Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife
|
I don’t see what one has to do with the other. Public housing is a lottery but reserved for people who earn less than the median income. People who can pay Amsterdam’s market house prices (and earn at least several times the median income) would I’m sure prefer not to live in a neighborhood which is 80% people at the median income or below.
Gentrifying neighborhoods are of course a different matter. There is a transitional phase where the more adventurous, looking for space/vibrancy at lower cost, move in. But people moving to neighborhoods in transition always point to the direction of travel - they buy because the neighborhood is changing and will continue to, not because it will stay as is forever.
In places where there is a large percentage of public housing, the gentrification never really comes. There are central neighborhoods in London (Pimlico is a great example) that have been called “up and coming” by real estate agents for decades and never get there because there’s just so much council housing in the area. And so the amenities aren’t as nice (because there isn’t a market for higher end restaurants, groceries or local shops), a bit more crime, etc.
One of the great myths engaged in by people who grew up with gentrification is that truly mixed income neighborhoods are either possible or desirable. They’re really not - where they exist it’s usually because the neighborhood is transitioning in one direction or the other. And that’s because the wealthy residents and the low income residents don’t want the same things. The wealthier ones might go to a dive bar or taqueria for a cheap meal here and there, and the lower income ones might occasionally splurge on an $8 IPA or items from Whole Foods, but for the most part the local amenities need to be different. This is course is using a narrower definition of “neighborhood” (e.g., not treating the whole of the UES as a single one); there can certainly be wealthier streets and then the opposite a couple of blocks away.