the new residents never talk to each other (for whatever reason), yeah I think you could say a community died there.

lelandbatey 12y ago
I'm not totally sure, let's explore this a bit. There are two definitions for "community" when I look this up: 1. "A group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common." 2. "A feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals." By the first definition, I don't agree with you. If there are people living near one another, then a community exists. By the second definition, you're at least somewhat correct. When the people are gone/have changed, then that "feeling of fellowship" has disappeared/become unrecognizably different. I don't think it's wrong to be frustrated or saddened when we lose things like relationships. But I don't think we should demonize others.

Daishiman 12y ago

> Also, you can't destroy a community. Communities exist when people exist. Communities can change, like when the people that exist in a community change. But humans will still be there, doing their human thing. And I think that's what this is really about; change that the author doesn't like. Clearly you've never lived through the process of gentrification then, because this shit happens a lot.

lelandbatey 12y ago
I will admit, I have not lived through the process of urban gentrification, but I have lived through a significant cultural change due to an influx of people. I grew up here[0], in a house from the 70's surrounded by other houses from the 70's, all of which was out in the middle of the woods. There was a nice culture that came with living there. Starting in 2000, what had been many square miles of forest starting just 1000 feet north of our home was logged and in just under 2 years the huge housing development called "Redmond Ridge" went up. It was all cookie-cutter houses, tiny yards, and Microsoft employees. You can see all of this if you zoom out of the location I linked here[0]. With this came more traffic, which brought more road construction, and more development. It put a lot more strain on the surrounding schools, which had to expand, and generally alienated what had been a very woodsy, cowtown sort of people. As you can see, the entire area is a mix of extremely suburban mixed with the remains of a more rural community. I realize that this doesn't come close to the experience of being pushed out of your home. But I do have a very small understanding of having large cultural changes thrust upon you. Having gone through that, why would one be angry with Microsoft, or their employees, or local government, etc? Doing something that frustrates you doesn't make them evil. [0] - https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6738223,-122.0327392,18z https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6738223,-122.0327392,18z
- nl 12y ago
  Isn't your "communities cannot be destroyed, just changed" argument just a semantic point? I'd imagine that few would describe "Redmond Ridge" as a "very woodsy, cowtown". It's fine to say that "woodsy, cowtown" community has just changed, but if you can no longer see that community it's pretty easy to argue it has gone (aka been destroyed). I strongly agree that change isn't necessarily bad, and I think gentrification often gets a bad rep for what is often a significant improvement. But I don't see how you can argue that communities don't get destroyed by it.

nl 12y ago

The rules of the economic system that we all live in say that these things are possible events, and maybe ones we should all be prepared for. The author's point is that the community system is more important (to him) than the economic system. It may surprise many who are mostly familiar with the economics-based system we all live with, but prior to the 1980's economics was usually a second-order concern when talking about city (and even country) development. In some places you still see this - there was a recentish HN discussion which talked about some particular issue in Spain, and the cognitive misalignment between people who had lived in Spain and considered the society impact first and those who lived in the US and considered the economic impact was quite striking. At some point unfortunately many will want a answer as to which way of thinking is right. Generally the economic view will win then, because it's easy to measure and reason about the economic impact of things, whilst alternative models of thought tend to be less based on metrics. (I wish I knew if the downvotes were because I offended "economic-system thinkers" by pointing out other world-views or if I offended "non-economic-system thinkers" by pointing out that non-economic systems tend to be hard to measure)