What do you think? Is it necessary for urban revitalization or is it unfair economic eviction against the poor?

If people want to start fixing up old houses in crappy neighborhoods, more power to them.

Depends on what we consider gentrification. If you make the property more desirable than people with more money will move in.

(11-28-2015 05:08 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  What do you think? Is it necessary for urban revitalization or is it unfair economic eviction against the poor?

You have a point. We should just let everything go the way of Detroit instead of letting free market investment unfairly evict the poor. Let blight do it instead.

By the way, who are you going to tax when no one is there?

I have mixed feelings about gentrification. On one hand, I am intrigued by the restoration/renovation/redevelopment of downtrodden urban and suburban areas. I like to see broken things fixed, old things restored with modern care, and new blood injected into places where things are stagnant. I find locales like Detroit fascinating and ripe with opportunity.

But here's the thing: Money. Improving properties on a large scale raises property tax rates, rents, cost of living, etc. The new blood can afford the flat cost and the recurring ones after in taxes, cost of living, etc. Unless certain controls are put in place, existing residents (impoverished or not) often cannot. They get priced out and they have to move somewhere else. Displacement.

I'm not saying that its the duty of gentrifying forces to solve poverty. Business is business. Gentrification primarily solves one problem: "These properties aren't generating enough revenue."

(11-28-2015 06:12 PM)wahoowa Wrote:  

(11-28-2015 05:08 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  What do you think? Is it necessary for urban revitalization or is it unfair economic eviction against the poor?

You have a point. We should just let everything go the way of Detroit instead of letting free market investment unfairly evict the poor. Let blight do it instead.

By the way, who are you going to tax when no one is there?

Lol at you assuming I am against it.

My opinion on the matter: Gentrification occurs because a significant amount of a region's population, primarily young professionals, find value in moving into the urban areas. It could be because of increased employment opportunities there or just because they want to be cool hipsters living outside the perceived conformity of suburbia, but regardless of that there is an underlying cause for the increased demand. That all being said, I think there really isn't any way to quell that demand in an economically healthy fashion. Rent control? One of the most destructive, counterproductive economic ideas in all of urban planning. Restrictions on sharing services like Airbnb? It just shifts the demand for housing elsewhere. So while there are drawbacks to gentrification I don't think there's much of a way to stop it, so letting the market decide things is probably the best course of action (as it almost always is).

But you can make the neighborhood transitions a lot smoother in a couple of ways. I don't have a problem with landlords 'driving out' long-standing tenants because the economic forces surrounding them make it financially illogical to maintain the status quo. I have a problem with landlords refusing to take care of their tenants as legally required by their leases, cities doubling down on rent ceilings, housing construction moratoriums, and overly restrictive building codes. I'm looking at you San Francisco.

(11-28-2015 05:18 PM)dfarr Wrote:  If people want to start fixing up old houses in crappy neighborhoods, more power to them.

Its natural. Every area can't just decay forever.

Neighborhoods change. They are nice, decline, decline some more and eventually have gentrification while the areas that displaced them as nice areas start to decline.

As best as I can tell, my neighborhood in Atlanta, which is about 100 years old, while never really significantly decaying, has been through about 3 cycles. Millionaires lived there at first, but it declined as newer areas were built and the mansions rotted or got subdivided into apartments. In the 50s it recovered with new families, but they aged and it hit bottom in the 90s. But then it recovered again with new families.

I own my home here in DC so I love it.

I'm not sure I understand this thread. Would you ban white people from purchasing real estate in minority occupied neighborhoods? Or take race out of it and put income restraints on residing in neighborhoods? Not sure why we should try to "do something" to stop it and how that would be legal.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(11-29-2015 09:59 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I'm not sure I understand this thread. Would you ban white people from purchasing real estate in minority occupied neighborhoods? Or take race out of it and put income restraints on residing in neighborhoods? Not sure why we should try to "do something" to stop it and how that would be legal.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Actually the way to stop gentrification would be to not allow gays to own homes.

They seem to lead the way on most of these revitalizing neighborhoods.

My point is you can't stop people from buying property and doing what they want with it within the zoning. Rich, blacks, whites, gays, trannies... all have the same rights to purchase a given property for whatever the seller is willing to sell it for.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(11-29-2015 02:41 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  My point is you can't stop people from buying property and doing what they want with it within the zoning. Rich, blacks, whites, gays, trannies... all have the same rights to purchase a given property for whatever the seller is willing to sell it for.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Maybe you missed the Executive Order to force diversity into neighborhoods.

<< Click It >>

big time yay. Just toured the old Cherry neighborhood in Charlotte this past weekend. Love seeing the old ghetto homes torn down for much nicer dwellings.

(11-28-2015 11:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-28-2015 05:18 PM)dfarr Wrote:  If people want to start fixing up old houses in crappy neighborhoods, more power to them.

Its natural. Every area can't just decay forever.

Neighborhoods change. They are nice, decline, decline some more and eventually have gentrification while the areas that displaced them as nice areas start to decline.

As best as I can tell, my neighborhood in Atlanta, which is about 100 years old, while never really significantly decaying, has been through about 3 cycles. Millionaires lived there at first, but it declined as newer areas were built and the mansions rotted or got subdivided into apartments. In the 50s it recovered with new families, but they aged and it hit bottom in the 90s. But then it recovered again with new families.

You pretty much described my old neighborhood in East Atlanta. The flaw many people see with gentrification is the displacement. But that is done by choice of the city and the current residents. The city could easily leave the property taxes the same for those that don't want to sell and on fixed income. But many do indeed sell because all they are looking at are the dollar signs.

Were I grew up wasn't that far from East Lake Meadows. Now people are walking their dogs at 2AM. That is gentrification at work.

I'm actually not overly familiar with the term 'gentrification' because I never lived in an area where it actually happened. I always lived in good areas. At first my assumption was that gentrification went hand in hand with eminent domain laws to clean up blight. However, I'm guessing this is actually more of a market oriented approach? Especially if it occurs via a market based mechanism, it's a wonderful thing. This is how you reverse "white flight" - or I would more accurately call "class flight" (where I'm using class for financial position only).

Houston has had a pretty clear general pattern. Inner city areas declined and areas between Loop 610 and what is now Beltway 8 (Houston's 2nd loop) became the place to be in the 60s and 70s. But then those areas generally declined and people moved into the Beltway 8 to Highway 6/1960 areas in the 80s and 90s while the inner city areas, especially around Loop 610 started to "gentrify."

Now the areas around Loop 610 have gotten expensive and inner city areas like the Heights, 4th Ward, East End and 3rd Ward are starting to "gentrify," while areas in the 610 to Beltway 8 area are starting to get re-invigorated-Westbury, Oak Forest, Inwood Forest to name a few. The area from Beltway 8 to Highway 6/1960 is declining. New homes are being built beyond Highway 6/1960 out to Houston's 3rd Loop, the Grand Parkway.

There's a natural progression in most neighborhoods. Its new and families move in. They age. Kids move out. New families look for newer housing. Eventually the elderly move out and a lower income group tends to move in. At some point, younger people/families come in and start to renovate the aging housing and gentrification starts.

(12-01-2015 09:38 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm actually not overly familiar with the term 'gentrification' because I never lived in an area where it actually happened. I always lived in good areas. At first my assumption was that gentrification went hand in hand with eminent domain laws to clean up blight. However, I'm guessing this is actually more of a market oriented approach? Especially if it occurs via a market based mechanism, it's a wonderful thing. This is how you reverse "white flight" - or I would more accurately call "class flight" (where I'm using class for financial position only).

This. Let people with money clean up the shitholes that were destroyed by the leaches and make them desirable again.

(12-01-2015 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  Houston has had a pretty clear general pattern. Inner city areas declined and areas between Loop 610 and what is now Beltway 8 (Houston's 2nd loop) became the place to be in the 60s and 70s. But then those areas generally declined and people moved into the Beltway 8 to Highway 6/1960 areas in the 80s and 90s while the inner city areas, especially around Loop 610 started to "gentrify."

Now the areas around Loop 610 have gotten expensive and inner city areas like the Heights, 4th Ward, East End and 3rd Ward are starting to "gentrify," while areas in the 610 to Beltway 8 area are starting to get re-invigorated-Westbury, Oak Forest, Inwood Forest to name a few. The area from Beltway 8 to Highway 6/1960 is declining. New homes are being built beyond Highway 6/1960 out to Houston's 3rd Loop, the Grand Parkway.

There's a natural progression in most neighborhoods. Its new and families move in. They age. Kids move out. New families look for newer housing. Eventually the elderly move out and a lower income group tends to move in. At some point, younger people/families come in and start to renovate the aging housing and gentrification starts.

If you want to see funny directions, take a look at Seattle's Bullitt Building.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/rea...een-goals/

This is one of the funniest things I've seen or read about. Fits Seattle well. No parking, no water flushing toilets and on and on . There's lot to see on this project. When it first came about , there were people of all kinds making fun of it , in Seattle and elsewhere.

READ THE COMMENTS AFTER THE ARTICLE. http://www.seattletimes.com/business/rea...een-goals/