Is it possible to preserve aging building stock without gentrification?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Obadno

That seems like minimal progress for 10k in rennovations

There was some other stuff which was done as well, including replacement of a section of the metal downspout, putting higher quality shingles which looked like slate on the sides of the dormers, and a new paint job on the stone lintels/sills. But part of what drove the cost up was the wood was very deteriorated underneath the brake metal, which meant it needed significant reconstruction.

The guy we worked with new his stuff when it came to historical renovation, but he was very unfortunately very unreliable, since he'd work on our house in between projects and not be heard from for months at a time. Eventually he did get it done though.

I mean, our house was a 12-foot wide rowhouse. Absent ripping out the vinyl windows and replacing them with wood, there really wasn't much more we could have done to make it more historically accurate, given how little facade there really is.

[DePaul Bunyan]

Originally Posted by The North One

Yes, give grants and loans to people that already live and own the buildings.

Obviously it would need to be a government program, and there is nothing wrong with that as it would be well worth it. Banks and lenders could play a role as well.

This won't stop gentrification, just slow it down. You give someone a grant to fix up a building they'll hold onto it until someone makes them a good offer.

I think the hand-wringing over "gentrification" is pretty silly. Neighborhoods change and evolve over time, this has gone on since before this country was a country. But now we wrap it in identity politics and suddenly there's a moral panic about white people opening up bars and coffee shops and buying lofts in ethnic enclaves...

/these neighborhoods were ruined by white flight
//these neighborhoods are being ruined by whites returning
///I think I'm seeing a pattern

[goat314]

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

This won't stop gentrification, just slow it down. You give someone a grant to fix up a building they'll hold onto it until someone makes them a good offer.

I think the hand-wringing over "gentrification" is pretty silly. Neighborhoods change and evolve over time, this has gone on since before this country was a country. But now we wrap it in identity politics and suddenly there's a moral panic about white people opening up bars and coffee shops and buying lofts in ethnic enclaves...

/these neighborhoods were ruined by white flight
//these neighborhoods are being ruined by whites returning
///I think I'm seeing a pattern

It wasn't just white flight. Black neighborhoods in particular where redlined and bulldozed in most of America's major urban centers.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

I think the hand-wringing over "gentrification" is pretty silly. Neighborhoods change and evolve over time, this has gone on since before this country was a country. But now we wrap it in identity politics and suddenly there's a moral panic about white people opening up bars and coffee shops and buying lofts in ethnic enclaves...

The odd thing is most gentrification happens in working/lower-middle class white neighborhoods nationally. Some does happen in Latino neighborhoods, but except in some heavily black metros like Atlanta and DC it's very rare that a majority-black neighborhood will quickly flip to a gentrified white one.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The odd thing is most gentrification happens in working/lower-middle class white neighborhoods nationally. Some does happen in Latino neighborhoods.

depaul bunyon lives in chicago (or at least did at one time, he's talked in the past about leaving illinois because politics and i don't know if he's pulled the trigger on that), and here in chicago THE story of gentrification is wealthier white folks moving into more working class latino neighborhoods, so the issue of gentrification in the windy city is very much inseparable from identity politics, which perhaps makes the issue more of a live wire here compared to some other places where it's more of an upper middle class white vs. working class white thing.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The odd thing is most gentrification happens in working/lower-middle class white neighborhoods nationally. Some does happen in Latino neighborhoods, but except in some heavily black metros like Atlanta and DC it's very rare that a majority-black neighborhood will quickly flip to a gentrified white one.

This isn't true in New York, and probably a few other places. The neighborhoods with the steepest increases in rents since 2010 have been either predominantly black or predominantly Latino. None of the neighborhoods cited below were predominantly white in the past couple decades.

The real estate website mined its data from 2010 to 2018, looking at more than one million listings, and found that New York City rents have increased by 31 percent in those eight years. But the biggest jumps were found in neighborhoods that are considered gentrifying: Ditmas Park, Prospect Lefferts Gardens, and Bedford-Stuyvesant all experienced rent increases of more than 40 percent, while other areas with increases of more than 35 percent include Inwood, Washington Heights, and Crown Heights.

On the flip side, neighborhoods that experienced comparatively small rent increases—that is, of 22 percent or less—include Long Island City, Dumbo, Midtown, and, surprisingly, Ridgewood. (StreetEasy says that last one is an outlier, thanks to a “very sharp run-up in rents at the beginning of the decade that was seemingly speculative on the part of ambitious developers but has since abated significantly.”) Most are areas that have long been considered more expensive, or as having a higher barrier to entry for renters.

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/8/24/1777...housing-report

[edale]

Yeah, in Cincinnati it's been the same thing- gentrification of black neighborhoods. Granted there aren't really Latino neighborhoods in Cincy, but poor white (Appalachian) neighborhoods actually seem to be among the least gentrified areas there.

In LA, gentrification seems to be happening most in Latino neighborhoods rather than black ones, but that could be more a function of geography than race. Places like Echo Park, that have cool architecture, an intact 'main street', and close proximity to Downtown and the already gentrified Silverlake are going to gentrify before black neighborhoods that are mostly clustered in South LA.

To answer the OP's question, I think if gentrification is being planned and funded by a central organization, like what is happening with 3CDC in Cincy's Over the Rhine neighborhood, there is potential to keep a mix of incomes while renovating historic buildings. 3CDC (Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation) has been pretty good about working with affordable housing agencies to set aside units, or sometimes whole buildings for low income people. If the gentrification of OTR was happening purely through private investment, I don't think we'd see nearly as much inclusion.

[ardecila]

There is a line of thought that says disinvestment and gentrification are two sides of the same coin, and suggests that there might be another way cities could function. We wouldn’t need “cataclysmic money” flowing into neighborhoods to preserve building stock if we hadn’t abandoned those neighborhoods to the lowest rungs of society decades ago.

If landlords in these neighborhoods had had access to a stable cash flow over time, then they would have the ability to make building upgrades over time and as needed, obviating the need for a total gut rehab at the 100 year mark. How do we ensure that landlords have access to a stable cash flow? By keeping capital generally flowing into these neighborhoods, in the form of public and private (commercial) investment that helps retain middle-class tenants.

Of course, this is academic because we did abandon our cities, and historic building stock has already degraded en masse. With that reality, I think we’re stuck with gentrification.

[DePaul Bunyan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

depaul bunyon lives in chicago (or at least did at one time, he's talked in the past about leaving illinois because politics and i don't know if he's pulled the trigger on that), and here in chicago THE story of gentrification is wealthier white folks moving into more working class latino neighborhoods, so the issue of gentrification in the windy city is very much inseparable from identity politics, which perhaps makes the issue more of a live wire here compared to some other places where it's more of an upper middle class white vs. working class white thing.

Mostly economics, secondary to the state's politics. Also the weather here is fucking terrible.

I just read the hyperbolic, sloganeering nonsense surrounding gentrification ("gentrification is genocide!") and shake my head.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

In our case in Birmingham, especially in downtown, it's a bit of a mystery relative to the OP.

We have so many vacant buildings, blocks, and towers that it's almost as if there is nothing to gentrify.

I recall one class I took in my senior year of college (wasn't even related to my urban planning degree) during which an especially liberal classmate of mine opined of the gentrification of downtown Birmingham. It was early in the semester, and I didn't want to argue with her because we didn't know eachother well.

The fact is that in downtown Birmingham, there are so many vacant properties that I don't believe there is anything gentrify. I mean, you drive down any street and there are buildings being renovated, but not because their previous tenants weren't contributing to property value, but because the structures simply weren't occupied.

IDK, IMO what is happening here is simply a process of "reclamation". There isn't anyone to price out of the market in downtown on either side of the tracks. There just simply exist what seems to be an endless supply of vacant post-WWII structures.

I think this might be an exception to the rule, though? I'd like to read some input/responses. Downtown Birmingham, bounded by interstates, an expressway, and a mountain is now receiving an influx of money and residents. BUT, can we call it gentrification if people are simply "refilling the wine glass" and not "serving a new one"?

[wwmiv]

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/...search/585265/

This article would definitely have something to say about this subject. Landlords, who own significant housing stock in neighborhoods that are "run down" could definitely afford to do more upkeep, but do not at the expense of the poor folk that they house. Essentially, the POOR are subsidizing the rich, not the other way around. Affordable housing policies are a way to level the playing field so that each class subsidizes each other in a different manner.

[DePaul Bunyan]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/...search/585265/

This article would definitely have something to say about this subject. Landlords, who own significant housing stock in neighborhoods that are "run down" could definitely afford to do more upkeep, but do not at the expense of the poor folk that they house. Essentially, the POOR are subsidizing the rich, not the other way around. Affordable housing policies are a way to level the playing field so that each class subsidizes each other in a different manner.

Poor people trash apartments, especially people on subsidized housing. And in a lot of these jurisdictions it's nigh impossible to evict tenants (it can take many months, during which time the landlord assumes all of the costs and will likely have to repair a trashed unit). Why should landlords "invest" in housing if their tenants can trash their units and squat for months while the eviction process worms its way through the courts?

[10023]

Not really. Old buildings require a lot of upkeep and few people short of at least the upper middle class have the wherewithal or desire to spend the money.

I am looking to buy now in London and one of my priorities is to find something Georgian (ideally latter 18th century) in need of some work and do a full architectural rehab.

Generally one is replacing an old person that died rather than an ethnic minority. Because there are no annual property taxes here (just a huge stamp duty paid at the time of purchase), you have houses or apartments in prime or gentrifying neighborhoods that are still occupied by people who bought them 40 years earlier. They’ve never had the money for upkeep, let alone renovation. They just sit there, 80 years old and useless, watching an old TV in a room full of dated furniture, peeling wallpaper and a smelly carpet, until they finally pass and the estate sells the house to someone able to fix it up.

Unfortunately there are fewer and fewer of these in the traditionally “prime” areas of London, but this city has a LOT of older housing stock. Less so Georgian than Victorian, though, and I don’t really care for much Victorian “suburban” terraced housing (not suburban in the American sense... these are rowhouse neighborhoods... but they lack the elegance of Georgian terraces).

[the urban politician]

^ You need to work on your ever growing insulting and dismissive tone, dude.

Some day you will be that "useless" 80 year old.

[10023]

Not if my living will has anything to say about it.

Anyway, I’m not here to protect anybody’s feelings. Not all 80 year olds are useless, but the ones that spend most of their timing watching TV and leave a half dilapidated house that they had neither the money nor energy to maintain generally are.

And my tone comes partly from the fact that I am of the strong belief that Western societies spend too much time and money taking care of their indigent elderly. Our exploding healthcare budget is one result. The young shouldn’t be spending either taking care of the old; the old had a lifetime to be prepared to take care of themselves.

[the urban politician]

^ Your parents must be so proud

[DePaul Bunyan]

Originally Posted by 10023

Not really. Old buildings require a lot of upkeep and few people short of at least the upper middle class have the wherewithal or desire to spend the money.

I am looking to buy now in London and one of my priorities is to find something Georgian (ideally latter 18th century) in need of some work and do a full architectural rehab.

Generally one is replacing an old person that died rather than an ethnic minority. Because there are no annual property taxes here (just a huge stamp duty paid at the time of purchase), you have houses or apartments in prime or gentrifying neighborhoods that are still occupied by people who bought them 40 years earlier. They’ve never had the money for upkeep, let alone renovation. They just sit there, 80 years old and useless, watching an old TV in a room full of dated furniture, peeling wallpaper and a smelly carpet, until they finally pass and the estate sells the house to someone able to fix it up.

Unfortunately there are fewer and fewer of these in the traditionally “prime” areas of London, but this city has a LOT of older housing stock. Less so Georgian than Victorian, though, and I don’t really care for much Victorian “suburban” terraced housing (not suburban in the American sense... these are rowhouse neighborhoods... but they lack the elegance of Georgian terraces).

Couldn't resist the opportunity to post a tangential humble-brag could you?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

Why should landlords "invest" in housing if their tenants can trash their units and squat for months while the eviction process worms its way through the courts?

Because they own it?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by 10023

And my tone comes partly from the fact that I am of the strong belief that Western societies spend too much time and money taking care of their indigent elderly. Our exploding healthcare budget is one result. The young shouldn’t be spending either taking care of the old; the old had a lifetime to be prepared to take care of themselves.

(a) how is this relevant?

(b) I hope you spend your entire life saving up money to care for yourself in your later years.

(c) You must make a pretty penny if you're able to save up enough money to last through your later years, considering most working people can barely make it by day to day with what they earn paying for just the essentials (and thus have no money left over to put towards savings).

[10023]

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

Couldn't resist the opportunity to post a tangential humble-brag could you?

Because I gave an anecdotal example of how old housing gets restored?

Also this is an interesting site for this sort of thing:
https://www.themodernhouse.com/journ...s-chris-dyson/

Here’s an awesome example of one that someone has put some time and money into. But it’s much cheaper to do the work than something finished. Although at less than £1200/sq ft it’s not bad for London:
https://www.themodernhouse.com/sales...bury-grove-ii/


The rant about the olds was just a response to some unsolicited advice.