Poll of the Day > Why are some people against gentrification?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Reminder: I aaaaaaaaaiiiin't even know what people are talking about, everyone seems to love the Starbucks on every corner (or Tim Hortons in my case)
---

we have starbucks too genius
---

Because, there's an irrational fear that improving the ghetto means "those" people might move into your neighborhood.
Anyone who claims otherwise is a gated-community liberal accusing everyone else of his own elitism and xenophobia, or a clueless bleedingheart who doesn't understand how simple economics works.

Gentrification is a good thing. Detroit is resurrecting itself.

I like gentrification. I'd rather have malls and starbucks than a fucking slum.
---

I was out drinking with some friends the other day in a pretty gentrified part of the city. Maybe it's because I grew up in the lower end of the economic class, but I just felt so out of place walking around the streets. Literally everyone there is out with family or driving a nice car or shopping around luxury brand stores and eating at upper class restaurants
---

I would think because of money... It would raise the price of stuff, most likely. Bring in more expensive things...
---

It raises property values so shit gets more expensive.
---

Cause it dislocates current residents. Rent and property taxes go up significantly in gentrified areas and many residents get priced out and cant afford to live in their homes anymore. There are real benefits to gentrification but some folks really get screwed over by it.
---

Mead posted...

Rent and property taxes go up significantly in gentrified areas and many residents get priced out and cant afford to live in their homes anymore.

That's just economics.
Cheap rents tend to be in shitty (or remote) places where there's little demand. Improving the neighborhood means there's more demand to live there.

because poor people get kicked out from their communities?

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mead posted...

Rent and property taxes go up significantly in gentrified areas and many residents get priced out and cant afford to live in their homes anymore.

That's just economics.
Cheap rents tend to be in shitty (or remote) places where there's little demand. Improving the neighborhood means there's more demand to live there.

Yeah. Which is what he's saying. And that's also why some people are against it...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mead posted...

Rent and property taxes go up significantly in gentrified areas and many residents get priced out and cant afford to live in their homes anymore.

That's just economics.
Cheap rents tend to be in shitty (or remote) places where there's little demand. Improving the neighborhood means there's more demand to live there.

Yeah. Which is what he's saying. And that's also why some people are against it...

As opposed to what, just letting the slums fester?

"These slums are terrible! Let's improve them."
"Oh no! Poor people are being forced out now that we improved the slum!"

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mead posted...

Rent and property taxes go up significantly in gentrified areas and many residents get priced out and cant afford to live in their homes anymore.

That's just economics.
Cheap rents tend to be in shitty (or remote) places where there's little demand. Improving the neighborhood means there's more demand to live there.

Obviously its economics Im not sure what point youre even trying to make. The benefits of gentrification to a city are easy to see, one side effect though thats a little more obscure is what happens to the people and families who are displaced. They dont just vanish they either move to other low income areas that suffer from the same problems or they become homeless and drain on society in countless other ways. After being forced to move theyre much more likely to need to rely on government assistance programs as well.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mead posted...

Rent and property taxes go up significantly in gentrified areas and many residents get priced out and cant afford to live in their homes anymore.

That's just economics.
Cheap rents tend to be in shitty (or remote) places where there's little demand. Improving the neighborhood means there's more demand to live there.

Yeah. Which is what he's saying. And that's also why some people are against it...

As opposed to what, just letting the slums fester?

"These slums are terrible! Let's improve them."
"Oh no! Poor people are being forced out now that we improved the slum!"

Maybe. Or maybe don't make them as good. You can fix up places without making it cost 5x the original price. But raising the price so much that people can't afford their homes anymore isn't that good. It make the homeless problem bigger... So, let the slums stay the same, fix it up a little so people can still hopefully live there, or gentrify while also making the homeless problem bigger. Everything has their good and bad sides. Just gotta figure out which outweighs the other. Or find a good center...

Mead posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mead posted...

Rent and property taxes go up significantly in gentrified areas and many residents get priced out and cant afford to live in their homes anymore.

That's just economics.
Cheap rents tend to be in shitty (or remote) places where there's little demand. Improving the neighborhood means there's more demand to live there.

Obviously its economics Im not sure what point youre even trying to make. The benefits of gentrification to a city are easy to see, one side effect though thats a little more obscure is what happens to the people and families who are displaced. They dont just vanish they either move to other low income areas that suffer from the same problems or they become homeless and drain on society in countless other ways. After being forced to move theyre much more likely to need to rely on government assistance programs as well.

Basically, they could cost taxes to raise even more. And still become a "problem" because there's more homeless?
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mead posted...

Rent and property taxes go up significantly in gentrified areas and many residents get priced out and cant afford to live in their homes anymore.

That's just economics.
Cheap rents tend to be in shitty (or remote) places where there's little demand. Improving the neighborhood means there's more demand to live there.

Yeah. Which is what he's saying. And that's also why some people are against it...

As opposed to what, just letting the slums fester?

"These slums are terrible! Let's improve them."
"Oh no! Poor people are being forced out now that we improved the slum!"

I feel bad for all of those slumlords who are forced out of their jobs. Now where are they going to provide substandard housing while ignoring renters' complaints?
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mead posted...

Rent and property taxes go up significantly in gentrified areas and many residents get priced out and cant afford to live in their homes anymore.

That's just economics.
Cheap rents tend to be in shitty (or remote) places where there's little demand. Improving the neighborhood means there's more demand to live there.

Yeah. Which is what he's saying. And that's also why some people are against it...

As opposed to what, just letting the slums fester?

"These slums are terrible! Let's improve them."
"Oh no! Poor people are being forced out now that we improved the slum!"

Its almost like you could gentrify areas while also taking the living situations of downtrodden residents into consideration and providing them with some kind of assistance or stipend to relocate considering how much money is made by gentrifying where these folks live.

Im pro gentrification by and large, but that doesnt mean that the lives of poor folks should just be disregarded entirely. That kind of belligerence just causes more problems.
---

LinkPizza posted...

I would think because of money... It would raise the price of stuff, most likely. Bring in more expensive things...

Zeus posted...

It raises property values so shit gets more expensive.

Mead posted...

Cause it dislocates current residents. Rent and property taxes go up significantly in gentrified areas and many residents get priced out and cant afford to live in their homes anymore. There are real benefits to gentrification but some folks really get screwed over by it.

These, more or less.

As a fun example, back in the 60s, artists and "bohemians" tended to move into the cheapest, crappiest low-rent areas of NYC because they couldn't afford to live anywhere else (and at the time, more flamboyant gays also sort of fell into this category, as they would get pushed out of more mainstream society and clustered together in cheaper communities). Over time, this gave areas like Greenwich Village a "hip", trendy feel that encouraged people with money to want to move in, invest, and otherwise gentrify the neighborhoods. Over time, this pushed up rent prices and general cost-of-living expenses in the area, which in turn made it so that none of the people who "made" the Village a thing in the first place could afford to live there.

So those people eventually got pushed out. They moved to places like SoHo and Chelsea... which in turn got gentrified in exactly the same way, until they couldn't afford to live there either. In NYC, there's been a LONG pattern of yesterday's slum becoming today's trendy hotspot becoming tomorrow's overpriced neighborhood only the rich can afford to live in.

Whether or not that's a bad thing generally tends to depend on whether or not you're one of the wealthy people looking for a classy place to live or one of the poorer people getting pushed out.


---

Zeus posted...

I feel bad for all of those slumlords who are forced out of their jobs. Now where are they going to provide substandard housing while ignoring renters' complaints?

At the same place, but now they're getting several times the rent from the hipters who moved in.

Mead posted...

Its almost like you could gentrify areas while also taking the living situations of downtrodden residents into consideration and providing them with some kind of assistance or stipend to relocate considering how much money is made by gentrifying where these folks live.

That'd be absurdly hard to implement at the time when it most needs to be implemented. Plus, in theory, the gentrified areas provide better opportunities to residents and thereby increase their ability to cover expenses.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

As a fun example, back in the 60s, artists and "bohemians" tended to move into the cheapest, crappiest low-rent areas of NYC because they couldn't afford to live anywhere else (and at the time, more flamboyant gays also sort of fell into this category, as they would get pushed out of more mainstream society and clustered together in cheaper communities). Over time, this gave areas like Greenwich Village a "hip", trendy feel that encouraged people with money to want to move in, invest, and otherwise gentrify the neighborhoods. Over time, this pushed up rent prices and general cost-of-living expenses in the area, which in turn made it so that none of the people who "made" the Village a thing in the first place could afford to live there.

So those people eventually got pushed out. They moved to places like SoHo and Chelsea... which in turn got gentrified in exactly the same way, until they couldn't afford to live there either. In NYC, there's been a LONG pattern of yesterday's slum becoming today's trendy hotspot becoming tomorrow's overpriced neighborhood only the rich can afford to live in.

Whether or not that's a bad thing generally tends to depend on whether or not you're one of the wealthy people looking for a classy place to live or one of the poorer people getting pushed out.

The Circle of Life is a beautiful thing.
---

Zeus posted...

Mead posted...

Its almost like you could gentrify areas while also taking the living situations of downtrodden residents into consideration and providing them with some kind of assistance or stipend to relocate considering how much money is made by gentrifying where these folks live.

That'd be absurdly hard to implement at the time when it most needs to be implemented. Plus, in theory, the gentrified areas provide better opportunities to residents and thereby increase their ability to cover expenses.

I think it's "suppose" to. But I'm not sure if works that way...
---

Zeus posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mead posted...

Rent and property taxes go up significantly in gentrified areas and many residents get priced out and cant afford to live in their homes anymore.

That's just economics.
Cheap rents tend to be in shitty (or remote) places where there's little demand. Improving the neighborhood means there's more demand to live there.

Yeah. Which is what he's saying. And that's also why some people are against it...

As opposed to what, just letting the slums fester?

"These slums are terrible! Let's improve them."
"Oh no! Poor people are being forced out now that we improved the slum!"

I feel bad for all of those slumlords who are forced out of their jobs. Now where are they going to provide substandard housing while ignoring renters' complaints?

the new black/brown neighborhood that sprouts up as a result

Gentrification typically means pricing out the poor, who can't afford to live outside the ghetto.

It's poor social practice to displace the poor when the poor can be trained to be able to afford to live in a gentrified neighborhood.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Gentrification typically means pricing out the poor, who can't afford to live outside the ghetto.

It's poor social practice to displace the poor when the poor can be trained to be able to afford to live in a gentrified neighborhood.

whY doN'T tHeY gET SkiLLZ

Fam_Fam posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Gentrification typically means pricing out the poor, who can't afford to live outside the ghetto.

It's poor social practice to displace the poor when the poor can be trained to be able to afford to live in a gentrified neighborhood.

whY doN'T tHeY gET SkiLLZ

It's a beautiful negative feedback cycle.
---

as someone whose lived in a neighborhood experiencing gentrification, its kinda sad seeing your friends and family move out to worse parts of the area.

then again, I am not totally against it as I have seen considerable improvement in the area in economic growth and marginally decreasing crime rates. the better question is, how can we make affordable housing for certain individuals that have lived their for years?

shout outs to Jersey City & Newark

iLikeQ posted...

how can we make affordable housing for certain individuals that have lived their for years?

improve job prospects and/or build cheaply (but not badly).
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

iLikeQ posted...

how can we make affordable housing for certain individuals that have lived their for years?

improve job prospects and/or build cheaply (but not badly).

thing is, these weren't people that were considered impoverished. my friend's dad worked as a supply chain coordinator for years easily racking 70k but the rents in his neighborhood skyrocketed once people from NYC knew that living in Jersey was gonna be cheaper. So for their surrounding property values to be increased like that because the bankers and the rich foreigners decided someone else to live, it was really out of their control. i guess that's just capitalism at its finest

So does Starbucks or whatever pay lower wages than whatever existed in the pre-gentrification area?
---

It depends on the location. It isn't just the ghetto.

People may have lived in a certain area for generations and have their houses paid off. Five years later, they are paying more in property taxes than they ever paid in house payments and they can't afford to live there anymore - even if their home is paid off.

Kinda sucks.

kukukupo posted...

People may have lived in a certain area for generations and have their houses paid off. Five years later, they are paying more in property taxes than they ever paid in house payments and they can't afford to live there anymore - even if their home is paid off.

See also: pretty much the entire state of Illinois.

Im just glad theres no Starbucks in our nearest town. Subway is enough for me. (Plus we have TWO taco trucks, which is kinda cool!)
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LTLuzkqpZc" data-time="
---