Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gentrification May Actually Be Boon To Longtime Residents

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: Gentrification May Actually Be Boon To Longtime Residents

#51

Post by TehCorwiz »

Fishkins wrote: post #45
TehCorwiz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait...Did you just argue that gathering in a park (a public gathering place) and playing a board game can be illegal? Where do you live that has laws like that?

I believe it's relatively common to gamble on dominoes, and gambling is often illegal. Even so, it's an innocuous crime and probably not the real reason they were hassled.

Today I learned that people gamble on dominoes. Not that I agree with gambling, or with it being illegal, but I suppose that is more justified than just playing dominoes.

Re: Gentrification May Actually Be Boon To Longtime Residents

#52

Post by bronbron »

hifier wrote: post #48
bronbron wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people fixing up a run down neighborhood Whoa there, let's not put words in people's mouths. Gentrification has benefits and drawbacks, like everything else. First, and foremost, the neighborhoods aren't always run down. The Missions and the Williamsburgs of the world aren't the only places undergoing gentrification. Sometimes they're just neighborhoods largely populated by immigrants (Greenpoint in Brooklyn), or t…

A lot of the gentrifying neighborhoods in NYC have histories that go much too far back to be attributed to the current residents, even if they've been there 50+ years. Maintaining a late 1800s brownstone is not cheap and without proper care these historic areas will just slowly deteriorate. I think it is an absolute positive that money is returning to these areas. IMO, current residents have no more of a right to liv…

> A lot of the gentrifying neighborhoods in NYC have histories that go much too far back to be attributed to the current residents

That's kind of a silly argument (Harlem's 50+ year residents were most certainly in Harlem during the race riots), but regardless that wasn't really my point anyway.

The incoming community always brings their culture with them, with very little incentive to preserve the existing culture. They have no reason to keep a Murry's around - they want a Whole Foods. The Russian Orthodox cathedral looks cool, sure, but a new luxury high-rise could be built in that spot instead.

> IMO, current residents have no more of a right to live somewhere than any newcomer.

That's also not really the point. It's not about who has a right to live where. It's about making sure we collectively don't tread over artifacts without taking a step back and evaluating what we're doing as a society. By the time we decide something has historical value and should be preserved, it might be way too late.

Re: Gentrification May Actually Be Boon To Longtime Residents

#53

Post by hifier »

bronbron wrote: post #52
hifier wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the gentrifying neighborhoods in NYC have histories that go much too far back to be attributed to the current residents, even if they've been there 50+ years. Maintaining a late 1800s brownstone is not cheap and without proper care these historic areas will just slowly deteriorate. I think it is an absolute positive that money is returning to these areas. IMO, current residents have no more of a right to liv…

> A lot of the gentrifying neighborhoods in NYC have histories that go much too far back to be attributed to the current residents That's kind of a silly argument (Harlem's 50+ year residents were most certainly in Harlem during the race riots), but regardless that wasn't really my point anyway. The incoming community always brings their culture with them, with very little incentive to preserve the existing culture.…

My point: In most cases current residents do not have a tie to the original culture or history.

Do not take my comments out of context. You're making my argument but acting like current residents have more credibility - they don't. They are not the "artifacts" and living through race riots does not have any relevance whatsoever.

In my neighborhood "gentrifiers" are coming and preserving 1890s brownstones, on which a new facade costs upwards of 300k (yes hundreds of thousands). Maintaining our architectural history is not cheap and I think it's great that it's happening.

I find your position absurd.

Re: Gentrification May Actually Be Boon To Longtime Residents

#54

Post by infosample »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #47
infosample wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think gentrification is happening in dangerous and unsafe neighborhoods. It's my opinion that is where many displaced residents move. Note: opinion, not fact. I actually agree with your overall point - unless you own, you shouldn't feel entitled to stay. You should, however, be entitled to a safe neighborhood and legitimate opportunity.

"entitled to a safe neighborhood and legitimate opportunity" That's kind of a meaningless statement. What does it even mean? Let's say you're correct and people are entitled to living in a safe neighborhood. Now let's say they live in an unsafe one. Now what? They're entitled to a safe neighborhood! It's their right! Who is required to give it to them exactly? Me? You? The states? The feds? You can call something an…

Of course it’s a meaningless statement. If they were entitled to or had the right to safety and opportunity, it wouldn’t be a bad neighborhood, they wouldn’t have to move, and there wouldn’t be gentrification.

Re: Gentrification May Actually Be Boon To Longtime Residents

#55

Post by hyperpape »

danohuiginn wrote: post #18

'"To my surprise," Freeman says, "it seemed to suggest that people in neighborhoods classified as gentrifying were moving less frequently."' Well, duh. With rents rising, your only chance to stay in the neighbourhood is to cling on to your existing contract. Look at a fully-gentrified neighbourhood; the only low-income residents will be those who have been living in the same home for decades, with a rental contract t…

A good possibility, but many cities don't have rent control and/or give landlords lots of leeway to raise rents. You'd have to break it down by city to see whether the effect was limited to cities with rent control.

Re: Gentrification May Actually Be Boon To Longtime Residents

#56

Post by bronbron »

hifier wrote: post #53
bronbron wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of the gentrifying neighborhoods in NYC have histories that go much too far back to be attributed to the current residents That's kind of a silly argument (Harlem's 50+ year residents were most certainly in Harlem during the race riots), but regardless that wasn't really my point anyway. The incoming community always brings their culture with them, with very little incentive to preserve the existing culture.…

My point: In most cases current residents do not have a tie to the original culture or history. Do not take my comments out of context. You're making my argument but acting like current residents have more credibility - they don't. They are not the "artifacts" and living through race riots does not have any relevance whatsoever. In my neighborhood "gentrifiers" are coming and preserving 1890s brownstones, on which a…

> In most cases current residents do not have a tie to the original culture or history.

> living through race riots does not have any relevance whatsoever.

Oooook then. I'll let you think about these two statements side-by-side for a few. Get back to me when you have.

Re: Gentrification May Actually Be Boon To Longtime Residents

#57

Post by trysomething »

Nature has endowed mankind with diverse faculties, fallible reason and variable fortune, and so in a free society there will by necessity be "winners" and "losers".

Those of you who reflexively oppose gentrification ought to consider what type of society you want to live in. Do you believe that individuals have the right to make decisions that could affect their own lives beneficially or adversely? One such decision is to rent or buy property.

There are clearly potential benefits and drawbacks to either choice. I may value stability of residence and the chance my chosen property will appreciate, and therefore choose to buy, and so put capital down and strain my credit. Alternatively, I may want to bootstrap a small business or startup using the same capital and credit, and therefore choose to rent.

When, in the name of stopping the "evil" of gentrification, you propose to severely restrict what a property owner can do, such as through rent control, you are also proposing to restrict the original choice to rent or buy. You are thus limiting the opportunity of the less fortunate to buy when and where the price is low and sell if and when the price gets high.

In the name of protecting the vulnerable, you prevent them from advancing to a better station in life. It's very easy to consider the benefits of laws and regulation while ignoring the costs.

Re: Gentrification May Actually Be Boon To Longtime Residents

#58

Post by curun1r »

omegaham wrote: post #25
curun1r wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you target your rage at the hipsters paying £5 for a beer rather than the bartender charging £5 for that beer? Or, perhaps, his landlord, for raising is rent to the point where he needs to charge £5? I guarantee that the hipster would rather pay £2. The whole issue of gentrification seems to always come around to blaming the people who move in rather than the people who profit off of them, be they existing hom…

Your last paragraph makes me unsure where you're actually standing on this, but I think that the issue with the hipsters is that they are financially indifferent. Since they're wealthy compared to the locals, they have the interesting condition of wanting to look like bohemian beatniks while enjoying modern luxuries. You end up with the kid who wants to live in a little loft in Harlem but also wants wifi for his lapt…

I don't really have a position when it comes to gentrification in general, as I believe circumstances are different in each area. But in the area where I'm from (SF bay area), I believe the majority of the fault lies with property owners and local/state government. Current homeowners in San Francisco lobby hard to limit development of new housing and have basically succeeded in limiting new development to SOMA and Mission Bay. They do this out of self interest to drive property values up under the guise of maintaining the character of their neighborhoods. They're able to do this because of Proposition 13, which prevents their property taxes from increasing along with the value of their property. Local policies like rent control and below-market-rate properties only serve to further limit the available housing and make it harder for the working poor to afford to live in San Francisco.

We're seeing regular protests against tech workers, but I believe these are naive and targeting the wrong people. Expecting to continue to rent in a desirable location as demand for housing in that area increases and new construction is blocked is just ignorant of the basic laws of supply and demand. You either need to increase the supply or demand will push the prices beyond what the poor can pay and they'll be forced to move. Blaming people for wanting to live somewhere is counterproductive and lets the profiteers (current property owners) off the hook. Ironically, the same people protesting against Ellis Act evictions (landlords evicting long-time tenants so that they can convert properties to condos/TICs) are the same ones arguing to maintain the character of their neighborhoods. It's a position that can only be explained by a denial of reality.

One comment about what you wrote: > That's why formerly dingy dive bars start selling $5 Pabst Blue Ribbons, shitty apartments start adding amenities and increasing the prices, and everything follows from there.

You say that as if it's a natural phenomenon devoid of any human involvement. But there are humans making the choice to make more money servicing the wants of the wealthier population while ignoring the wants of their previous patrons. It's an understandable choice, but it's a choice none the less and one that they need to be held accountable for. My point was that the displaced population wants to blame only the new residents and not the businesses and landlords that choose to service those new residents to the detriment of the long-time residents. That those businesses and landlords are making a choice for significant financial gain and escaping all criticism seems wrong to me. For better or for worse, they're the ones that actually changing the neighborhoods. If current property owners and businesses refused the financial temptation and maintained the status quo, there would be no gentrification. Every change is voluntary and the result of a landlord choosing to sell or rent for more money or a business owner choosing to make more money by changing their service.

Re: Gentrification May Actually Be Boon To Longtime Residents

#59

Post by gaius »

otterley wrote: post #14
infosample wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

shaftoe, as a thought experiment consider why the neighborhood is run down. Did the people run down the neighborhood because that's what they like? How was the economic situation for these people? How were the schools, the hospitals, the law enforcement? Was there housing discrimination? How were their politicians? What was the funding like compared to other neighborhoods? In other words, how was the neighborhood bef…

How are these matters relevant to the opinion that improving neighborhoods is a good thing?

It really depends on what you mean by improving. It might mean something directly quantifiable like crime rates, or it might be something intangible, like it just being cool and fashionable to live there. The hipsters see the latter and descend like vultures on it. In the process, they do improve the neighbourhood in a quantifiable way - house prices. But they destroy what brought them there in the first place.

And here's the thing: the hipsters don't need to do this. They already live somewhere. Why not stay there and live their hipster lives? That's what makes people angry - they just invade and colonize, destroying communities and driving people out of their homes for fun.

Re: Gentrification May Actually Be Boon To Longtime Residents

#60

Post by hifier »

bronbron wrote: post #56
hifier wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point: In most cases current residents do not have a tie to the original culture or history. Do not take my comments out of context. You're making my argument but acting like current residents have more credibility - they don't. They are not the "artifacts" and living through race riots does not have any relevance whatsoever. In my neighborhood "gentrifiers" are coming and preserving 1890s brownstones, on which a…

> In most cases current residents do not have a tie to the original culture or history. > living through race riots does not have any relevance whatsoever. Oooook then. I'll let you think about these two statements side-by-side for a few. Get back to me when you have.

I think you would be hard-pressed to make your same argument in other neighborhoods: Bed-Stuy? Crown Heights? Park Slope? Brooklyn heights? Boerum Hill? Clinton hill?

There were 1960s race riots in Bed-Stuy too.

In these places in prime Brooklyn what happened in the 1960s is divorced from the neighborhood's origins. Taking one unique case in Harlem and extrapolating it to gentrification all over NYC does not hold water. From my personal experience, it seems Harlem has seen the least amount of gentrification compared to these Brooklyn neighborhoods. If you were to take real-estate prices as a metric (you could choose others I'm sure), Brooklyn has far outpaced Harlem in the rate of change, especially in the last decade.

Post reply on HN