If you look back even say 30 years ago in London, you'd of said the same thing about places like Hackney, as you do now about Tameside. Today it houses some of the most desired and valuable real estate not only in London, and by extension the UK, but in the world.
But gentrification, is not the same as a community leveling up. The former provides an influx of new residents with money to spend in the community. The latter creates new opportunities for the existing residents within the community.
are you saying that gentrification of Hackney did not simply entail wealthier people moving in and displacing the local population, but rather soaring incomes for the people who lived there?
Educational outcomes need to be improved yesterday, no disagreement on that.
There's some displacement, yes. However anyone who isn't in privately rented accommodation would be choosing to leave, perhaps even with some decent money from selling their house.
Many people stay, if you'd like proof, take a walk down to hackney.
(This is in addition to the high productivity that's driving the gentrification in the first place, which will often result in increased opportunity in that very sector - but that's not always very relevant, especially in the short term.)
The poor people in Amsterdam get benefits paid for by the rich.
So, I don’t think we care about land here but rather people.
Not sure about that.
Also a lot of non-market housing being rented, all those people also benefit.
Poor areas have few people with the knowledge/ resources to really leverage gentrification which is why they are living in poorer neighborhoods to begin with. So the average outcome may be a slight improvement due to the major winners, but the median outcome is likely a net loss.