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?
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.
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.
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.