HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 12:23 AM
ChiMIchael ChiMIchael is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
And why are these people entitled to stay forever in an improving neighborhood where they rent rather than own?
Why are you (ie. gentrifiers) entitled to force others out (mainly to other struggling communities) though? And trust, if they could buy, they would have a long time ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 3:35 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiMIchael View Post
Why are you (ie. gentrifiers) entitled to force others out (mainly to other struggling communities) though? And trust, if they could buy, they would have a long time ago.
Because anyone has a right to live in any housing that they can afford (subject to national residency laws, etc). There are literally laws to this effect. And landlords have the right to charge what the market will bear for their property.

And the “gentrifiers” moving to places like Pilsen are just young people who can’t afford more established parts of the city. They’ve been forced out as well. But if they can pay more than previous Pilsen residents, then they get to rent the apartments. That’s life. No one has an inherent claim to any neighborhood.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 3:44 AM
cannedairspray cannedairspray is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 2,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiMIchael View Post
Why are you (ie. gentrifiers) entitled to force others out (mainly to other struggling communities) though? And trust, if they could buy, they would have a long time ago.
"Force". What you're actually describing is homeowners and landlords renting places for higher rents, because via supply and demand, a neighborhood is more desirable and thus more people want to live there, creating competition.

Saying the gentrifiers are driving out people isn't really accurate- the landlords are, if anyone. But they're not, either. They're just charging more because more and more people are competing for the same living spaces.

A response to your question would be why are you (i.e. someone living in a changing neighborhood) entitled to force landlords to lose money because you want to live somewhere?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 4:33 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
If not the millions of other people who support more diversity don't mean anything, then it's my own ideal. It's actually an excellent idea in terms of America's urban history in the past half century because most cities would have probably been saved from renewal and destruction had the whites been okay with living with blacks and working with them to make the city a better place.


It's possible. There's parts of Brooklyn that retain both the original Irish, Italian, and Jewish residents along with relatively new communities of African American, Caribbean, Asian, and Latin American people. It can work. We are all humans anyway and being American transcends differences.
I find zero issue understanding that whites simply did not want to live around blacks in our history(or most whites, anyways). However, lets not kid ourselves. I have black neighbors in my high-rise apartment building, off the top of my head there is a couple who are both med students and a gay couple who I end up walking my dog with their dog also about once a week. Its not about whites not wanting to live around blacks(for the majority), its about crime. Black people tend to commit more crimes in their respective neighborhoods(if this offends you, sorry). Your last paragraph reveals something very important, Caribbean and Africans commit crime at a lower level than American born blacks, therefore more whites feel safer in neighborhoods where they live.

So in short, most whites want a safe neighborhood, most predominantly black neighborhoods don't provide this. I wouldn't live in any majority black neighborhoods in Chicago, for instance. I would live in majority, or near majority black suburban neighborhoods around Atlanta though, as the crime isn't high and I have never felt unsafe in those areas. Its *ALL* about safety.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 4:37 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiMIchael View Post
Why are you (ie. gentrifiers) entitled to force others out (mainly to other struggling communities) though? And trust, if they could buy, they would have a long time ago.
No. Most people don't want to buy a house in a crime-ridden neighborhood, even the poor(sigh)...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 4:58 AM
cannedairspray cannedairspray is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 2,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
So in short, most whites want a safe neighborhood, most predominantly black neighborhoods don't provide this. I wouldn't live in any majority black neighborhoods in Chicago, for instance. I would live in majority, or near majority black suburban neighborhoods around Atlanta though, as the crime isn't high and I have never felt unsafe in those areas. Its *ALL* about safety.
Most everyone wants safe neighborhoods, not just white people. And if you've ever been to Appalachia or the Pacific Northwest, or Oklahoma, you know there's lots of white "neighborhoods" (in quotes because they're not something you'd call a neighborhood from any urban perspective) that most people, regardless of race, wouldn't want to live in. On a per capita basis, crime can be just as bad, and in my opinion psychologically worse. I wouldn't leave my car unlocked in a city (regardless of the demographics, but let's assume there's black folks around) because I'm surrounded by literally several thousand or more people, and it only takes one bad actor to find my car and that's that. But when it's rural North Carolina and you have to lock it because there's some good old boy methheads that are checking cars when there's only like 800 people in the few square miles around me? That's just sad on a different level: it's not because of the pure mass of population, it's because there's a lot of scumbags in your area.

You're right that there's a problem in the African American community when it comes to crime, though. Every time that conversation is tamped down, it does it a disservice. At the ground level, African American communities sure as shit aren't ignoring it, and are considering it their #1 problem. At a national level, you can't talk about it unless you're a racist or an Uncle Tom, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 7:35 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotetrickster View Post
That wasn't gentrification. That was Racist Asshat Justin Herrman's war on the Western Addition.
You can't blame it on a single person. It was national policy at the time. I watched the same thing happen in Washington and Baltimore at the same time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 7:39 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Because anyone has a right to live in any housing that they can afford (subject to national residency laws, etc). There are literally laws to this effect. And landlords have the right to charge what the market will bear for their property.

And the “gentrifiers” moving to places like Pilsen are just young people who can’t afford more established parts of the city. They’ve been forced out as well. But if they can pay more than previous Pilsen residents, then they get to rent the apartments. That’s life. No one has an inherent claim to any neighborhood.
Actually, some cities facilitated gentrification by selling uninhabitable properties in run-down neighborhoods for $1. My sister bought an office building in Baltimore for that. As part of the deal, though, you had to renovate the property and in the case of the residential properties, you may have to move in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 11:35 AM
ChiMIchael ChiMIchael is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
No. Most people don't want to buy a house in a crime-ridden neighborhood, even the poor(sigh)...
You completely missed my point, and you are not fully correct either.

The redlining running rampant for decades was made for a big obstacle for minorities (especially African Americans) to secure loans to buy homes and invest in their neighborhoods. Not to mention the public housing disasters among other economic and social catastrophes. For the most part, that situation was made by design. That why gentrification is so controversial.

Also, I know many people who buy homes in those communities, mostly because they aim to make them better for the people to live there and also for the ability to transfer wealth within those communities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 12:29 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Let's not kid ourselves, municipalities are often the primary force behind gentrification.

Politicians pay lip service to being opposed to it for votes, but it's all BS.

In Chicago they send out inspectors to harass property owners with code violations, dragging them to court, until property owners of more modest means run out of money to do repairs and sell to developers or rehabbers who then either demolish and rebuild or rehab, and with such substantial investment there is naturally going to be a kick up in rents or housing prices.

In addition, the city is always jacking up property taxes, so rents need to rise just to maintain the same income level you were making before.

But if you listen to politicians, they want to make it sound like the greedy landlord is to blame for your higher rents. Just like how they want you to blame your doctor for your high medical bills. But it's a giant lie. The entire system is rigged, by politicians and special interest groups, and the consumer always pays more.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 12:41 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannedairspray View Post
Most everyone wants safe neighborhoods, not just white people. And if you've ever been to Appalachia or the Pacific Northwest, or Oklahoma, you know there's lots of white "neighborhoods" (in quotes because they're not something you'd call a neighborhood from any urban perspective) that most people, regardless of race, wouldn't want to live in. On a per capita basis, crime can be just as bad, and in my opinion psychologically worse. I wouldn't leave my car unlocked in a city (regardless of the demographics, but let's assume there's black folks around) because I'm surrounded by literally several thousand or more people, and it only takes one bad actor to find my car and that's that. But when it's rural North Carolina and you have to lock it because there's some good old boy methheads that are checking cars when there's only like 800 people in the few square miles around me? That's just sad on a different level: it's not because of the pure mass of population, it's because there's a lot of scumbags in your area.

You're right that there's a problem in the African American community when it comes to crime, though. Every time that conversation is tamped down, it does it a disservice. At the ground level, African American communities sure as shit aren't ignoring it, and are considering it their #1 problem. At a national level, you can't talk about it unless you're a racist or an Uncle Tom, though.
In respect to white neighborhoods, I am with you 100%. My moms hometown is located in the Arkansas Delta and is majority white. The crime rate, per capita, is more dangerous than Baltimore. I don't even like stopping there at a gas station. I think these locations are left out of neighborhood debates because they are not desirable nor will they probably ever be and they aren't urban.

Very true. This is one reason as a conservative I never understood the Lefts seemingly strong defense of criminals. Hell Clinton and Pelosi pretty much praised them a few weeks ago lol Gang members terrorize the majority of people who aren't criminals and no one seems to care. Just watched a PBS documentary where a preteen girls EYE was shot out while playing basketball in Philadelphia. She came from a good family but poor. She is a victim of crime while having nothing to do with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 12:44 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiMIchael View Post
You completely missed my point, and you are not fully correct either.

The redlining running rampant for decades was made for a big obstacle for minorities (especially African Americans) to secure loans to buy homes and invest in their neighborhoods. Not to mention the public housing disasters among other economic and social catastrophes. For the most part, that situation was made by design. That why gentrification is so controversial.

Also, I know many people who buy homes in those communities, mostly because they aim to make them better for the people to live there and also for the ability to transfer wealth within those communities.
I did miss some of your point, sorry.

As far as people moving into those areas for some kind of charityish type reason.... I am in DC right now and I saw some nice apartments being built in some pretty rough areas. I personally have my limits. If I had kids, excuse my language, fuck that. I would never put my family in danger to help some strangers. My pyramid: my family>my friends>co workers>neighbors>neighborhood>city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 1:06 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,021
This is a very good point and it's been my opinion for a long time:

Quote:
The left usually bemoans the lack of investment in historically non-white neighbourhoods, white flight from city centres and economic segregation. Yet gentrification straightforwardly reverses each of those regrettable trends.
I don't see how someone can possibly find, in a big modern American metropolis, a racially diverse neighborhood to be a major downgrade from a racially segregated one. This process is basically the only path to an America that may, someday, not be obsessed by race anymore; why would anyone want to resist it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 3:34 PM
coyotetrickster's Avatar
coyotetrickster coyotetrickster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
You can't blame it on a single person. It was national policy at the time. I watched the same thing happen in Washington and Baltimore at the same time.
Actually, you can. Urban Renewal was actually driven by racial animus and greed, but Hermann's assault on the Western Addition was driven by racism. The Fillmore was actually a vibrant neighborhood that had the misfortune to being predominantly black. The wholesale destruction of the Victorians and Queen Anne homes along Fulton, Ellis, Turk, Grove and Golden Gate, all owned predominantly by African-Americans was racially-motivated. Hayes Valley's housing stock was spared because of its proximity to the Central Freeway and the resulting poor land valuations.

Herman was a racist and the world needs to know that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 5:47 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
Actually, some cities facilitated gentrification by selling uninhabitable properties in run-down neighborhoods for $1. My sister bought an office building in Baltimore for that. As part of the deal, though, you had to renovate the property and in the case of the residential properties, you may have to move in.
But presumably they didn’t choose who could buy those properties on the basis of anything more than who could afford to renovate them. So they’re not going to sell the building to a homeless person for $1, so that it can be used by squatters.

But this isn’t really relevant to the discussion anyway, because these buildings are uninhabited, so no one (at least not a lawful tenant) is being displaced.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 7:08 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotetrickster View Post
Actually, you can. Urban Renewal was actually driven by racial animus and greed, but Hermann's assault on the Western Addition was driven by racism. The Fillmore was actually a vibrant neighborhood that had the misfortune to being predominantly black. The wholesale destruction of the Victorians and Queen Anne homes along Fulton, Ellis, Turk, Grove and Golden Gate, all owned predominantly by African-Americans was racially-motivated. Hayes Valley's housing stock was spared because of its proximity to the Central Freeway and the resulting poor land valuations.

Herman was a racist and the world needs to know that.
Your viewpoint is as limited and provincial as most "born/raised" San Franciscans, clearly. I didn't know Justin Hermann so I don't know how racist he was or wasn't but I do know that there were people actually doing the same things he was doing all over the country at the same time because the Federal Government was providing money to subsidize it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 7:13 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
But presumably they didn’t choose who could buy those properties on the basis of anything more than who could afford to renovate them. So they’re not going to sell the building to a homeless person for $1, so that it can be used by squatters.

But this isn’t really relevant to the discussion anyway, because these buildings are uninhabited, so no one (at least not a lawful tenant) is being displaced.
Silly me, I thought the topic was "gentrification is praiseworthy", not displacement. So you are telling us that we can't talk about any benefit or harm from gentrification if displacement isn't involved?

Anyway, the point was that you didn't/don't have to be able to afford the cost of a renovated or habitable property in a given neighborhood if you can get a severely run-down one for $1. I think the only controls on how extensive/costly the renovation had to be was the building code--you had to bring the property up to code. That could cost a lot or a little which is why it paid to know what you were doing in selecting among the properties available ("good bones" as they say).

And at some times, in some cities, non-profits bought whole blocks of these properties and renovated them en masse and then selling them at a cost affordable to people demographically like the existing neighborhood residents: gentrification without displacement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 7:50 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
Your viewpoint is as limited and provincial as most "born/raised" San Franciscans, clearly. I didn't know Justin Hermann so I don't know how racist he was or wasn't but I do know that there were people actually doing the same things he was doing all over the country at the same time because the Federal Government was providing money to subsidize it.
You've said nothing that even attempts to counter anything he said.

As for building codes, they've always been well meaning (not necessarily their conveniently-selective enforcement of course), but the math is often next to impossible. Renovations are expensive, for fire codes, seismic, emergency egress, and so on. All important stuff. But if it costs $40,000 or $100,000 per unit in today's dollars for a hypothetical repair if that's even realistically feasible (zero for aesthetics or appliances etc.) and rent will remain low regardless, you have to be lucky enough for a big subsidy.

In my city there was a big fire in 1971 or so, and something like 100 people in a flophouse died. So we upped the codes and enforced them. About 5,000 units were demolished almost overnight. So we have less fire risk, but a much bigger homeless problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 8:03 PM
ChiMIchael ChiMIchael is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
I did miss some of your point, sorry.

As far as people moving into those areas for some kind of charityish type reason.... I am in DC right now and I saw some nice apartments being built in some pretty rough areas. I personally have my limits. If I had kids, excuse my language, fuck that. I would never put my family in danger to help some strangers. My pyramid: my family>my friends>co workers>neighbors>neighborhood>city.

I wasn't speaking from a charity perspective. Most people who buy in those areas have roots there. I don't necessarily expect outsiders to have interest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2018, 9:26 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
Silly me, I thought the topic was "gentrification is praiseworthy", not displacement. So you are telling us that we can't talk about any benefit or harm from gentrification if displacement isn't involved?

Anyway, the point was that you didn't/don't have to be able to afford the cost of a renovated or habitable property in a given neighborhood if you can get a severely run-down one for $1. I think the only controls on how extensive/costly the renovation had to be was the building code--you had to bring the property up to code. That could cost a lot or a little which is why it paid to know what you were doing in selecting among the properties available ("good bones" as they say).

And at some times, in some cities, non-profits bought whole blocks of these properties and renovated them en masse and then selling them at a cost affordable to people demographically like the existing neighborhood residents: gentrification without displacement.
If there’s no displacement, then there is no debate. The anti-gentrification argument rests on the negative impact to displaced former residents. To say that people moving into abandoned buildings is a good thing (or “praiseworthy”) can elicit no response but “well, duh”.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:50 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.