Current Events > What is wrong with gentrification?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Wealthier people moving into a neighborhood and making it a nice place to live and be.

How is this bad?
---

Do you have a life or is this the high point of your day?

Because they drive away all those street corner pharmacists and physical therapists.
---

Because it makes it too expensive for the people who have been living there for years, often decades.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Do you have a life or is this the high point of your day?

lol sadly

It displaces poorer people who have been in those neighborhood longer than the wealthier people
---

Paper_Okami posted...

Because it makes it too expensive for the people who have been living there for years, often decades.

If they bought their houses instead of living as perpetual renters, problem solved.
---

There's nothing wrong with people moving into a neighborhood.
---

Because those poor people don't get a better quality of life, they just find it harder to exist anywhere and end up getting displaced. And then the entire soul of a place and the reason it was gentrified in the first place can disappear.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

Because it makes it too expensive for the people who have been living there for years, often decades.

If they bought their houses instead of living as perpetual renters, problem solved.

There's more to it than just rent.
---

"What's wrong with kicking poor people out of their houses after they can no longer afford to live there"

So gentrification is bad because "finders keepers" ?

If the wealthier people turn it into a nice place to live that is always a good thing. The people that live there already have an obligation to help make it a nice place to live.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

Because it makes it too expensive for the people who have been living there for years, often decades.

If they bought their houses instead of living as perpetual renters, problem solved.

Why don't poor people stop being poor?
---

Logos posted...

There's nothing wrong with people moving into a neighborhood.

Tell that to white people who pack up in droves whenever black folks start moving into their neighborhoods
---

Logos posted...

There's nothing wrong with people moving into a neighborhood.

Eventually there's nowhere left in the city for you to go because the prices are too high everywhere. Plus they change the culture of the area until its unrecognizable from how it originally was. It's bullshit because you were there first
---

pinky0926 posted...

Because those poor people don't get a better quality of life, they just find it harder to exist anywhere and end up getting displaced. And then the entire soul of a place and the reason it was gentrified in the first place can disappear.

The first part is true but I take some issue with the second part. I can't imagine how it's ever a bad thing for there to be a Starbucks or a hipster vegan gluten-free donut shop on a corner in Oakland rather than a crack-dealer or gangs.
---

Is this like that king of the hill episode with the hipsters taking over the Mexican neighborhood and bar
---

YookaLaylee posted...

Logos posted...

There's nothing wrong with people moving into a neighborhood.

Eventually there's nowhere left in the city for you to go because the prices are too high everywhere. Plus they change the culture of the area until its U recognizable from how it originally was. It's bullshit because you were there first

Then move out of the city.
---

Logos posted...

There's nothing wrong with people moving into a neighborhood.

Unless you're kicked out of the neighborhood to make room for them.

When someone wants to see their city improve, they want to still be citizens at the end of the day.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

It's not so much about "finders keepers" as it is displacement, like pinky said. In the U.S. we're not doing a great job about providing quality affordable housing. Especially not in a dangerous neighborhood.

It's not our job to provide "quality affordable housing" except to the extent that we allow the housing market to continue building homes.
---

RebelElite791 posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Because those poor people don't get a better quality of life, they just find it harder to exist anywhere and end up getting displaced. And then the entire soul of a place and the reason it was gentrified in the first place can disappear.

The first part is true but I take some issue with the second part. I can't imagine how it's ever a bad thing for there to be a Starbucks or a hipster vegan gluten-free donut shop on a corner in Oakland rather than a crack-dealer or gangs.

Sure, you're not wrong in that sense. But in extremely simple terms:

Dink couple: "Oh hey honey, let's move into this lovely quaint neighbourhood, there's so much rich history and character"
Property developer: "Ok let's redevelop this entire area and make everything brand new and exclusive"

If you've ever lived in an area that's been gentrified, you'll know that the entire history of the place gets entirely stripped out in the process of cleaning it up. All those local butcher shops and grocers and so on? Well here's your walmart, you don't need anything else.
---

Hash-Brown posted...

YookaLaylee posted...

Logos posted...

There's nothing wrong with people moving into a neighborhood.

Eventually there's nowhere left in the city for you to go because the prices are too high everywhere. Plus they change the culture of the area until its unrecognizable from how it originally was. It's bullshit because you were there first

Then move out of the city.

Or people could just stop gentrifying neighborhoods.
---

pinky0926 posted...

Because those poor people don't get a better quality of life, they just find it harder to exist anywhere and end up getting displaced. And then the entire soul of a place and the reason it was gentrified in the first place can disappear.

The "soul" of slums and ghettos disappearing is a good thing.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Logos posted...

There's nothing wrong with people moving into a neighborhood.

Unless you're kicked out of the neighborhood to make room for them.

When someone wants to see their city improve, they want to still be citizens at the end of the day.

If the area you live in becomes too expensive, move to a different area. What else do you want me to say? That's how life is. We can't just keep prices artificially low just because you see a problem with growth increasing the price of property.
---

Nomadic View posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Because those poor people don't get a better quality of life, they just find it harder to exist anywhere and end up getting displaced. And then the entire soul of a place and the reason it was gentrified in the first place can disappear.

The "soul" of slums and ghettos disappearing is a good thing.

*Looks at username*

*Looks at tag*

Yep, checks out.
---

Nomadic View posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Because those poor people don't get a better quality of life, they just find it harder to exist anywhere and end up getting displaced. And then the entire soul of a place and the reason it was gentrified in the first place can disappear.

The "soul" of slums and ghettos disappearing is a good thing.

Tell that to the people who have lived in these neighborhoods before being pushed out by gentrification
---

ZombiePelican posted...

Nomadic View posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Because those poor people don't get a better quality of life, they just find it harder to exist anywhere and end up getting displaced. And then the entire soul of a place and the reason it was gentrified in the first place can disappear.

The "soul" of slums and ghettos disappearing is a good thing.

Tell that to the people who have lived in these neighborhoods before being pushed out by gentrification

(The people are who he's talking about)
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Hash-Brown posted...

YookaLaylee posted...

Logos posted...

There's nothing wrong with people moving into a neighborhood.

Eventually there's nowhere left in the city for you to go because the prices are too high everywhere. Plus they change the culture of the area until its U recognizable from how it originally was. It's bullshit because you were there first

Then move out of the city.

Can you seriously not see an issue with displacing people?

It happens unfortunately, but you can either dwell on it or set out someplace new. You can't stop people from making neighborhoods better.
---

Nomadic View posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Because those poor people don't get a better quality of life, they just find it harder to exist anywhere and end up getting displaced. And then the entire soul of a place and the reason it was gentrified in the first place can disappear.

The "soul" of slums and ghettos disappearing is a good thing.

Not every instance of "gentrification" is about destroying slums and making it a nice neighbourhood.

A well known town near me had the entire high street die in favour of a Tesco's and Next store. We're talking every shop on the high street closing up in a year because the UK equivalent of Walmart steamrolled the entire thing. Two stores, that's all it took. But on paper, that town is now doing more commerce, even though it's not even a town anymore but little more than an industrial parking lot.
---

Hash-Brown posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Hash-Brown posted...

YookaLaylee posted...

Logos posted...

There's nothing wrong with people moving into a neighborhood.

Eventually there's nowhere left in the city for you to go because the prices are too high everywhere. Plus they change the culture of the area until its U recognizable from how it originally was. It's bullshit because you were there first

Then move out of the city.

Can you seriously not see an issue with displacing people?

It happens unfortunately, but you can either dwell on it or set out someplace new. You can't stop people from making neighborhoods better.

So if people moved into your neighborhood and made the price of living there ridiculously high, you wild just say "Oh well. They're making the neighborhood better so it's a good thing that they came here. "
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Logos posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

It's not so much about "finders keepers" as it is displacement, like pinky said. In the U.S. we're not doing a great job about providing quality affordable housing. Especially not in a dangerous neighborhood.

It's not our job to provide "quality affordable housing" except to the extent that we allow the housing market to continue building homes.

I disagree. I think we have a societal responsibility to ensure that basic needs are met. That includes having affordable, quality housing available to people.

There is no obligation to provide someone else with housing. If you disagree, go vote for a candidate that promises to use your tax dollars for someone else's needs. Good luck.

Our responsibilities are to ourselves and our loved ones, because god knows there's not enough money to help our own let alone other people.
---

Logos posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Logos posted...

There's nothing wrong with people moving into a neighborhood.

Unless you're kicked out of the neighborhood to make room for them.

When someone wants to see their city improve, they want to still be citizens at the end of the day.

If the area you live in becomes too expensive, move to a different area. What else do you want me to say? That's how life is. We can't just keep prices artificially low just because you see a problem with growth increasing the price of property.

I don't have a problem with growth and nice things. I have a problem with playing musical chairs with our poverty. It's the Patrick Star solution. Take it and push it somewhere else.

And I'll save you the time and post if for you. "It is no one's responsibility to make sure mommy government provides you with affordable housing because you made poor life choices."
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Logos posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Logos posted...

There's nothing wrong with people moving into a neighborhood.

Unless you're kicked out of the neighborhood to make room for them.

When someone wants to see their city improve, they want to still be citizens at the end of the day.

If the area you live in becomes too expensive, move to a different area. What else do you want me to say? That's how life is. We can't just keep prices artificially low just because you see a problem with growth increasing the price of property.

I don't have a problem with growth and nice things. I have a problem with playing musical chairs with our poverty. It's the Patrick Star solution. Take it and push it somewhere else.

And I'll save you the time and post if for you. "It is no one's responsibility to make sure mommy government provides you with affordable housing because you made poor life choices."

The bolded part of your post is absolutely correct. You're finally learning.
---

Logos posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Logos posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Logos posted...

There's nothing wrong with people moving into a neighborhood.

Unless you're kicked out of the neighborhood to make room for them.

When someone wants to see their city improve, they want to still be citizens at the end of the day.

If the area you live in becomes too expensive, move to a different area. What else do you want me to say? That's how life is. We can't just keep prices artificially low just because you see a problem with growth increasing the price of property.

I don't have a problem with growth and nice things. I have a problem with playing musical chairs with our poverty. It's the Patrick Star solution. Take it and push it somewhere else.

And I'll save you the time and post if for you. "It is no one's responsibility to make sure mommy government provides you with affordable housing because you made poor life choices."

The bolded part of your post is absolutely correct. You're finally learning.

Nobody is even saying that we need the government to provide "affordable housing". We're saying don't come into people's neighborhoods and force them out.
---

Logos posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Logos posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

It's not so much about "finders keepers" as it is displacement, like pinky said. In the U.S. we're not doing a great job about providing quality affordable housing. Especially not in a dangerous neighborhood.

It's not our job to provide "quality affordable housing" except to the extent that we allow the housing market to continue building homes.

I disagree. I think we have a societal responsibility to ensure that basic needs are met. That includes having affordable, quality housing available to people.

There is no obligation to provide someone else with housing. If you disagree, go vote for a candidate that promises to use your tax dollars for someone else's needs. Good luck.

Our responsibilities are to ourselves and our loved ones, because god knows there's not enough money to help our own let alone other people.

If we only have responsibility for ourselves, then what do we do with these people? It is a nice idea to just be able to tell people how they should have just made better choices, but that doesn't change the fact that they are who they are? What is your suggestion? Hope they all turn to crime so they can get arrested and stop being an eyesore?
---

RebelElite791 posted...

ZombiePelican posted...

Nomadic View posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Because those poor people don't get a better quality of life, they just find it harder to exist anywhere and end up getting displaced. And then the entire soul of a place and the reason it was gentrified in the first place can disappear.

The "soul" of slums and ghettos disappearing is a good thing.

Tell that to the people who have lived in these neighborhoods before being pushed out by gentrification

(The people are who he's talking about)

I get you're a sheltered suburbanite who's never lived in a real city before but take it from someone pushed out of two neighborhoods thanks to gentrification,the soul of a neighborhoods comes from the people who inhabit it the more natives get pushed out the more the neighborhood loses its personality and soul

http://www.nola.com/futureofneworleans/2015/07/where_will_the_working_poor_li.html
---

YookaLaylee posted...

Logos posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Logos posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Logos posted...

There's nothing wrong with people moving into a neighborhood.

Unless you're kicked out of the neighborhood to make room for them.

When someone wants to see their city improve, they want to still be citizens at the end of the day.

If the area you live in becomes too expensive, move to a different area. What else do you want me to say? That's how life is. We can't just keep prices artificially low just because you see a problem with growth increasing the price of property.

I don't have a problem with growth and nice things. I have a problem with playing musical chairs with our poverty. It's the Patrick Star solution. Take it and push it somewhere else.

And I'll save you the time and post if for you. "It is no one's responsibility to make sure mommy government provides you with affordable housing because you made poor life choices."

The bolded part of your post is absolutely correct. You're finally learning.

Nobody is even saying that we need the government to provide "affordable housing". We're saying don't come into people's neighborhoods and force them out.

Except you're equating simply moving in and propagating growth with "forcing them out." Which is stupid.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

If we only have responsibility for ourselves, then what do we do with these people? It is a nice idea to just be able to tell people how they should have just made better choices, but that doesn't change the fact that they are who they are? What is your suggestion? Hope they all turn to crime so they can get arrested and stop being an eyesore?

Actually, less public housing doesn't necessarily increase crime.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/April-2012/Did-the-Destruction-of-Chicagos-Public-Housing-Decrease-Violent-Crime-Or-Just-Move-It-Elsewhere/

I would say that those people should not choose violence over applying themselves. A lot of the communities are destroying themselves from the inside because of the violence and drugs that creep into communities. Public housing communities had this problem big time. These communities need to prioritize education and self policing with a zero-tolerance policy for violence and drugs. And then they can make the right decisions consistently, eliminating this problem.

The solution isn't to impose some imaginary responsibility on others. People who buy the cheap property and move in to start businesses and growth aren't responsible for that mess.
---

Logos posted...

YookaLaylee posted...

Logos posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Logos posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Logos posted...

There's nothing wrong with people moving into a neighborhood.

Unless you're kicked out of the neighborhood to make room for them.

When someone wants to see their city improve, they want to still be citizens at the end of the day.

If the area you live in becomes too expensive, move to a different area. What else do you want me to say? That's how life is. We can't just keep prices artificially low just because you see a problem with growth increasing the price of property.

I don't have a problem with growth and nice things. I have a problem with playing musical chairs with our poverty. It's the Patrick Star solution. Take it and push it somewhere else.

And I'll save you the time and post if for you. "It is no one's responsibility to make sure mommy government provides you with affordable housing because you made poor life choices."

The bolded part of your post is absolutely correct. You're finally learning.

Nobody is even saying that we need the government to provide "affordable housing". We're saying don't come into people's neighborhoods and force them out.

Except you're equating simply moving in and propagating growth with "forcing them out." Which is stupid.

Let's say the price of 1 bedroom apartments in a neighborhood is $900. The people who live here can afford to pay that. New people come in and open up expensive stores and super exclusive restaurants and then the neighborhood becomes hip. More new people come in and the price of living there skyrockets to $2000 for a 1 bedroom apartment. The original people from this neighborhood can't afford to live here anymore. Were they not forced out?
---

If white people move in, it's gentrification.

If white people move out, it's white flight.

Liberals will be mad at white people no matter what they do, so just ignore them.
---

Manocheese posted...

If white people move in, it's gentrification.

If white people move out, it's white flight.

Liberals will be mad at white people no matter what they do, so just ignore them.

I'm not a liberal. Also don't put words in people's mouths.
---

YookaLaylee posted...

Let's say the price of 1 bedroom apartments in a neighborhood is $900. The people who live here can afford to pay that. New people come in and open up expensive stores and super exclusive restaurants and then the neighborhood becomes hip. More new people come in and the price of living there skyrockets to $2000 for a 1 bedroom apartment. The original people fork this neighborhood can't afford to live here anymore. We're they not forced out?

Haha. This is a simpleton's understanding of reality. It doesn't happen that way. Fluctuations in price take time. Someone coming in and starting expensive stores and exclusive restaurants isn't how it happens. First of all, those expensive stores and restaurants wouldn't even have customers. Second of all, those neighborhoods tend to be violent.

The way it happens is gradually, over time, as hipsters and entrepreneurs and businesspeople move in to take advantage of the cheap property costs. And over time the violence dissipates and prices go up because the neighborhoods become safer and cleaner.

Literally anyone can take advantage of that.
---

Manocheese posted...

If white people move in, it's gentrification.

If white people move out, it's white flight.

Liberals will be mad at white people no matter what they do, so just ignore them.

This is a great point, and we see examples of that in this very topic. In other words, it comes full circle to the left wanting to find some way to bash white people.
---

---

How do you guys suggest we stop gentrification? If it is such a problem.
Genuinely curious.

Are you suggesting people stick to their own economic caste?
Or that businesses opening up in slums only to poorly, if they're too succseful, zomg poor person losea their home.
---

ZombiePelican posted...

RebelElite791 posted...

ZombiePelican posted...

Nomadic View posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Because those poor people don't get a better quality of life, they just find it harder to exist anywhere and end up getting displaced. And then the entire soul of a place and the reason it was gentrified in the first place can disappear.

The "soul" of slums and ghettos disappearing is a good thing.

Tell that to the people who have lived in these neighborhoods before being pushed out by gentrification

(The people are who he's talking about)

I get you're a sheltered suburbanite who's never lived in a real city before but take it from someone pushed out of two neighborhoods thanks to gentrification,the soul of a neighborhoods comes from the people who inhabit it the more natives get pushed out the more the neighborhood loses its personality and soul

http://www.nola.com/futureofneworleans/2015/07/where_will_the_working_poor_li.html

Great reading comprehension
---