Gentrification May Actually Be Boon To Longtime Residents
npr.org
npr.org
For them, gentrification is definitely a bad thing.
Edit: Reference here on page 25: http://aaablogs.uoregon.edu/visualculturesymposium/files/201...
That squares with the recent study[1] by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
"We're finding that the financial health of original residents in gentrifying neighborhoods seems to be increasing, as compared to original residents in nongentrifying, low-priced neighborhoods," says Daniel Hartley, a research economist with the bank.
He looked at the credit scores of original residents and found that they went up — regardless of whether they rented or owned — compared with residents who stayed in nongentrifying neighborhoods.
From the OP.
[1] http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/trends/2013/1113/01rege...
The conclusion could equally well be 'As a distinct factor, neighborhood influences risk score by 1.5 points'
"Another way to cut the data is to compare movers and nonmovers across gentrifying and nongentrifying neighborhoods. Interestingly, there is a slightly larger increase in credit score (1.5 points more) associated with residents of the gentrifying neighborhoods who moved to a different neighborhood relative to those who lived in a gentrifying neighborhood but did not move. So it appears that, on average, movers are even slightly more positively affected by gentrification than nonmovers."
That paragraph still fails to specify whether this applies only to homeowners and renters, or whether that still holds when looking just at rentership. We have "original resident renters living in gentrifying neighborhood benefit", and we have "movers overall benefit", but that doesn't necessarily imply "original resident renters who (were forced to) move benefit."
Did you consider maybe reading it?
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 that protected them from rent increases.
Let's just have things stay crappy and life will be fair to all.
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 traditional working-class neighborhoods (Potrero Hill in SF). Being populated by immigrants or working-class folks doesn't make a neighborhood run-down.
Second, what does it mean to "fix up" a neighborhood? I'd argue it's really just replacing the historic culture with the culture of the new residents (which is usually rich, mostly white people). Sure, one nice effect is a huge reduction in crime, but you're also often replacing historic establishments with rich people tropes (e.g. Murry's -> Whole Foods). Harlem will probably be a really safe place to be in 20 years, but isn't it going to be a little bit of a shame when the Apollo gets replaced with a coffee shop?
IMO, current residents have no more of a right to live somewhere than any newcomer.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
In other words, how was the neighborhood before it was crappy and how did it become so?
If the displaced want to cast this as a class war, follow through on the metaphor. Profiteering is considered criminal in times of war. Those profiting from the influx of money need to be held accountable.
Personally, I don't really blame anyone, although I chuckle at the fact that there are people who want to pretend that they're poor while demanding luxuries used by 1% of the world.
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.
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.
Assumption 1: The residents are the people who ran down the neighborhood.
Assumption 2: Gentrification improves the neighborhood.
My previous comment addresses the first assumption. Feel free to disagree.
If a neighborhood is just real estate, assumption two is valid. If a neighborhood is a community of people, and gentrification moves a lot of the people, you have not improved the neighborhood, you displaced it.
Once we question these assumptions, perhaps we can address the root problems.
Maybe; maybe not. If crime and other social and environmental ills are reduced after the previous inhabitants have been displaced, I'd contend it's an improvement.
On one hand, overall crime in the U.S. is down and crime in New York City is really down.
I just wonder, is the goal of gentrification to fix neighborhood's ills or cheap rent in a cool area that happens to be a fantastic real estate investment?
I'm having a hard time understanding how moving people from the suburbs to the inner city and back improves anything aside from a specific geographic area for a while.
Even Paris is becoming too Parisienne for Paris!
http://eater.com/archives/2013/01/02/the-oldest-bakery-in-pa...
"For the purpose of this analysis, I will say a neighborhood is gentrifying if it is located in the central city of a metropolitan area and it goes from being in the bottom half of the distribution of home prices in the metropolitan area to the top half between 2000 and 2007. Housing prices are a good measure of gentrification since they provide a summary of the various amenities in the neighborhood. Changes in neighborhood amenities such as increases in school quality or decreases in crime should be reflected in changes in neighborhood home prices."
Again: Entirely based on home prices (reasonable), but not on home price improvement, but instead based on passing from the lower half of the entire distribution of prices in a metropolitan area to the upper half. This could happen if housing prices declined in an area if the mean price in the metro declined slightly faster. This is not what normal people are talking about when they refer to gentrification.
DC is particularly bad in this regard.
For example, I heard of a neighborhood ballpark that was used for decades by Latino children to play ball. The newcomers with dogs would chuck their dog's droppings over the fence and onto the ballpark.
Latinos who used to play dominos outside at another park. Until they were continually harassed by cops to stop gathering in a public area to play dominos. Seems like the newcomers didn't like the bodega feel when they were out walking their dogs.
See also: "Inside the Barista Class"
http://www.theawl.com/2014/03/the-service-economy-trap-insid...
If you substitute 'newcomers' with 'foreigners', and 'Latino' with 'white', your post reads as exactly the same xenophobic screed I've heard over and over for years.
Although to be fair that's the fallacy fallacy.
The choice is often moving from one bad neighborhood to another. Moving is expensive and a hassle for everyone, it's no wonder people don't want to move without a strong incentive.
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.
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 entitlement or a right all you want. Go ahead. But in cases like this it's an incredible hollow gesture.
But I'll bite.
> The newcomers with dogs would chuck their dog's droppings over the fence and onto the ballpark.
This seems more like douchebaggery than entitlement. If I had to hazard a guess, douchebaggery isn't limited to gentrifiers.
> Seems like the newcomers didn't like the bodega feel when they were out walking their dogs.
Seems like a function of (middle-to-upper-class) western life and its disappearing third places. But perhaps playing dominoes in the park is illegal?
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.
The main effect is you have families cashing out and moving further and further away from the city to put the real estate price differentials to good use (bigger house, or cash in bank). In the current environment, it actually makes zero sense to buy residential property for the sake of renting it out, so the only ones who are long time owners. Over time, they too will cash out and it will be harder to find rentals until the neighbourhood either increases in status to command higher rates (like what happened in Kensington Market or in the Bellwood neighbourhood), or the property prices start falling to a low enough level that it makes sense to buy rental property again.
I lived in a very gentrified area of Washington for period. It was very weird. You are pushing out the poor people and you both want to pretend you do not notice. I believe saying the opposite is disingenuous.
The only real issue that comes to mind is the owner of a home on a fixed income having to pay higher property taxes because the area around them is improving. I can think of lots of ways to mitigate this problem ... but I'm asking about other problems of which I know nothing.