Gentrification Discussion

[Deleted member 9824]

This topic has been on my mind for a long time, but I haven't figured out a way to be completeley clear with it. If you don't know what gentrification is, it's basically landlords exploiting the local housing market trends by evicting the current population in favor of developing and renovating their property to become more modernized and city-like, and to bring in new money. Typically involves lower-class neighborhoods and undeveloped property (no housing or buildings) being renovated into condominiums and apartments for middle-class and richer transplants (people not from, or familiar with, the area and its culture). After effects may include local and transplant elitism and larger, nation-wide businesses driving out smaller, locally owned businesses.

Personally, I don't mind development of property, but if the local culture is affected by it, then it's a problem. Where I live, there's not a lot of transplants who respect the culture, and the ones who do don't really do anything to preserve it.

 

[BarryAllen]

I'm all for it. I love Gentrification. I'm all about increasing property value. I'm not gonna pretend to care about people I don't know or what happens to them.

 

[Viewt]

I'm all for it. I love Gentrification. I'm all about increasing property value. I'm not gonna pretend to care about people I don't know or what happens to them.

Click to shrink...

It's not that rising property values are bad, necessarily. And it's not a bad thing when neighborhoods become safer, or attract more businesses. These things, in isolation, are good.

But consider, as these neighborhoods are improving, who are they improving for? Is it for the people who've been there for years, sometimes, decades? Or just anyone who can afford the new high prices? People get pushed out by gentrification, and when you're in a city, being pushed out can mean losing access to critical public transit and city services. It represents a meaningful drop in quality of life, and it's something we should care about, I think.

I'm not some crazy NIMBY or whatever. I know that neighborhoods change with time, but if we're pushing these changes while being callous to how it affects working class people while we literally take their homes from them, then I think that's a problem. We need to figure out a way to revitalize areas and improve property value at a reasonable rate while still offering options for low-income housing (and hell, mid-level income, as well).

Not saying I have all of the answers, but it's something that we should be working towards solving.

 

[SpottieO]

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought gentrification doesn't necessarily imply that landlords are actively evicting or pricing people out? More that costs in general are rising and the local population can't keep up and of course I'm sure there are some awful landlords that intentionally price people out.

I don't think there is necessarily malice behind gentrification in most instances.

 

[Invisible Cities]

Gentrification isn't just greedy landlords, it's a tragedy of the commons. Every person making the best decision for themselves, but the outcome is negative overall.

Everyone who has the ability to chose where they live contributes in some way unless they literally never leave the place they grew up.

 

[nsilvias]

Gentrification does nothing to actually help people. All it does is introduce a new group of people to an area while those that were already there are forced to leave because they can't afford to live there anymore. The poor stay poor & the conditions in their new home are often worse. It just moves the problem elsewhere

 

[BarryAllen]

It's not that rising property values are bad, necessarily. And it's not a bad thing when neighborhoods become safer, or attract more businesses. These things, in isolation, are good.

But consider, as these neighborhoods are improving, who are they improving for? Is it for the people who've been there for years, sometimes, decades? Or just anyone who can afford the new high prices? People get pushed out by gentrification, and when you're in a city, being pushed out can mean losing access to critical public transit and city services. It represents a meaningful drop in quality of life, and it's something we should care about, I think.

I'm not some crazy NIMBY or whatever. I know that neighborhoods change with time, but if we're pushing these changes while being callous to how it affects working class people while we literally take their homes from them, then I think that's a problem. We need to figure out a way to revitalize areas and improve property value at a reasonable rate while still offering options for low-income housing (and hell, mid-level income, as well).

Not saying I have all of the answers, but it's something that we should be working towards solving.

Click to shrink...

once again I don't care about the familes that were there before. I'm not going to pretend I care. I'm an evil capitalist so whatever

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

This topic has been on my mind for a long time, but I haven't figured out a way to be completeley clear with it. If you don't know what gentrification is, it's basically landlords exploiting the local housing market trends by evicting the current population in favor of developing and renovating their property to become more modernized and city-like, and to bring in new money. Typically involves lower-class neighborhoods and undeveloped property (no housing or buildings) being renovated into condominiums and apartments for middle-class and richer transplants (people not from, or familiar with, the area and its culture). After effects may include local and transplant elitism and larger, nation-wide businesses driving out smaller, locally owned businesses.

Personally, I don't mind development of property, but if the local culture is affected by it, then it's a problem. Where I live, there's not a lot of transplants who respect the culture, and the ones who do don't really do anything to preserve it.

Click to shrink...

Your definition of gentrification is problematic on several levels. First off, gentrification does not necessarily get done solely by landlords, it's often done via new construction or home sales in fringe neighborhoods. Secondly, gentrification in and of itself has no effect on culture. The residents who move in may have an effect on local culture, but that is not a fault of gentrification itself. The idea that a local culture or population is owed something solely because they've lived somewhere for a long period of time and should therefore have their culture be the dominant one for all eternity is just a silly notion. They're free to continue practicing their culture for as long as they want. We shouldn't expect people moving to a new area because they saw a great opportunity for themselves to have to abandon their culture and traditions.

Gentrification can be problematic, but I think that problem is because of how hard it is to own property rather than be a renter in today's economic climate. Home ownership offers a great buffer against the effects of gentrification because it means residents are not directly impacted by housing cost changes, solely through tax ramifications, which can be targeted by other forms of tax relief legislation to ease the burden on them. A great solution would be to give low income people ownership of properties rather than give them section 8 vouchers to pay rent to landlords. Affordable housing should be a concern, but it doesn't make redevelopment problematic in general. Just because a neighborhood was formerly low income does not mean it should be preserved as low income for all time. As long as affordable housing is available in the region and meets the size of the low income population, a demographic shift in particular neighborhoods is not negative.

Gentrification does nothing to actually help people. All it does is introduce a new group of people to an area while those that were already there are forced to leave because they can't afford to live there anymore. The poor stay poor & the conditions in their new home are often worse. It just moves the problem elsewhere

Click to shrink...

This is also not accurate at all. It helps existing homeowners greatly. It can reduce crime, improve schools, provide great local businesses in neighborhoods that are underserved, and create local jobs.

 

[Sheentak]

As somebody who lives in a gentfied area of London I've seen both sides of it.

On the one hand people are being driven out and that's wrong but the area is alot safer, violence and has dropped significantly.

I prefer living here now than 10 years ago but people I known for years were driven out.

 

[entremet]

It's a complex issue. White flight led to cities getting neglected in 70s and 90s.

However, city living is more attractive. And yuppies want walkable areas with culture.

But since most of city life is dominated by rentals, supply and demand kicks in and hurts the poor.

Let's not forget the terrible zoning restrictions that limit the creation of more housing stock. And NIMBYs are another culprit.

But it doesn't seem like a clear solution exists.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

And NIMBYs are another culprit.

Click to shrink...

Can't be understated. Here in Philadelphia rents went DOWN this year due to the amount of new housing stock that came on line. Developing for larger density in desirable neighborhoods allows for demand to be met and reduces upward pressure on prices. NIMBYs are what ruins that effect.

 

[Oligarchenemy]

The new Amazon building is about to bring massive gentrification where ever it ends up.

 

[Pau]

Gentrification can be problematic, but I think that problem is because of how hard it is to own property rather than be a renter in today's economic climate. Home ownership offers a great buffer against the effects of gentrification because it means residents are not directly impacted by housing cost changes, solely through tax ramifications, which can be targeted by other forms of tax relief legislation to ease the burden on them. A great solution would be to give low income people ownership of properties rather than give them section 8 vouchers to pay rent to landlords. Affordable housing should be a concern, but it doesn't make redevelopment problematic in general. Just because a neighborhood was formerly low income does not mean it should be preserved as low income for all time. As long as affordable housing is available in the region and meets the size of the low income population, a demographic shift in particular neighborhoods is not negative.

Click to shrink...

I'd say one of the big problems is that the affordable housing in the region becomes farther and farther from the city center where all the jobs are. At least that's how it feels in NYC.

 

[Viewt]

once again I don't care about the familes that were there before. I'm not going to pretend I care. I'm an evil capitalist so whatever

Click to shrink...

I mean, if you don't care, you don't care. That's your choice.

It's a complex issue. White flight led to cities getting neglected in 70s and 90s.

However, city living is more attractive. And yuppies want walkable areas with culture.

But since most of city life is dominated by rentals, supply and demand kicks in and hurts the poor.

Let's not forget the terrible zoning restrictions that limit the creation of more housing stock. And NIMBYs are another culprit.

But it doesn't seem like a clear solution exists.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, it's hard to find a a direct solution that doesn't also impose limits on what other people can do (i.e. reserving certain apartments for people below a certain income tier on a large scale). Building up seems like a no-brainer for already-dense areas that are in demand, and creating new stock for wealthier people tends to minimize price-outs for the existing housing (doesn't get rid of it completely, though - as neighborhoods become more popular, property values and therefore taxes will increase, leading to rent hikes). But I don't know how you sell people on broad new taxes to subsidize housing. It's a tough nut to crack.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

I'd say one of the big problems is that the affordable housing in the region becomes farther and farther from the city center where all the jobs are. At least that's how it feels in NYC.

Click to shrink...

That's because in NYC virtually no steps were taken to control how gentrification operated, and also because demand in that area is so huge. That's not necessarily the case elsewhere. That's not, for example, why the Bay Area is suffering so extensively.

 

[Trey]

I'm all for it. I love Gentrification. I'm all about increasing property value. I'm not gonna pretend to care about people I don't know or what happens to them.

Click to shrink...

Increasing property value is not the only effect gentrification has. I know you said you're an "evil capitalist" in a follow up post, but reducing gentrification to simply value is the short sighted thinking that lead to multiple economy crashes.

 

[fauxtrot]

I recently read How to Kill a City: Gentrification, Inequality, and the Fight for the Neighborhood by Peter Moskowitz and he does a great job of explaining the problem from multiple angles by going through the history of 4 cities (New Orleans, San Fransisco, Detroit, and New York City). It's an easy read and might change the minds of any of you that think it's generally a net positive or that it's a natural/inevitable part of a city's "life".

 

[Mr.Mike]

Culture is never a static thing, and it seems too easy exploit the rhetoric of "protecting" it to block development. Ultimately what drives housing prices up is a lack of supply for a growing population. It is true that poorer neighborhoods have much less power to block development than richer neighborhoods, and so the development of new housing is disproportionately happening there. But these are also the people who will suffer the most from increased housing prices if construction of new housing is constrained, as eventually housing prices in the neighborhood will increase regardless of the new construction being allowed or not. On a city wide level you'd expect higher prices everywhere if housing supply growth is being constrained. Also "luxury" is a marketing word you'll probably find on every new condo construction no matter what, so don't get hung up on it.

Singapore has a policy of having the government itself just build huge amounts of housing and that seems to work for them, maybe something to look into.

 

[Kirblar]

Culture is never a static thing, and it seems too easy exploit the rhetoric of "protecting" it to block development. Ultimately what drives housing prices up is a lack of supply for a growing population. It is true that poorer neighborhoods have much less power to block development than richer neighborhoods, and so the development of new housing is disproportionately happening there. But these are also the people who will suffer the most from increased housing prices if construction of new housing is constrained, as eventually housing prices in the neighborhood will increase regardless of the new construction being allowed or not. On a city wide level you'd expect higher prices everywhere if housing supply growth is being constrained. Also "luxury" is a marketing word you'll probably find on every new condo construction no matter what, don't get hung up on it.

Singapore has a policy of having the government itself just build huge amounts of housing and that seems to work for them, maybe something to look into.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, this is generally the bigger issue. Gentrification has pre-requisite factors in order to become a major issue and affects far less places than people think. Empowering NIMBYs is not the way to help ease growing pains.

 

[Seductivpancakes]

I got priced out the neighbor I lived in for 20+ years because of gentrification . I walk by the area once in awhile and there's always a new shop cause the people moving in can't keep their businesses open cause no one around cares to shop there.

 

[Deleted member 9824]

Your definition of gentrification is problematic on several levels. First off, gentrification does not necessarily get done solely by landlords, it's often done via new construction or home sales in fringe neighborhoods. Secondly, gentrification in and of itself has no effect on culture. The residents who move in may have an effect on local culture, but that is not a fault of gentrification itself. The idea that a local culture or population is owed something solely because they've lived somewhere for a long period of time and should therefore have their culture be the dominant one for all eternity is just a silly notion. They're free to continue practicing their culture for as long as they want. We shouldn't expect people moving to a new area because they saw a great opportunity for themselves to have to abandon their culture and traditions.

Gentrification can be problematic, but I think that problem is because of how hard it is to own property rather than be a renter in today's economic climate. Home ownership offers a great buffer against the effects of gentrification because it means residents are not directly impacted by housing cost changes, solely through tax ramifications, which can be targeted by other forms of tax relief legislation to ease the burden on them. A great solution would be to give low income people ownership of properties rather than give them section 8 vouchers to pay rent to landlords. Affordable housing should be a concern, but it doesn't make redevelopment problematic in general. Just because a neighborhood was formerly low income does not mean it should be preserved as low income for all time. As long as affordable housing is available in the region and meets the size of the low income population, a demographic shift in particular neighborhoods is not negative.

Click to shrink...

If you can give me a better definition that can be great.

This was honestly an off-the-top topic for me, since I'm bored as hell at work. As for the culture part, if you move into a new area, there's a high chance that people won't be practicing your specific culture, and an even higher chance your children won't be practicing your culture even if you teach them it, as is the case with a large number Asian immigrants in my area, who become more Americanized by the second and third generation. Think of it like this, some people in European countries, and in some parts of the United States as well, are afraid of letting in immigrants and refugees to preserve their own culture, and gentrification does the same as that, except on a more local level without the hassle of international laws. It's kind of like some Americans being afraid of Arabic and Latino (or Hispanic, I dunno) immigrants and destroying the American way of life.

once again I don't care about the familes that were there before. I'm not going to pretend I care. I'm an evil capitalist so whatever

Click to shrink...

How's the Bitcoin economy treating you? I got about $63000 from the 4.8k-5.6k jump a few weeks ago. Anyways, what if it happened to you? You're not gonna feel something for moving away from your friends and family?

 

[VeePs]

I like it in the sense that it leads to more businesses, safer areas, less violence, a better image overall, etc etc.

But I honestly feel bad for families who have been living in an area for decades not being able to afford it anymore.

Sadly, there's no clear cut answer to this. It just depends where you fall. If you make good money and are moving to the city, or if your in real estate, it's a great thing. If your not doing well financially and live in place with up and coming market, your probably screwed.

 

[Seductivpancakes]

I like it in the sense that it leads to more businesses, safer areas, less violence, a better image overall, etc etc.

Click to shrink...

Safer areas and better infrastructure shouldn't be a thing that's only achievable cause new, wealthier residents are moving in. Granted, fighting crime isn't easy, and NYC isn't bad crime wise like people still think it is.

 

[Pau]

That's because in NYC virtually no steps were taken to control how gentrification operated, and also because demand in that area is so huge. That's not necessarily the case elsewhere. That's not, for example, why the Bay Area is suffering so extensively.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I really can't speak to anywhere but NYC.

I recently read How to Kill a City: Gentrification, Inequality, and the Fight for the Neighborhood by Peter Moskowitz and he does a great job of explaining problem by going through the history of 4 cities (New Orleans, San Fransisco, Detroit, and New York City).

Click to shrink...

Neat! Thanks for the recommendation.

 

[Deleted member 4367]

Rent control seems like the only viable response to gentrification.

 

[Deleted member 9824]

Culture is never a static thing, and it seems too easy exploit the rhetoric of "protecting" it to block development. Ultimately what drives housing prices up is a lack of supply for a growing population. It is true that poorer neighborhoods have much less power to block development than richer neighborhoods, and so the development of new housing is disproportionately happening there. But these are also the people who will suffer the most from increased housing prices if construction of new housing is constrained, as eventually housing prices in the neighborhood will increase regardless of the new construction being allowed or not. On a city wide level you'd expect higher prices everywhere if housing supply growth is being constrained. Also "luxury" is a marketing word you'll probably find on every new condo construction no matter what, so don't get hung up on it.

Singapore has a policy of having the government itself just build huge amounts of housing and that seems to work for them, maybe something to look into.

Click to shrink...

I was in Singapore a few months ago to visit my friend, and they're starting to address overpopulation issues that they should have addressed five to ten years ago, according to them. They're not doing anything about overpopulation, just addressing it. Once they do actually do something about overpopulation, tens of thousands of people are going to be homeless for at least a year, or migrate out of Singapore. There's a lot of places for development to occur, outside of tearing down current housing complexes, but the government wants to keep a positive look of Singapore to the outside world.

The government can't be trusted with housing if they're just going to continually pass over it like in SIngapore.

 

[Kirblar]

Rent control seems like the only viable response to gentrification.

Click to shrink...

Rent control is one of the worst possible responses to gentrification. It's incredibly damaging to a city's housing market because of the way in which it warps incentives for landlords and renters alike.

 

[CannonBallBob]

People talk about how people need to move to better areas to improve their life, but then modern society than prices them out of their current area. Isn't there a "hey, let's find a solution together" idea with gentrification?

 

[Cryptosporidium]

The fraser valley surrounding Vancouver is recieving a lot of new high skilled immigrants with money to spend which is raising property value. Im of a middle class family, make good money during the summer, but because im a university student paying his way through school as well I cant afford to move out.

Fraser valley has a fucked up housing bubble thats pushing all this high middle class/rich families to places like abbotsford and chilliwack

 

[Cat Party]

If you don't know what gentrification is, it's basically landlords exploiting the local housing market trends by evicting the current population in favor of developing and renovating their property to become more modernized and city-like, and to bring in new money.

Click to shrink...

I get your point but this isn't what gentrification is. It is a particularly nasty side effect, though.

I've had to evolve my thinking on this issue over the years. I used to think redeveloping "bad" areas into trendy areas was good--no questions asked. I mean, who wouldn't want that, right? What I didn't understand in the past is that, if the existing communities aren't protected in some way, they will not get to share in the benefits of redevelopment. Instead, they'll just get displaced. But I still don't think I understand the solution to the problem.

 

[Divvy]

This topic is very complex and impossible to find a one size fits all solution. You have odd allegiances between lower income residents not wanting new multi-unit developments in fear of it raising their rent and rich residents blocking new development for fear of it lowering their property values. But I really don't think having less development is going to make things any better judging by how many people are moving into cities these days.

 

[lt519]

Our city is under going gentrification right now. While it isn't displacing low-rent residents, rather repairing abandon buildings, it still has an effect on the low income population as the demand for higher end stores/restaurants increase. I'm a part of that by moving in.

As of yet we aren't seeing local mom and pop stores being replaced by chains which is great, but it is certainly trending that way.

 

[VeePs]

Safer areas and better infrastructure shouldn't be a thing that's only achievable cause new, wealthier residents are moving in. Granted, fighting crime isn't easy, and NYC isn't bad crime wise like people still think it is.

Click to shrink...

How do we get safer areas and better infrastructure in places with poor/lower income?

 

[Tuck]

I'm all for it. I love Gentrification. I'm all about increasing property value. I'm not gonna pretend to care about people I don't know or what happens to them.

Click to shrink...

There are drawbacks. Sometimes when an area becomes popular and trendy, the new developments push out the people that made it that way to begin with. And with them gone, the appeal of that neighborhood begins to diminish.

 

[Seductivpancakes]

How do we get safer areas and better infrastructure in places with poor/lower income?

Click to shrink...

I suppose the city has to pour more money into those areas.

 

[Deleted member 9824]

How do we get safer areas and better infrastructure in places with poor/lower income?

Click to shrink...

I suppose the city has to pour more money into those areas.

Click to shrink...

I don't think so. More money into anything doesn't solve much, unless it's into education. Adults are a lost cause most of the time, and it's these public school kids who are their city's future. A lot of problems come from a lack of proper funding in education. Even if a school gets more fundng, if they don't spend it on teachers who actually care about their students, then what's the point? We need to rethink how to do taxes locally. Property and income taxes are almost always tied to gentrification and the education system, but in separate ways. I wish most cities would actually scratch their current taxes and start over, thinking about the long-term effects of their taxes instead of thinking about the current issues at hand. Scratch every part of taxation, and even federal taxes, and then figure out how to improve an area without displacing everyone.

 

[Instro]

I don't know how you solve the issue. We can all agree that it is awful for renters who don't benefit from redevelopment, but it's not really reasonable to argue that redevelopment is bad. Obviously this just highlights why renting is awful, but some people are forced into that path and it's a problem that most heavily affects urban areas. The only solution I can think of is government assistance for areas targeted for redevelopment where renter population is high. I don't see rent control as an answer either.

 

[Seductivpancakes]

I don't think so. More money into anything doesn't solve much, unless it's into education. Adults are a lost cause most of the time, and it's these public school kids who are their city's future. A lot of problems come from a lack of proper funding in education. Even if a school gets more fundng, if they don't spend it on teachers who actually care about their students, then what's the point? We need to rethink how to do taxes locally. Property and income taxes are almost always tied to gentrification and the education system, but in separate ways. I wish most cities would actually scratch their current taxes and start over, thinking about the long-term effects of their taxes instead of thinking about the current issues at hand. Scratch every part of taxation, and even federal taxes, and then figure out how to improve an area without displacing everyone.

Click to shrink...

when I mean infrastructure, I mean having the trash being removed instead of piling on the side walk or street corners. Walking street and traffic lights. Repaved streets and sidewalks.

Education is a whole other issue I haven't touched on.

 

[PanickyFool]

If you don't know what gentrification is, it's basically landlords exploiting the local housing market trends by evicting the current population in favor of developing and renovating their property to become more modernized and city-like

Click to shrink...

See this is not true at all. Your assumption that housing stock needs to be upgraded is a symptom and not a cause of gentrification. Gentrification is simply one economic class displacing another economic class in their housing units and that is a function of supply and demand. And supply is drastically short at the moment because existing land owners and renters use their political power to limit additional supply.

The solutions to gentrification is to allow additional bedrooms to be developed, not prevent them.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

See this is not true at all. Your assumption that housing stock needs to be upgraded is a symptom and not a cause of gentrification. Gentrification is simply one economic class displacing another economic class in their housing units and that is a function of supply and demand. And supply is drastically short at the moment because existing land owners and renters use their political power to limit additional supply.

The solutions to gentrification is to allow additional bedrooms to be developed, not prevent them.

Click to shrink...

That's not what gentrification is either. Gentrification is simply the redevelopment of distressed neighborhoods.

Gentrification can be done without displacement, without drastically increasing housing costs, and without negatively impacting existing residents. It's hard to do it that way, but that does not mean it CAN'T be done that way, or the it's inherently about class structure. For example, a neighborhood with a ton of existing vacant properties can be redeveloped such that it is no longer distressed and becomes desirable to live in. Proper zoning allowing for housing to be built to meet demand can be put in place, especially with increased density and TOD. Property tax relief measures and homeowner assistance programs can be put in place to make sure it's equitable. The problem has been largely that local governments aren't moving fast enough to put in place the policies that help stymie the negative byproducts of gentrification.

 

[brandnewcardock]

I'm all for it. I love Gentrification. I'm all about increasing property value. I'm not gonna pretend to care about people I don't know or what happens to them.

Click to shrink...

once again I don't care about the familes that were there before. I'm not going to pretend I care. I'm an evil capitalist so whatever

Click to shrink...

This is gross.

 

[LionPride]

Not a fan, sometimes it works out, but I hate how it puts out minorities a lot of the time. A good example of gentrification is Overton Square and the whole of Midtown in Memphis, people weren't displaced completely, many business are out there, everybody(well not everybody but still) is fine. There are many more bad examples.

 

[Deleted member 9824]

Not a fan, sometimes it works out, but I hate how it puts out minorities a lot of the time. A good example of gentrification is Overton Square and the whole of Midtown in Memphis, people weren't displaced completely, many business are out there, everybody(well not everybody but still) is fine. There are many more bad examples.

Click to shrink...

It doesn't affect minorities only, though. Just the lower end of economic classes. There's still plenty of middle class minorities where I'm at who haven't been displaced (yet).

This is gross.

Click to shrink...

It's their opinion, however. I say just let it go and ignore them. Or if you want to, try to reason with them.

 

[Kisaya]

I'm all for it. I love Gentrification. I'm all about increasing property value. I'm not gonna pretend to care about people I don't know or what happens to them.

Click to shrink...

Till you get bored of whatever gimmicky neighborhood it becomes. Doesn't seem like a great investment. Basically I see it as a result of weird ass exoticism from the white flight generation who want dibs on what POC communities built up.

There are ways of revitalizing a neighborhood without kicking out the community. The key is to get them involved. See what Theaster Gates is doing for Chicago's South Side: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/theaster-gates-ingenuity-awards-chicago-180957203/

 

[LionPride]

It doesn't affect minorities only, though. Just the lower end of economic classes. There's still plenty of middle class minorities where I'm at who haven't been displaced (yet).


It's their opinion, however. I say just let it go and ignore them. Or if you want to, try to reason with them.

Click to shrink...

I'm from a majority black city, I'm black, I'm gonna look at it from a minority viewpoint before anything else

 

[Blackie]

Gentrification is a tough one for me. I love improving things but don't want to displace existing communities in harmful ways or price them out of their own residence. Regardless of which side you fall on in this debate, the negative effects of gentrification are something we need to work on fixing in a lot of countries/states/cities.

 

[Mondy]

I'm all for it. I love Gentrification. I'm all about increasing property value. I'm not gonna pretend to care about people I don't know or what happens to them.

Click to shrink...

I've found the Randian cultist in the room.

You couldn't think of a bigger cause of economic disparity than Gentrification.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

I've found the Randian cultist in the room.

You couldn't think of a bigger cause of economic disparity than Gentrification.

Click to shrink...

Gentrification isn't the cause of economic disparity though. The displacement caused by it is a symptom of the income inequality of the country, not a cause of it. If people could own homes or have income appropriate to cushion rent increases they wouldn't get displaced.

 

[BarryAllen]

I've found the Randian cultist in the room.

You couldn't think of a bigger cause of economic disparity than Gentrification.

Click to shrink...

maybe gentrification doesn't effect me because uh I make good money and live in a gentrified neighborhood. I'm allowed my opinion not everyone is poor

 

[Mondy]

maybe gentrification doesn't effect me because uh I make good money and live in a gentrified neighborhood. I'm allowed my opinion not everyone is poor

Click to shrink...

No, but the majority certainly are