Gentrifying areas that are "genuinely" appealing

[Docere]

What areas of your city currently undergoing gentrification are "genuinely" appealing in the sense that those who live there wouldn't move to a more established area or one at a "higher stage" of gentrification if they could?

In Toronto, areas like Dufferin-Dupont and Bloor-Lansdowne and probably Gerard St. that would probably fit the latter category.

EDIT: Ack. Thread title is misleading.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

For Los Angeles... Downtown LA, Echo Park, Highland Park, Glassell Park, Cypress Park, Lincoln Heights, Boyle Heights and Mac Arthur Park... What do all these places have in common? They are, or were up until very recently, heavily populated with hispanics and are very close to Downtown LA, have mass transit connections and older, character homes

[Centropolis]

tower grove south, with large sections of middle class and upper middle class early 20th century suburban housing. you could as well just call all the upper middle class areas around tower grove park "tower grove," including areas of shaw.


stlouis-mo.gov

media.connectingstlouis.com


cdn.cbhomes.com

havesnackswilltraveldotcom.files.wordpress.com


images-mls.static-ziprealty.com


trulia.com

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Docere

What areas of your city currently undergoing gentrification are "genuinely" appealing in the sense that those who live there wouldn't move to a more established area or one at a "higher stage" of gentrification if they could?

Oh, that's so easy:

The Mission District

Main commercial street: Mission St.

https://www.terragalleria.com/califo...usca43712.html

Newest gentrifying couple:


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...ty-6758875.php

and their home (cost including sprucing up: $10 million)


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...#photo-9249925

These people look to me as if they could afford "a higher stage of gentrification" but they are clearly people of the people. Maybe they admire low riders.

[Centropolis]

ha!

[dc_denizen]

All gentrification is appealing. Nothing is charming about segregation and poverty

[pdxtex]

the portland frontier is constantly shifting. im certain the gentrification transformation is mostly done in inner north portland and outer se neighborhoods like woodstock and division. id say st johns is probably the neighborhood that improving the most and fastest right now. its still pretty sleepy but will be more like hawthorn/mississippi in a few years. portland's next urban neighborhood in the pipe is actually vancouver, washington. they are just about to start a massive south waterfront like project right along the columbia river.

[Centropolis]

interesting...i've never given two-thoughts to vancouver, wa except after wa legalized.

[pdxtex]

vancouver is great. everything people like about walkable portland can be accomplished in downtown vancouver and its close in neighborhoods. the lynchpin in making it an alternative to living in portland, and actually enjoying your life (if you happen to work in oregon) is the stupid interstate bridge. not only is traffic psycho flowing south and north at rushhour, but the bridge is also a liftspan. wut?? yes, its a drawbridge. so the key to happiness, if you live in vancouver is to also work in vancouver, and then come to portland to shop to get the no sales tax. but yes, vancouver has lots of urban amenities and many in the pipe....plus housing is indeed about 20-30 percent cheaper there so some people seem to think the commute is worth it. you couldn't pay me to work in oregon and live in washington. if i got a job up there, id also move. i dont know if i call it gentrifying though. nobody is really being displaced, its just improving.

[SignalHillHiker]

For St. John's, Georgestown is heavily gentrified but it's still mostly "artists" (hammer pants and hairy armpits, po'boy hats), but the percentage of yuppies is increasing.

Urbanscape 2 # 65 .... ; (c)rebfoto by rebfoto ..., on Flickr

And Rabbittown is just starting to be gentrified. It's still mainly a local, lower class neighbourhood but there are plenty of new immigrants and homeowners. You can still get a little row house for just over $100K, about 1/3 the average home price in the city and a fraction of the cost of the better, nearby neighbourhoods.

Rabbittown by R C, on Flickr

[chris08876]

I think for NY, some will find in the years to come the South Bronx to be very appealing. A lot of areas that in the 70's or 80's were no-go zones are now starting to become safe, appealing, and the spots to be.

Of course gentrification uproots residents, thats why its important that more housing is built because a city is nothing without the people. Poor or rich, we need them all. They all add unique elements to the fabric that defines a cities culture.

I'm gonna say that Forest Park Southeast (a.k.a. The Grove) in St. Louis also fits the description of "genuinely" appealing gentrification. Property values have jumped in the last 5 years. We looked for a single-family property there earlier this year but there wasn't much available and the turn-key places were out of our price range. This neighborhood is seeing construction of $500K homes and modern infill along with apartment construction and the amazing rebirth of its retail corridor along Manchester Ave.



These next 2 are currently under construction:





https://source.wustl.edu/wp-content/...grove-sign.jpg

[niwell]

Logan Square is still pretty great.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Oh, that's so easy:

The Mission District

Main commercial street: Mission St.

https://www.terragalleria.com/califo...usca43712.html

Newest gentrifying couple:


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...ty-6758875.php

and their home (cost including sprucing up: $10 million)


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...#photo-9249925

These people look to me as if they could afford "a higher stage of gentrification" but they are clearly people of the people. Maybe they admire low riders.

I feel like i should point out that the Zuckerbergs live at the very edge of the Mission, in what is pretty much the most quiet, gentrified, and upscale part of the district. That little area has more in common with Noe Valley or even Pacific heights, than 95% of the rest of the Mission district. It's a whole different world from Mission Street.

[MolsonExport]

Most gentrifying areas are genuinely appealing, hence the primary reason for their gentrification.

[photoLith]

Well, at least Pittsburgh isn't alone with horrifyingly ugly infill like the STL post above.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

I'm gonna say that Forest Park Southeast (a.k.a. The Grove) in St. Louis also fits the description of "genuinely" appealing gentrification. Property values have jumped in the last 5 years. We looked for a single-family property there earlier this year but there wasn't much available and the turn-key places were out of our price range. This neighborhood is seeing construction of $500K homes and modern infill along with apartment construction and the amazing rebirth of its retail corridor along Manchester Ave.

the grove was definitely built to be a largely working class neighborhood along the industrial valley, with the st. louis and san francisco and missouri pacific railroads cutting right down the middle and the wabash rr (and later I-64) cleaving it off from the central west end. it's essentially becoming merged with the more affluent "west st. louis," now. same thing is happening to working class dogtown, although it didn't decline so much.

i suppose it all had to do with the railroads, topography, and industry, but the southeast corner of forest park seems like it should have been built as slightly more affluent, like shaw or something, perhaps if it were higher ground (and the railroads, industry had stayed further south). the middle class seems to have settled south of the tracks around the botanical garden and of course tower grove park (and of course in the earlier to develop very middle class northside neighborhoods that had quicker access to downtown).

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

All gentrification is appealing. Nothing is charming about segregation and poverty

gentrification solves none of these issues.

in what way does gentrification address poverty and segregation? if anything it just continues to perpetrate it as lower classes and minority populations continue to get shuffled around the chess board and pushed out of sight once their neighborhood becomes appealing after years of it not being appealing. you also have ongoing erasure of cultural identity as white populations fetishize and appropriate Mexican and AA identity when it happens to suit them, while at the same time eradicating the parts of it that clash with upper middle class standards of living once it becomes bothersome (murals are "artsy" until theyre "ugly", loud music and festive parties that go until late in the night is "authentic" until its a nuisance. its an ever shape shifting set of standards that a group of newcomers is setting on an established population.

gentrification is appealing if you are part of the gentry.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Well, at least Pittsburgh isn't alone with horrifyingly ugly infill like the STL post above.

still, i'll take cheap-industrial barn look over 1998 suburbia. there's no excuse for garage doors facing a street in an urban neighborhood that has alleys, though.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

gentrification solves none of these issues.

in what way does gentrification address poverty and segregation? if anything it just continues to perpetrate it as lower classes and minority populations continue to get shuffled around the chess board and pushed out of sight once their neighborhood becomes appealing after years of it not being appealing. you also have ongoing erasure of cultural identity as white populations fetishize and appropriate Mexican and AA identity when it happens to suit them, while at the same time eradicating the parts of it that clash with upper middle class standards of living once it becomes bothersome (murals are "artsy" until theyre "ugly", loud music and festive parties that go until late in the night is "authentic" until its a nuisance. its an ever shape shifting set of standards that a group of newcomers is setting on an established population.

gentrification is appealing if you are part of the gentry.

I bet some of the current low-income residents would love to have the music turned off at night too. People of all ethnicities and income levels work for a living, or go to school.