Comment by mtalantikite | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mtalantikite | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I have very mixed feelings about this.

It's easy to say 'too bad, you're a gentrifier complaining about further gentrification', and I agree with that to some extent.

On the other hand, I think what the sentiment of this article is getting at is the frustration that comes with watching culture and community being washed away at a large scale. Sure, enclaves of artists/musicians/hackers may set up shop in various neighborhoods throughout a city, but early on it's never enough to really remove the feeling of culture and community of where one is on a whole. But then at a certain point you hit some sort of inflection point where the flood gates open and the entire city feels foreign. This happened to Manhattan a while ago. Sure it's still uniquely New York, and it's still an amazing place that I love, but it's a borough for the wealthy now.

I encountered this feeling of resentment towards post-flood-gate gentrifiers recently on a subway ride on the Q train back into Brooklyn. If you've ever spent any significant time on the Q train you've probably experienced the emergency doors on one side of the train open, followed by a group of young guys entering the car exclaiming "It's show time!", followed by all sorts of acrobatic break dancing. It might not be all that amazing the 20th time, but it is what it is. A couple weeks ago this familiar act began happening and, at the risk of sounding prejudiced, a new-wave gentrifying girl yelled "Oh, no! Stop! I hate this!" while giving a stank face to everyone. My initial reaction: this is NYC, specifically Brooklyn, and it's for moments like this that we live here, so what are you doing here?

I had realized that Brooklyn had changed significantly, but for some reason this made me realize it's nearing the point of no return. You see people charging $2700 for 1 bedrooms in Bushwick and Bentleys cruising on Flatbush and realize the charm of the entire place is in danger of being lost.

I also have conflicting options about the issue. On the one hand, yes get out of the way and let things evolve. On the other, how sustainable is a city that only the wealthy can afford to live.

My husband and I loved living in SF, but left because event though we both have great, well paying jobs, we can't afford a place large enough to be comfortable, let alone have a kid. So we moved and many of those we know have done the same.

I think about this in my own city (Seattle), where the quirky artists have been progressively priced out of several neighborhoods. And sure, something is lost when this happens, but I don't think anyone should be assured that their place in the world is theirs forever. So, you have to move from Fremont to Georgetown, and maybe then from Georgetown to South Park.

Sure, something is lost, but is it a real tragedy?

I think when you get to the point of gentrification in a place like NYC or SF, when it no longer is possible for the creative class to afford living there, you do risk losing the city, and that's tragic.

It's not only a question of these being expensive places to live, but if the entirety of the city is filled with bougie restaurants and bars, is that even attractive anymore? Do I really care to live in a place filled with $15 burger joints, art galleries that don't take risks because they are targeting wealthy buyers in order to pay their leases, and music venues that have to have 7 acts a night rotating through so the space can sell enough $7 beers to stay open?

I mean Bill and Hilarie Clinton even had an event at Roberta's in Bushwick (Brooklyn) this week. The Clintons hanging out in Bushwick?! At what point do people just start looking elsewhere?

These are all questions I don't have answers to. I do love New York, and every time I leave I can't wait to get back. It's a magical place. But sometimes I can't help but think nearly free rent and a blank canvas like Detroit sounds mighty appealing.

I can't help but think nearly free rent and a blank canvas like Detroit sounds mighty appealing.

I honestly hope that the nearly free rent and blank canvas does appeal to a lot of creative/artist/hacker types.

As shameful as it is to say, I've thought about buying property there (or somewhere similarly cheap) just so I could do cool stuff with it. My small residential lot doesn't have enough room (or a proper tree) to build a tree house with my kids, and I don't have nearly enough room in my shop to experiment with the crazy building stuff I want to do.

There are some interesting folks in Detroit, lured by the same attitude:

http://omnicorpdetroit.com/blog/

Thank you for sharing this, the Robocop reference makes me adore them even more than I otherwise would have.

I share your concerns, though I'm optimistic it's not quite so bad. For one thing, I've noticed in some places that gentrification is not monotonically increasing, and is in fact cyclical.

I lived for some time in Belltown (Seattle), a former starving-artist neighborhood that then got hit by the gentrification bug really hard. At this point the artist population in that neighborhood hovers around zero, and has all been replaced by high-rises and expensive but mediocre bistros. From the long-timers (well, longer-timers) I've spoken to, Belltown is actually less expensive than at its peak, as the complete eradication of everything interesting about the place has caused it to lose a lot of the appeal - to the point where it may actually be cheap enough for art to exist again :P

The artists are alive and well - we're simply seeing a slow, decades-long process where different demographics ebb and flow in the different parts of a city. On a larger scale, we're also seeing a decades-long process where populations ebb and flow amongst different regions in response to economic pressure. Detroit has now established itself as perhaps the next "it" place in large part due to its affordability. I highly doubt America will ever run out of compelling environments for art to thrive.

FWIW, I'm a little skeptical about your Q train experience. I ride that train (and the F, more the F than the Q) regularly and have very, very rarely encountered that kind of attitude. IMO you're making a mountain out of a molehill - I would be very hesitant about guessing at demographics from it.

> "and realize the charm of the entire place is in danger of being lost."

Sure, and I'll agree with you - but my point also is that you weren't there first. Williamsburg was interesting and artsy before the new demographic moved in, but it was also completely different and interesting before the starving artists moved in. The existing charm you now miss was, in its time, an usurper of existing culture as well, and that turned out ok. I suspect this will also.

Yeah, I think we're for the most part in agreement here.

My main questions though are around what happens when the whole city becomes so expensive that it's impossible to live here on a budget. Sure, you can keep going further and further out, but at what point does it not make sense to even live here anymore, if you are an artist that wants to spend time creating and have no intention of trying to pull in 6 figure salaries? It's not like all of a sudden Chelsea got cheaper as Fort Greene got more expensive -- the entirety of Manhattan is out of reach, and now most of the western part of Brooklyn and Queens is as well.

I use the anecdote of the Q train not to make a generalization as to how the train is -- this was certainly an exception -- but to illustrate the fact that I'm finding myself unable to socially understand many of the current wave of people coming into the boroughs.

The charm I miss isn't really hipsters running around Williamsburg, in fact I don't miss that at all. It's more about the diversity of a place, both racially and economically. Seeing people drive down Union Street in Rolls Royces makes me second guess why I live here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com