Are there two different kinds of gentrifiers?

[eschaton]

It's been my general experience that neighborhoods that gentrify tend to do so for one of two two reasons - and that each kind of neighborhood tends to attract a particular group of people - at least initially, although they can change over time as "first wave gentrifiers" are pushed out.

One form of gentrification is fundamentally based upon quality of housing stock. Essentially there are undervalued historic neighborhoods with lots of potentially available homes for sale. These tend to attract homeowners of modest means and lots of free time (often LGBT, or at least childless) willing to put in "sweat equity" to restore the homes to something resembling historic conditions. As time goes on, and the neighborhood transitions, these homeowners age in place and become NIMBYs.

The other type of gentrification centers on convenience and amenities. Often the most attractive raw materials in this case are a functional neighborhood business district and good transit access (for example, the next stop out on a subway line from an already gentrified area. These areas often do not have the most beautiful housing stock - indeed, they can be downright gritty at times. However, the type of gentrifier attracted initially doesn't really care how the neighborhood - or even their building - looks, so long as it's in a place which works for them and is semi-affordable. They're generally younger than the "sweat equity homeowners - not looking to buy yet - or buy at all. These people ultimately tend to get displaced by yuppies as a neighborhood continues to gentrify, perhaps morphing into the first kind I noted as they head into their 30s.

Obviously some neighborhoods can have it all - beautiful housing stock, good transit access, and a thriving business district. But they tend to already be gentrified, not gentrifying.

[ardecila]

The best book I've read on this is The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn, which describes the story of 1950s and 1960s gentrification in Brooklyn in a way that's pretty universal across American cities.

I think your first form of gentrification is on the decline. Real estate is expensive, and millennials have a significantly harder time purchasing a home than earlier generations, on average. Plus I don't see a lot of Millennials clamoring to get their hands dirty rehabbing old houses and tenements. The Back to the City hands-on gentrifiers in the 20th century came from a generation with far more practical skills than today's young'uns.

But, Millennials are happy to move into old buildings with character, so long as another person (the dread pirate developer) does the work of rehabbing for them.

[ocman]

You mean hipsters vs sububanites?

Those who gentrify a place with Targets, Costcos, gated neighborhoods, soccer parks, and Olive Gardens vs. those who gentrify a place with third wave coffee shops, tech workers, remodeled bungalows and Bird scooters.

[BG918]

I agree with your first assessment, and unfortunately outside of medium and smaller cities this type of gentrification is over. There just aren’t simply historic neighborhoods with quality housing stock left that are in disrepair and/or affordable near major downtowns like there were 20-30 years ago.

The new wave of gentrification is targeting the formerly low income neighborhoods largely built from the 40’s to the 60’s where the housing stock is low quality and you no longer have neighborhood retail strips as these areas largely developed after streetcars. These are areas with homes that will likely be torn down and replaced by multiple townhomes or small apartment buildings. This is the “new wave” of gentrification that is rapidly changing the look of these blighted neighborhoods and filling them with hipsters and millennials. The new retail strips include fair-trade coffee and artisanal cheese shops, gourmet dog food stores and places to get $12 açaí bowls.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by BG918

There just aren’t simply historic neighborhoods with quality housing stock left that are in disrepair and/or affordable near major downtowns like there were 20-30 years ago.

There are still craploads of pre-war neighborhoods with quality housing stock in disrepair (what's left of it) that have yet to gentrify on chicago's south and west sides.

I expect that many of them will never gentrify within my lifetime.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

There are still craploads of pre-war neighborhoods with quality housing stock in disrepair (what's left of it) that have yet to gentrify on chicago's south and west sides.

Absolutely.

I know of at least one gorgeous brownstone for sale in Albany's Arbor Hill neighborhood for a song, so it's not only Chicago.

[pdxtex]

there are multiple paths to gentrification, but the outcome is always the same, improvements that conform to middle and upper income tastes. real estate tenure doesn't matter, its income that does.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

There are still craploads of pre-war neighborhoods with quality housing stock in disrepair (what's left of it) that have yet to gentrify on chicago's south and west sides.

I expect that many of them will never gentrify within my lifetime.

I'll also note that what's considered "historic housing" is changing over time. I mean, mid-century moderns are hot now out west for younger homeowners to buy and restore. They do nothing for me personally, but lots of people seem to love them, and it opens up housing stock in lots of outer urban and inner suburban neighborhoods for gentrification.

There's also the example of things like Kingston NY being increasingly gentrified by people leaving Brooklyn. Ultimately the sort of people who want to buy an older home with character in a walkable area at an affordable price will find a way - even if they have to leave their home metro.