Gentrification

[LDF]

FWIW that was literally what was done to black people throughout much of the 20th century, and it was reason #1, not reason #11. It's basically what redlining and white flight were all about. So given that historical context, it'd be more offensive if said about black people in 2014 because they actually suffered for it for generations. White people aren't and weren't actually being redlined.

 

depending and defining this racially and historically does not mesh. not now, its

been how yrs since the 60's and the social hatred?

[RockRaines]

People who are renting don't have anything to sell. If the neighborhood I'm renting in suddenly becomes a lot more desirable, my rent's going to go up and I'm going to be forced to move.

 

edit: it can also happen with ballooning property taxes forcing owners out, but at least they aren't 100% SOL like renters.

Well then you can either pay more in a safer more desirable neighborhood or take your rent to the next slum. Renters have little to no say on this issue.

[bmags]

often in gentrification, the things that would help with prices, like new housing being built, are opposed by both gentrifiers and old residents. That's what makes this a funny topic, everyone wants status quo when it comes to their neighborhood.

[RockRaines]

often in gentrification, the things that would help with prices, like new housing being built, are opposed by both gentrifiers and old residents. That's what makes this a funny topic, everyone wants status quo when it comes to their neighborhood.

The people that want nothing to change really enjoy their new stores and safe me environment but want it without anyone else moving in. You can't have it both ways.

[LDF]

You got me there. But, there definitely is a double standard for posting things based on skin color, and I think we should hold everybody to the same standard.

 

i do. my rep in the past and still is based on equal and fair treatment. ok so

i lied..... fair and equal treatment except for the sCrubs.

 

i posted not b/c i wanted to argue, but to explain why i thought you were wrong.

[LDF]

If you get forced out of your neighborhood because it's not a s***hole I don't feel sorry for you. You were probably the problem in the first place.

 

people destinations and descriptions also needs to be explain in describing that

condition, do not rely on stereotype descriptions.

[bmags]

The people that want nothing to change really enjoy their new stores and safe me environment but want it without anyone else moving in. You can't have it both ways.

 

People accept the new status quo and defend it immediately, while simultaneously opposing anything new, as if they are always on the cusp of a tipping point. Chicago is pretty good about this, it has space and a history of ambitious architecture. But think about San Fran. Possibly the dumbest group of people running around asking "HOW DO WE SOLVE THIS".

[LDF]

People who are renting don't have anything to sell. If the neighborhood I'm renting in suddenly becomes a lot more desirable, my rent's going to go up and I'm going to be forced to move.

 

edit: it can also happen with ballooning property taxes forcing owners out, but at least they aren't 100% SOL like renters.

 

so should social economic growth stop??

 

if the property increases, those who rent will be in a better area. no one

is going to fix all the economic problems of the world.

[bmags]

so should social economic growth stop??

 

if the property increases, those who rent will be in a better area. no one

is going to fix all the economic problems of the world.

 

No, and he's not saying that. The problem is normal market forces don't always apply to housing. Normally when demand increases, supply will increase. But in housing, there are often roadblocks that prevent it.

[LDF]

No, and he's not saying that. The problem is normal market forces don't always apply to housing. Normally when demand increases, supply will increase. But in housing, there are often roadblocks that prevent it.

 

good point, people want the niceties of everything without have to help

it along.

[LDF]

No, and he's not saying that. The problem is normal market forces don't always apply to housing. Normally when demand increases, supply will increase. But in housing, there are often roadblocks that prevent it.

 

excuse me, i make a mistake in the other post.

 

but in a way he is. the word Gentrification also mean redevelopment in a way.

people who want to invest to rebuild a neighborhood does so. for profit and

the neighborhood gets a new look to help it become a better neighborhood.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's still their community and where they live and who they know, and now they're just being pushed somewhere else that's probably just as bad if not worse than their previous neighborhood.

 

Like bmags said, there are ways of doing gentrification that don't result in displacing most of the existing residences and replacing them with a bunch of yuppies, but that's usually how it goes.

 

But for most gentrification, it's not like "someone" is deciding it. It's a market movement. It's a grocery store going in or a new business development going in and then people slowly start to trickle in over time until the area is "nice." Wicker Park, Bucktown etc. It's not like the city decided "this neighborhood here, we're going to force people to buy and sell to kick the darkies out!"

 

And most of the people you're talking about aren't paying rent. They're section 8 folks. So if they get kicked out of CHA housing or CHA paid housing for other people, people who can actually pay the rent/buy the property, and make the land more valuable, and increase the tax base, and blah blah, that's a positive.

[RockRaines]

So yuppies = people who actually can pay rent or buy a property?

[StrangeSox]

So yuppies = people who actually can pay rent or buy a property?

people who can pay the new, substantially higher rents. gentrification doesn't just happen to run-down slums, it actually seems like it happens more to typical working-class neighborhoods.

 

I'm not making an argument one way or the other, i was just backing up littlehurt's initial summation of why some people are concerned about or even oppose gentrification.

Edited December 30, 2014 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

But for most gentrification, it's not like "someone" is deciding it. It's a market movement. It's a grocery store going in or a new business development going in and then people slowly start to trickle in over time until the area is "nice." Wicker Park, Bucktown etc. It's not like the city decided "this neighborhood here, we're going to force people to buy and sell to kick the darkies out!"

 

And most of the people you're talking about aren't paying rent. They're section 8 folks. So if they get kicked out of CHA housing or CHA paid housing for other people, people who can actually pay the rent/buy the property, and make the land more valuable, and increase the tax base, and blah blah, that's a positive.

it's not a positive for everybody, and it's not just section 8 people that get displaced. It often makes things worse for those that are displaced.

 

edit: and gentrification often is done in concert with public redevelopment efforts/projects/funding/goals. again I'm not saying that gentrification is absolutely evil, shouldn't happen etc. just that there are real, legitimate concerns about the effects on the existing population in those areas that should probably be addressed.

Edited December 30, 2014 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

depending and defining this racially and historically does not mesh. not now, its

been how yrs since the 60's and the social hatred?

if you want to know why a "there goes the neighborhood" message directed at non-whites would be perceived differently than the same message directed at whites, understanding the actual legacy of that message is pretty important.

[LDF]

it's not a positive for everybody, and it's not just section 8 people that get displaced. It often makes things worse for those that are displaced.

 

edit: and gentrification often is done in concert with public redevelopment efforts/projects/funding/goals. again I'm not saying that gentrification is absolutely evil, shouldn't happen etc. just that there are real, legitimate concerns about the effects on the existing population in those areas that should probably be addressed.

 

so improving neighborhoods and the general improvement in itself is bad??

so progress should not continue?? even tho you didn't say it, it is implied

by not doing anything.

[StrangeSox]

Weird that you would bold that part and then make that statement when the part after the bolded is literally the exact opposite of what you interpret me to be saying.

[LDF]

if you want to know why a "there goes the neighborhood" message directed at non-whites would be perceived differently than the same message directed at whites, understanding the actual legacy of that message is pretty important.

 

again, stereotyping a phrase that had a negative aversion or bias against a certain group

of people for the sake of hatred, that has happened in the past, doesn't mean it is

still like that today.

 

today more effort should come from those who knows better. start by being positive

in social conversation, and not reinforcing negative ideas.

[LDF]

Weird that you would bold that part and then make that statement when the part after the bolded is literally the exact opposite of what you interpret me to be saying.

 

it is b/c of what is after that i am trying to address. i am sorry if i missed

my point.

[RockRaines]

people who can pay the new, substantially higher rents. gentrification doesn't just happen to run-down slums, it actually seems like it happens more to typical working-class neighborhoods.

 

I'm not making an argument one way or the other, i was just backing up littlehurt's initial summation of why some people are concerned about or even oppose gentrification.

I understand it, but if you want to live in a nice area, you pay for it. I see nothing wrong with that.

[bigruss]

I understand it, but if you want to live in a nice area, you pay for it. I see nothing wrong with that.

I also understand that people leaving because they can't afford the rent anymore sucks, but there's a reason that rent went up most likely and that's because the neighborhood around them probably became safer, brighter, etc.

 

While I get that this can be a negative impact on people's lives, I don't get why so many people are against it because the pros should outweigh the cons in many cases.

[RockRaines]

I also understand that people leaving because they can't afford the rent anymore sucks, but there's a reason that rent went up most likely and that's because the neighborhood around them probably became safer, brighter, etc.

 

While I get that this can be a negative impact on people's lives, I don't get why so many people are against it because the pros should outweigh the cons in many cases.

Using Chicago as an example. The people who are getting "forced out" are pissed because they know they have been stealing their place for awhile. Gentrification doesnt just happen in some slum, its usually an area with upside and those people know that. They are just pissed their time came to an end.

[LittleHurt05]

What's funny is that the people who start the gentrification process often get booted from the neighborhood. It's all cyclical

 

- hipster can't afford top neighborhood, moves to neighboring poorer community

- gentrification begins in poorer community, overall quality increases

- developers and investors see increase, start scooping up property left and right

- as neighborhood keeps improving, so do rents and housing costs

- hipster can no longer afford neighborhood, moves to neighboring poorer community

 

It's like what happened to Wicker Park and is now moving to Logan Square and /or Pilsen

[StrangeSox]

people in poorer neighborhoods have been "stealing" their place, what? earlier you were describing these pre-gentrified areas as "s***holes" rock

Edited December 30, 2014 by StrangeSox