Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 01-09-2018, 07:13 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 17,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Plutonium Kid View Post
Because the long time residents may not be able to find affordable housing elsewhere. Also, when you've really put down roots in a place, having to leave can be something of a trauma.
I genuinely hate to say this, but it isn’t the concern of a landlord whether tenants having to move because they can no longer afford rent is a tragedy. The real problem here is income inequality and the challenges (which are only going to increase) in vocational opportunities, which is a larger problem that results in destructive gentrification. It is going to become an even larger problem with an aging population entering retirement with less savings and an increasingly fragile social net combined with fewer family connections. Invoking some kind of generic disparagement about ‘gentrification’ is not particularly helpful, unless the idea is that we should send all of the elderly people without large retirement savings to ‘Bakersfield’, which I’m increasingly convinced is just a euphamism by the o.p. for sending people out in the corn field in the vein of It’s a Good Life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Plutonium Kid View Post
A return on an investment isn't necessarily measured in money. Just not adding dozens or hundreds of new homeless families to the existing population of them could reasonably be considered a good return.
Return on investment is a financial term that specifically refers to the measurement of profit in proportion to investment. You are discussing a different issue which for lack of a better term might be called socioeconomic homeostatis; the ability of people in a neighborhood to keep up with economic and social changes. This is, again, a larger societal problem than just hipsters and yuppies moving into Brooklyn and converting old apartment bulidings into expensive lofts or building waterfront condos.

Stranger
  #152  
Old 01-11-2018, 09:06 PM
Mosier Mosier is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Vegas
Posts: 7,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post
I argued briefly above that it's a negative because it lays the stress and trauma of forced relocation on people who are in the worst position to be able to handle forced relocation. What are your thoughts about that?
Sorry to reply so late, but I don't necessarily agree that the stress and trauma gentrification puts on poor people outweighs the benefits of a bigger local economy, rising wages, lower crime, and other ancillary benefits like more access to healthy food options, public transportation access, and better schools (among lots of other benefits too numerous to list).

I would argue that gentrification gives poor people more opportunity, not less. The solution to poverty isn't to give people money, because that money just ends up in the hands of people who increase rents to compensate for their tenants extra government money. The solution to poverty is to add more services, like housing which is owned by the government instead of slum lords who are subsidized by the government. You can't gentrify a government-owned apartment building!

Last edited by Mosier; 01-11-2018 at 09:07 PM.
  #153  
Old 01-12-2018, 05:58 AM
marshmallow marshmallow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
You fail to realize that gentrification is a classist and racist activity.
The police act as the militarized arm of real estate developers, and liberals turn into Murray Rothbard the second you question their civilizing mission:
Quote:
Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.
It's one of their weaker efforts if you ask me, but you might be interested in this Citations Needed episode about the casual use of settler-colonial rhetoric in real estate advertisements and the liberal press. My favorites include "urban pioneers," "Chicago safari," and cafe and restaurants with cutesy colonial names like The Hinterlands or The Outpost. Even in this thread you see the same logic that European settlers used -- these savages weren't cultivating the land properly, but then we came in and made it productive and safe.

The idea that Ross Perot would fix any of these problems is pretty unlikely. Capitalism isn't equipped to deal with situations like this. Maybe a social democracy with confiscatory wealth redistribution could help, but don't count on that happening in America any time soon.
  #154  
Old 01-12-2018, 06:24 AM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 26,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosier View Post
Sorry to reply so late, but I don't necessarily agree that the stress and trauma gentrification puts on poor people outweighs the benefits of a bigger local economy, rising wages, lower crime, and other ancillary benefits like more access to healthy food options, public transportation access, and better schools (among lots of other benefits too numerous to list).

I would argue that gentrification gives poor people more opportunity, not less. The solution to poverty isn't to give people money, because that money just ends up in the hands of people who increase rents to compensate for their tenants extra government money. The solution to poverty is to add more services, like housing which is owned by the government instead of slum lords who are subsidized by the government. You can't gentrify a government-owned apartment building!

Having seen gentrification is places like New York, Hoboken/Jersey City and Boston, I would tend to agree. Yes, some people get priced out of their decrepit homes, which are often bulldozed and replaced with Yuppie Ghettos on the Hudson. But what you do get are run down, often dangerous buildings being replaced by larger, nicer ones with greater capacity. The shops, bar, restaurants and services that move in provide jobs and actually make the neighborhood a place that people want to live in.

And, quite frankly, it's something that has to happen. You can't freeze neighborhoods in some arbitrary year and just keep building new ones on the periphery. You'll just end up with something like Detroit.
  #155  
Old 01-12-2018, 06:40 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 37,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosier View Post
Sorry to reply so late, but I don't necessarily agree that the stress and trauma gentrification puts on poor people outweighs the benefits of a bigger local economy, rising wages, lower crime, and other ancillary benefits like more access to healthy food options, public transportation access, and better schools (among lots of other benefits too numerous to list).
Barceloneta for the 1992 Olympics: people got expropiated out, sometimes given other housing in exchange but of course the new housing was in other areas of town, away from the friends and neighbors they'd known their whole lives. The Olympic Village was, unlike most of Barcelona, not designed as mixed-uses; it is seen as "a comercial desert" and scary to walk around at night.
Bad for the old neighbors and not particularly desirable for new ones.

Other areas in the Barcelona metro area get gentrified slowly; part of it is new buildings replacing old ones, part is old ones getting revamped. These revamps take place both flat by flat, and eventually the common areas; usually the common areas get done after several neighbors have already fixed their flats and they want things such as, oh, common electrical connections which can support their updated electrical without danger. Some of the prettier old buildings are acquired by the cities or by nonprofits and revamped for public use. There's a renewal but it's organic. The new buildings are restricted to the height of their neighbors: the new houses look new but don't scream at you, and like the old buildings have stores or small businesses on the ground floor. Part of this comes from lessons learned: many developers have figured out that a place doesn't just have to look attractive at noon but at midnight.

The same word, the same place, two completely different situations.
__________________
Life ain't peaches and cream, but sometimes it's laughing your ass off when you have no ass. - WhyNot

Last edited by Nava; 01-12-2018 at 06:45 AM.
  #156  
Old 01-12-2018, 08:37 AM
DesertDog DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 3,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosier View Post
You can't gentrify a government-owned apartment building!
Oh, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
At its peak, Cabrini–Green was home to 15,000 people, living in mid- and high-rise apartment buildings totaling 3,607 units. Over the years, crime, gang violence and neglect created deplorable living conditions for the residents, and "Cabrini–Green" became synonymous with the problems associated with public housing in the United States. The last of the buildings in Cabrini–Green were demolished in March 2011.
...
Over time, Cabrini–Green's location became increasingly desirable to private developers. Speculators began purchasing property immediately adjacent to the projects, with the expectation that the complex would eventually be demolished. Finally, in May 1995, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) took over management of the CHA and almost immediately began demolishing the first of the vacant "reds" buildings in Cabrini Extension, intending to make Chicago a showpiece of a new, mixed-income approach to public housing.
Sounds like gentrification to me.
  #157  
Old 01-13-2018, 01:21 AM
anomalous1 anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDog View Post
Oh, no?Sounds like gentrification to me.

I lived within 2 miles of this place when I was younger (now live about 3 miles from it as an adult), and went to high school down the street ( 5 blocks). That entire area was a shithole (yep, i've said it). When I was in high school there were 2 Cabrini buildings left, they used my [public] high school as a magnet for it and it was terrible, metal detectors never on, many people brought in weapons, gang violence (especially when it was warm) and not to mention lots and lots of drugs. Once they tore that abomination down, the crime in the neighborhood lifted, it looked nicer, the high school cleaned up and there are many many new stores and buildings, not to mention the biggest aspect. A neighborhood nobody would go near if they had a choice, now became SAFE! First hand look at the positive impact of gentrification.

Gentrification works out for the greater good.

Last edited by anomalous1; 01-13-2018 at 01:23 AM.
  #158  
Old 01-13-2018, 06:45 AM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 26,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post

The same word, the same place, two completely different situations.
I don't know if I would call the Barceloneta Olympics example "gentrification". To me, gentrification has an organic quality where the neighborhood gradually improves with an influx of high income residents and accompanying services and stores.

The Olympic Village sounds more like use of eminent domain to make bad, short-sighted land use decisions.

Not that the two can't go hand in hand. One form of gentrification I'm not crazy about is plopping a giant glass skyscraper in the middle of an otherwise dumpy neighborhood. They always make me think of the novel High Rise by J.G. Ballard.

Check out the contemporary luxury of the Cast Iron Lofts in the prestigious "SoHo West" neighborhood of Jersey City:
https://www.castironlofts.com/

Well, the reason for the selectively cropped pictures is that "SoHo West" would appear to consist of mostly vacant lots and old industrial buildings, conveniently located between where Rt 78 feeds into the Holland Tunnel and the Hoboken NJ Transit rail yards.
https://tinyurl.com/y7nzx45e

That's not really gentrification though, as there was nothing there before. A better example would be Pavonia Newport in Jersey City to the East. It has a very corporate feel. Mostly a big mall, some office towers (mostly back-office operations for investment banks) and a bunch of luxury high rise buildings where the residents come home after work and shut their doors.

Last edited by msmith537; 01-13-2018 at 06:47 AM.
  #159  
Old 01-13-2018, 07:52 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 37,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
I don't know if I would call the Barceloneta Olympics example "gentrification". To me, gentrification has an organic quality where the neighborhood gradually improves with an influx of high income residents and accompanying services and stores.
That would disqualify my second example as well then, since there is no influx of "accompanying services and stores" where the reason for the new stores is a higher average income. The stores change, but they've changed more to reflect a more-diverse ethnic background than a higher income; higher-range stores are becoming more and more concentrated downtown and in malls (the highest range ones are downtown).
__________________
Life ain't peaches and cream, but sometimes it's laughing your ass off when you have no ass. - WhyNot
  #160  
Old 01-13-2018, 09:28 AM
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
Typical scenarios

Gentrification doesn't happen - > people ask for money because the city neglects them because of some widespread conspiracy of racism

Gentrification does happen - > people ask for money to stay in their homes because the city is neglecting their community due to racism

Mixed Housing Happens - > people say its destroying their community and it is racism trying to squeeze them out slowly or not helping enough

Mixed Housing doesn't happen - > people say that their city is not giving them a chance and won't help them, also due to racism
.
I’ve noticed that mixed housing causes a whole set of other issues. The developer of a luxury condo will be required to - or agree to in exchange for other concessions - to include some affordable rental units in his luxury condo.
Then the freakout starts because the residents of the affordable units don’t have access to the luxury amenities like the spacious lobby with concierge services, the gym and swimming pool. All which the luxury residents pay a lot of money towards. And those affordable apartments are smaller than the luxury units and lack the expensive finishes. It becomes a scandal and everyone starts screaming discrimination because the developer isnt subsidizing a luxury lifestyle for his affordable unit tenants.

It’s counter-productive.

Years ago, when I was poor - this was in the early 1980s — I was right out of college and living in NYC on minimum wage. And I was living in a horrid roach infested tenement building that happened to be located in what had lately become desirable area. And it was a horrid railroad flat apartment, i was one of the lucky residents that had my own bathroom actually in my apartment.

And my landlord offered to buy out my rent controlled lease. I saw this as an opportunity to jump-start a better life for myself. But I was young and I thought I might need some help navigating in buy-out. So I went to a place that offered housing assistance to low-income people.

But all they were interested in doing was helping me dig in and fight my landlord tooth and nail for my right to continue to live in squalor ( a “right” I already had, NYC rent control was super-strict back in the day). When I told them I actually wanted to take the buy out and move, it was like I’d walked into Catholic Charities and asked for help with an abortion. So I did it myself. And I never regretted it.

And I want to add that I know people that have hung onto their rent controlled apartments for years. And none of them are remotely poor and most of them have used to money they save on market rent to do things like buy second homes. I see why they do it, they’re legally allowed, but it’s kind of disgraceful.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 01-13-2018 at 09:31 AM.
  #161  
Old 01-13-2018, 10:48 AM
doreen doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 5,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I’ve noticed that mixed housing causes a whole set of other issues. The developer of a luxury condo will be required to - or agree to in exchange for other concessions - to include some affordable rental units in his luxury condo.
Then the freakout starts because the residents of the affordable units don’t have access to the luxury amenities like the spacious lobby with concierge services, the gym and swimming pool. All which the luxury residents pay a lot of money towards. And those affordable apartments are smaller than the luxury units and lack the expensive finishes. It becomes a scandal and everyone starts screaming discrimination because the developer isnt subsidizing a luxury lifestyle for his affordable unit tenants.
You know what's interesting about that? I've never seen one of the people living in one of the affordable apartments complain about not having access to the amenities or having to use the "poor door". It's always other people getting offended on their behalf- the actual residents tend to take the attitude that they don't care about which door they use or that market rate tenants have access to more amenities because this is the best place they've ever lived.
  #162  
Old 01-13-2018, 11:16 AM
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
You know what's interesting about that? I've never seen one of the people living in one of the affordable apartments complain about not having access to the amenities or having to use the "poor door". It's always other people getting offended on their behalf- the actual residents tend to take the attitude that they don't care about which door they use or that market rate tenants have access to more amenities because this is the best place they've ever lived.
Agreed. And it’s a shame, because that mixed use housing is one of the best, if not a perfect, solution to the displacement problem. Buts it’s going to be so fraught with bad publicity for the “evil” real estate developers that they hesitate to do it.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 01-13-2018 at 11:16 AM.
  #163  
Old 01-13-2018, 11:22 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 37,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I’ve noticed that mixed housing causes a whole set of other issues. The developer of a luxury condo will be required to - or agree to in exchange for other concessions - to include some affordable rental units in his luxury condo.
The whole Eixample of Barcelona was developed as what you're calling "mixed housing", although not even the most luxurious apartment buildings in Spain are expected to have a private gym. Nowadays you can have mixed housing by having buildings including flats of different sizes and/or with large terraces (which carry a premium); the top flats may even be duplexes. Also, we don't even have the condo situation (I find myself explaining it any time the news say something about some actor not being allowed to "buy" an apartment in NYC): sometimes a building's HOA owns an apartment and rents it out (usually, it used to be the concierge's), but in general either you own or you rent. No condos, and the HOA can't veto anybody.

The Eixample was revolutionary in many ways: it was developed with large streets way before cars became commonplace, the cut-off corners provide good visibility, it included many green areas (the original design had ever block being a double block with a park in between), all flats are airy and easy to ventilate... but the fact that the same building could have the owners living in the first floor (high ceilings, a flat which occupied the whole floor) and renters of different socioeconomic status in each floor (the ceilings got lower and so did the rents) was in many ways even more of a revolution. What I've described is the situation when my grandparents got the flat where I always knew them, in 1938; they bought it from the original owner's heirs using a rent-to-pay scheme that's very favorable to both parts in 1963.
__________________
Life ain't peaches and cream, but sometimes it's laughing your ass off when you have no ass. - WhyNot

Last edited by Nava; 01-13-2018 at 11:27 AM.
  #164  
Old 01-13-2018, 11:42 AM
Eva Luna Eva Luna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago-ish, IL
Posts: 10,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Also, we don't even have the condo situation (I find myself explaining it any time the news say something about some actor not being allowed to "buy" an apartment in NYC): sometimes a building's HOA owns an apartment and rents it out (usually, it used to be the concierge's), but in general either you own or you rent. No condos, and the HOA can't veto anybody.
What you're talking about is a co-op, not a condo. In a co-op, the board can veto potential buyers. Co-ops are much more common in the NYC area, not so much in other places. In a condo, the board normally does not have the right to refuse buyers. Condos are more common in most of the country. Where I live, for example, there are practically no co-ops and it's almost impossible to get mortgages for them (and even when you can find a mortgage, down payments are normally much higher). The legal structure of a co-op is that when you purchase a unit, you are purchasing shares in the company that owns the building. In most of the U.S., when there is discussion of buying a condo, it's what you're thinking of as the default for buying an apartment.
  #165  
Old 01-13-2018, 11:46 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 37,779
Except that in Spain it is not possible to have some of the common areas be available to some owners and not others. It's common area, it's co-owned. No "these people get the nice door, these don't"; no "these have access to the pool, these don't". If there is a pool it's for everybody; in fact, it is owned by everybody. So it may be similar but it's not the same.
__________________
Life ain't peaches and cream, but sometimes it's laughing your ass off when you have no ass. - WhyNot

Last edited by Nava; 01-13-2018 at 11:47 AM.
  #166  
Old 01-13-2018, 11:57 AM
doreen doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 5,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
The whole Eixample of Barcelona was developed as what you're calling "mixed housing", although not even the most luxurious apartment buildings in Spain are expected to have a private gym. Nowadays you can have mixed housing by having buildings including flats of different sizes and/or with large terraces (which carry a premium); the top flats may even be duplexes. Also, we don't even have the condo situation (I find myself explaining it any time the news say something about some actor not being allowed to "buy" an apartment in NYC): sometimes a building's HOA owns an apartment and rents it out (usually, it used to be the concierge's), but in general either you own or you rent. No condos, and the HOA can't veto anybody.

I believe Ann Hedonia is using mixed housing to describe something differnt that you are. She's using it to describe not a mix of different types of apartments ( with or without a balcony or terrace, or apartments of different sizes) but a building where in exchange for tax breaks or zoning variances a developer has set aside a certain percentage of apartments to be "affordable" while the others are market rate. For example in this building the rent for affordable studio apartments will range from $519 to $1967 - and the market rate apartments will be even higher. Those studios will be the same size and the $1967 a month affordable units will be no different from the $519 a month affordable units - the difference in rent is based on the tenant's income.


These are usually rental buildings, not condos or coops, so it's not a matter of some owners not having access to certain amenities, it's a matter of certain tenants not having access included in their rent ( they can sometimes pay an additional fee)

Last edited by doreen; 01-13-2018 at 12:01 PM.
  #167  
Old 01-13-2018, 12:53 PM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 37,779
Right, that's what I'm saying. That what Ann Hedonia is describing wouldn't even be possible in Spain. Or, from what I know, in many other Western European countries (if it's possible in any).
__________________
Life ain't peaches and cream, but sometimes it's laughing your ass off when you have no ass. - WhyNot
  #168  
Old 01-13-2018, 01:59 PM
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
I believe Ann Hedonia is using mixed housing to describe something differnt that you are. She's using it to describe not a mix of different types of apartments ( with or without a balcony or terrace, or apartments of different sizes) but a building where in exchange for tax breaks or zoning variances a developer has set aside a certain percentage of apartments to be "affordable" while the others are market rate. For example in this building the rent for affordable studio apartments will range from $519 to $1967 - and the market rate apartments will be even higher. Those studios will be the same size and the $1967 a month affordable units will be no different from the $519 a month affordable units - the difference in rent is based on the tenant's income.


These are usually rental buildings, not condos or coops, so it's not a matter of some owners not having access to certain amenities, it's a matter of certain tenants not having access included in their rent ( they can sometimes pay an additional fee)
Here is an example of what I’m describing.

https://www.brickunderground.com/blo..._door_building

Affordable rentals in a luxury condo building. If you rent an apartment in the affordable section, you get amenities in line with a mid-priced rental building, including a laundry room and a community room. And the affordable housing has a separate entrance on the cross street. And the rent is considerably lower than other mid-priced rentals in the very expensive neighborhood.

The condos start at 3.6 million and the owners of those condos have access to a host of amenities. And I’m sure, in addition to buying the apartments , they pay for those amenities with common charges that are more than the rent charged for the affordable units.

Yet, somehow the renters in the affordable section are supposed to feel insulted that they can’t use the pool, gym and rock climbing wall. Like Doreen said, most of the actual renters are actually elated to get such a good deal on the apartment. Yet, the first line of this article is “Whats more important, your dignity or cheap rent?”

FYI, while NYC apartments for purchase have traditionally been co-ops, most of the new buildings are condos. They are more desirable because they are less restrictive and generally cost about 30% more. So developers prefer the condo model. The co-ops are traditionally converted rental buildings.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 01-13-2018 at 02:01 PM.
  #169  
Old 01-13-2018, 04:22 PM
anomalous1 anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,164
Thanks for sharing that Ann Hedonia, that is a very fresh perspective on this subject.
  #170  
Old 01-18-2018, 10:37 AM
epolo epolo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Here is an example of what I’m describing.

https://www.brickunderground.com/blo..._door_building

Affordable rentals in a luxury condo building. If you rent an apartment in the affordable section, you get amenities in line with a mid-priced rental building, including a laundry room and a community room. And the affordable housing has a separate entrance on the cross street. And the rent is considerably lower than other mid-priced rentals in the very expensive neighborhood.

The condos start at 3.6 million and the owners of those condos have access to a host of amenities. And I’m sure, in addition to buying the apartments , they pay for those amenities with common charges that are more than the rent charged for the affordable units.

Yet, somehow the renters in the affordable section are supposed to feel insulted that they can’t use the pool, gym and rock climbing wall. Like Doreen said, most of the actual renters are actually elated to get such a good deal on the apartment. Yet, the first line of this article is “Whats more important, your dignity or cheap rent?”

FYI, while NYC apartments for purchase have traditionally been co-ops, most of the new buildings are condos. They are more desirable because they are less restrictive and generally cost about 30% more. So developers prefer the condo model. The co-ops are traditionally converted rental buildings.


Yes. But...

Part of the point of affordable housing quotas is social engineering. The idea is that rubbing shoulders with the people who buy $4M condos might just provide opportunities that the renters would not otherwise have. And vice versa, provide rich condo owners with perspectives they might not otherwise see. If they’re kept separate, you loose that whole benefit. At that point, why not let the developers put the affordable apartments in another neighborhood altogether? Also, I don’t think it’s fair to handwave away the psychological impact of creating an Upstairs/Downstairs dynamic.

Thinking back to your earlier post about rent control, I believe that NYC’s strict rent control was a significant factor in how the City came through the ‘70s and ‘80s without completely hollowing out like Detroit. Yes, many people who didn’t strictly speaking require low rents received them. But they were the exact middle class people who were fleeing other metro centers. Rent control kept them where they were through the worst years and many of them fought to bring their neighborhoods back. Overall, I think as a policy rent control tends to moderate the pace of change in the real estate market and leans against both gentrification and de-gentrification (white flight).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Morpheme Addict
  #171  
Old 01-18-2018, 10:58 AM
epolo epolo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
Typical scenarios

Gentrification doesn't happen - > people ask for money because the city neglects them because of some widespread conspiracy of racism

Gentrification does happen - > people ask for money to stay in their homes because the city is neglecting their community due to racism

Mixed Housing Happens - > people say its destroying their community and it is racism trying to squeeze them out slowly or not helping enough

Mixed Housing doesn't happen - > people say that their city is not giving them a chance and won't help them, also due to racism
It’s almost as if there’s some other underlying problem in American society of which much of the challenge of gentrification is really just a symptom.

Quote:
report gang activity anonymously...All free or nearly free to do these things!

Nope, can’t think of any potential costs.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Morpheme Addict
  #172  
Old 01-23-2018, 04:36 PM
Nadnerb Nadnerb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Undisclosed location
Posts: 111
Well to provide a blanket argument, I will say that gentrification is used as a weapon against the working class. Once the neighborhood is gentrified the neighborhood is no longer affordable for the long time residents.
  #173  
Old 01-23-2018, 06:16 PM
Aspidistra Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by epolo View Post
Yes. But...

Part of the point of affordable housing quotas is social engineering. The idea is that rubbing shoulders with the people who buy $4M condos might just provide opportunities that the renters would not otherwise have. And vice versa, provide rich condo owners with perspectives they might not otherwise see. If they’re kept separate, you loose that whole benefit. At that point, why not let the developers put the affordable apartments in another neighborhood altogether?
I think you can't discount how much people interact with others in their community even if they don't actually live next door to each other. In my town we have a bunch of dingy housing estates accidentally right in the middle of some of the richest most yuppified real estate in the country - 'accidentally' because when these buildings were built 50 years ago, the area was working-class. I don't think they would have done it if they'd realised real estate would be about a hundred times more expensive within a generation, but as it turns out it seems to work fine. You don't have social mixing from actual neighbors, but nevertheless the Estates folk have access to the same (excellent) public transport, use the same libraries, take their kids to the same parks, and get their teens part-time jobs in the same supermarkets. (Not so much 'send their kids to the same school' but you can easily fill up an entire primary school from just one high-rise, so you can't have everything...)
  #174  
Old 01-23-2018, 06:44 PM
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 20,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
Well to provide a blanket argument, I will say that gentrification is used as a weapon against the working class. Once the neighborhood is gentrified the neighborhood is no longer affordable for the long time residents.
My neighborhood is gentrifying, slowly, house by house, shop by shop. Who is wielding this weapon and how did they gain access to it? When I bought my house, was I wielding the weapon, an innocent bystander, or a willing accomplice?
  #175  
Old 01-23-2018, 08:29 PM
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by epolo View Post
Yes. But...

Part of the point of affordable housing quotas is social engineering. The idea is that rubbing shoulders with the people who buy $4M condos might just provide opportunities that the renters would not otherwise have. And vice versa, provide rich condo owners with perspectives they might not otherwise see. If they’re kept separate, you loose that whole benefit. At that point, why not let the developers put the affordable apartments in another neighborhood altogether? Also, I don’t think it’s fair to handwave away the psychological impact of creating an Upstairs/Downstairs dynamic.

Thinking back to your earlier post about rent control, I believe that NYC’s strict rent control was a significant factor in how the City came through the ‘70s and ‘80s without completely hollowing out like Detroit. Yes, many people who didn’t strictly speaking require low rents received them. But they were the exact middle class people who were fleeing other metro centers. Rent control kept them where they were through the worst years and many of them fought to bring their neighborhoods back. Overall, I think as a policy rent control tends to moderate the pace of change in the real estate market and leans against both gentrification and de-gentrification (white flight).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Even if the affordable housing is around the corner, the residents are still going to the same schools, shopping at the same stores and walking down the same streets. And, despite the rhetoric, it’s not like the affordable housing residents are entering through the service entrance and walking past the garbage cans. It’s a perfectly nice entrance on the cross street, it’s really like there are two separate apartment buildings under the same roof. Just like you might find a luxury building next door to a mostly rent-controlled middle-income building all throughout the neighborhood.

This building and other buildings in the same One Riverside Park complex have a really extensive set of sports related amenities -this is why these building are always featured in the poor door controversy. But these amenities are not paid for by some mystery developer or landlord - the owners of the condos pay for the operation of the sports complex. I found two listings in the 50 Riverside Park building which is a twin of 40 Riverside Park, poor door and all. The monthly common charges were about $3200 and $7750, respectively.

That is way higher than the common charges for other high end buildings without those amenities.and the lower number is about 3x the rent on the largest affordable unit.

They are private citizens and I don’t see why they should be compelled to donate an expensive luxury gym membership to their neighbors.

And their were $88,000+ applicants for the 55 units at 50 Riverside. Probably because the rent is about %30 of market value.

FYI - I own an apartment in NYC and I’m a member of the co-op board. I used to be board president but politics. But Im reasonably well versed in NYC real estate.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 01-23-2018 at 08:32 PM.
  #176  
Old 01-23-2018, 10:01 PM
Bruce Wayne Bruce Wayne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
Well to provide a blanket argument, I will say that gentrification is used as a weapon against the working class. Once the neighborhood is gentrified the neighborhood is no longer affordable for the long time residents.
Over half of working class people/families own homes, albeit at a decreasing rate, according to this cite. Gentrification is only an all bad scenerio if your a renter who is forced out. If your a home owner, you might see an increase in property taxes but you will also get an increased home value. I would love it if my area “gentrified” and I could sell my home for significantly more than I purchased it for.
  #177  
Old 01-24-2018, 11:10 AM
epolo epolo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Even if the affordable housing is around the corner, the residents are still going to the same schools, shopping at the same stores and walking down the same streets. And, despite the rhetoric, it’s not like the affordable housing residents are entering through the service entrance and walking past the garbage cans. It’s a perfectly nice entrance on the cross street, it’s really like there are two separate apartment buildings under the same roof. Just like you might find a luxury building next door to a mostly rent-controlled middle-income building all throughout the neighborhood.
...
They are private citizens and I don’t see why they should be compelled to donate an expensive luxury gym membership to their neighbors.
...
FYI - I own an apartment in NYC and I’m a member of the co-op board. I used to be board president but politics. But Im reasonably well versed in NYC real estate.
There’s a psychological impact to offering people benefits and taking them away or putting potential benefits just out of reach. You’re not any worse off than if the benefits were never mentioned in the first place but you feel the loss just the same.

If the common maintenance charges were raised to subsidize the renters, I can’t imagine it would put any dent in the demand for the condos. This is NYC real estate - it’s not that elastic.

Same here - on the board at my last building.

(Note, snipped quote for length)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Morpheme Addict
  #178  
Old 01-24-2018, 11:37 AM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 5,970
So we should take others' money and give it to people because they "feel the loss" of not having a climbing gym? I'd like a climbing gym too. There's a solution to that; I can earn more and pay for one myself.
  #179  
Old 01-24-2018, 11:43 AM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 5,970
Oh for fucks sake I just looked this building up. It's in Manhattan. Nobody needs to live in Manhattan, and most people who work there do not. It is an optional luxury that does not need to be subsidized.
  #180  
Old 01-24-2018, 12:25 PM
Nadnerb Nadnerb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Undisclosed location
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Oh for fucks sake I just looked this building up. It's in Manhattan. Nobody needs to live in Manhattan, and most people who work there do not. It is an optional luxury that does not need to be subsidized.
You are somehow right. Manhattan has like always been so expensive, and if you live there you either have to live in a super expensive place or government housing. Brooklyn used to be the cheaper borough to live in until the gentrification took over. Now so many people are moving out of Brooklyn as a result. The Bronx could be much cheaper by now.
  #181  
Old 01-24-2018, 02:03 PM
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by epolo View Post
There’s a psychological impact to offering people benefits and taking them away or putting potential benefits just out of reach. You’re not any worse off than if the benefits were never mentioned in the first place but you feel the loss just the same.

If the common maintenance charges were raised to subsidize the renters, I can’t imagine it would put any dent in the demand for the condos. This is NYC real estate - it’s not that elastic.

Same here - on the board at my last building.

(Note, snipped quote for length)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t see them as being any more out of reach than if they were located in the building next door. There is a building across from mine has a gorgeous rooftop terrace. I suffer absolutely no angst over not being able to use this terrace even though I see it every time I look out the window or step out onto my tiny little terrace.

And I did a little more googling on that building. While 40 Riverside is all condos, some of the other buildings in the complex have luxury full-priced rentals. If you own a condo, the gym membership is included in your common charges. This is not necessarily a good thing from the owners POV. Many of them are paying for an amenity they will never use.
The building does this in order to guarantee that there will be enough revenue to keep the gym open. I have seen similar arrangements in luxury buildings that have a common dining room that serves dinner nightly ( usually Upper East Side buildings that cater to older people aka “Gods Waiting Room” ). The residents have to pay for a certain number of meals whether they use them or not.

But the gym membership is optional for full-pay rental tenants. It costs $500 a month. The average full price rental runs $77 per square foot. I see rental listings for 1 bedroom apartments in the 4K to 5K per month range and there is a large 3 bedroom 4 bath unit listed for $16,500.00 a month. This prices do not include the gym membership.

By contrast, it looks like the rent for a one bedroom in the affordable section is $895 a month. So I think that if any tenant feels there dignity is compromised because their wealthy neighbors won’t give them a $500 a month luxe gym membership, they are free to retain their dignity by renting a crappy one bedroom for around 3K a month. There are 87,999 other people who applied.

And this isn’t really about gentrification. The “gentrification” of the ”lower” Upper West Side happened in the 1960’s. Now it’s just a really nice neighborhood that also has lots of long time rent controlled apartments.
  #182  
Old 04-13-2018, 12:22 PM
Nadnerb Nadnerb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Undisclosed location
Posts: 111
I’ve just came across a video about how Boston’s Chinatown is under threat of gentrification. Well if the Chinatown gentrifies, then it will no longer be a Chinatown. Instead it will become a neighborhood consisting almost exclusively of affluent white people. So there you see some of the negative consequences of gentrification.

https://youtu.be/7bi4jSzEttI
  #183  
Old 04-13-2018, 12:42 PM
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,373
It's only a negative if you think Chinatown is better than a neighborhood of affluent white people.
  #184  
Old 04-13-2018, 01:16 PM
Nadnerb Nadnerb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Undisclosed location
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
It's only a negative if you think Chinatown is better than a neighborhood of affluent white people.
I should at least tell you that there’s nothing wrong with having a Chinatown. Chinatowns are often well kept and they always thrive well. So if you want to know why gentrification is bad, then it’s because it can threaten well kept neighborhoods as well. All those affluent whites should instead live in those expensive suburban communities.
  #185  
Old 04-13-2018, 01:53 PM
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,373
"Go back to the suburbs, Whitey!"
  #186  
Old 04-13-2018, 01:55 PM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
All those affluent whites should instead live in those expensive suburban communities.
Isn't that white flight, that drains the cities of much-needed tax revenue?
  #187  
Old 04-13-2018, 02:04 PM
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,373
Combining this and other threads, it looks like if white people leave a neighborhood, it reduces taxes collected, lowers school performance, and upheaves communities, therefore it is a case of bad "white flight". However, once they are gone, they are not allowed to come back because it increases taxes, home values, and school performance through the evil process of "gentrification"

Or something.
  #188  
Old 04-13-2018, 02:15 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 22,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
I should at least tell you that there’s nothing wrong with having a Chinatown. Chinatowns are often well kept and they always thrive well. So if you want to know why gentrification is bad, then it’s because it can threaten well kept neighborhoods as well. All those affluent whites should instead live in those expensive suburban communities.
Do you consider yourself to have prejudiced views on race?
  #189  
Old 04-13-2018, 02:38 PM
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 20,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
I’ve just came across a video about how Boston’s Chinatown is under threat of gentrification.
You mean the Chinatown that used to be on the edge of the Combat Zone, Boston's Red Light District? The current Chinatown is quite gentrified from the Chinatown I grew up near.

Last edited by Telemark; 04-13-2018 at 02:38 PM.
  #190  
Old 04-15-2018, 03:19 PM
Aspidistra Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
I’ve just came across a video about how Boston’s Chinatown is under threat of gentrification. Well if the Chinatown gentrifies, then it will no longer be a Chinatown. Instead it will become a neighborhood consisting almost exclusively of affluent white people. So there you see some of the negative consequences of gentrification.

https://youtu.be/7bi4jSzEttI
Don't Chinese people become affluent where you come from?
  #191  
Old 04-15-2018, 03:28 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 82,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
I should at least tell you that there’s nothing wrong with having a Chinatown. Chinatowns are often well kept and they always thrive well. So if you want to know why gentrification is bad, then it’s because it can threaten well kept neighborhoods as well. All those affluent whites should instead live in those expensive suburban communities.
Are there any other neighborhoods you want to keep segregated besides Chinatowns and Expensive, White Suburban Communities?
  #192  
Old 04-16-2018, 12:40 PM
Nadnerb Nadnerb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Undisclosed location
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Are there any other neighborhoods you want to keep segregated besides Chinatowns and Expensive, White Suburban Communities?
Um it’s the gentrified neighborhoods that are segregated. They are almost exclusively white, with little or no people of color. Just take a look at Brixton in London. All the blacks that lived there are just about gone and they have been largely replaced by whites.
  #193  
Old 04-16-2018, 12:59 PM
Johnny Bravo Johnny Bravo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
All those affluent whites should instead live in those expensive suburban communities.
Okay.

So let's imagine an affluent family: the Smiths.

The Smiths decide that they would like to move to Ethnictown, USA. They've found a beautiful old home at a great price. The owners are willing to sell.

Who should be enforcing your point of view? Should the federal government step in and kibosh the sale? Should the local government require racial background checks before allowing sales in historic neighborhoods?

What, exactly, is your solution? "Revitalization" is not a solution, because that's not going to stop your Affluent White People from buying property in neighborhoods they see as desirable.
  #194  
Old 04-16-2018, 04:35 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 56,918
Poor people should be dropped into the machinery of industry so their blood can oil the gears.


...err, ahh.... by which I mean I favour subsidized housing for urban dwellers, but not if it accelerates decay.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #195  
Old 04-16-2018, 04:52 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 82,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
Um it’s the gentrified neighborhoods that are segregated. They are almost exclusively white, with little or no people of color. Just take a look at Brixton in London. All the blacks that lived there are just about gone and they have been largely replaced by whites.
Um, that's dodge, not an answer to the question. You want to keep Chinatown as Chinatown. Is it OK if less affluent white people move there as long as they don't improve the housing? How much improvement, if any, can a white person do if she moves into Chinatown?

Don't tell me about other places. Tell me about your plan for Chinatown. What is and is not allowed, according to you?
  #196  
Old 04-16-2018, 06:01 PM
Nadnerb Nadnerb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Undisclosed location
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo View Post
Okay.

So let's imagine an affluent family: the Smiths.

The Smiths decide that they would like to move to Ethnictown, USA. They've found a beautiful old home at a great price. The owners are willing to sell.

Who should be enforcing your point of view? Should the federal government step in and kibosh the sale? Should the local government require racial background checks before allowing sales in historic neighborhoods?

What, exactly, is your solution? "Revitalization" is not a solution, because that's not going to stop your Affluent White People from buying property in neighborhoods they see as desirable.
You didn’t take a look at the references I cited.
  #197  
Old 04-16-2018, 08:08 PM
Johnny Bravo Johnny Bravo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,277
You (presumably) didn't write those references. I want to know Nadnerb's solution.
  #198  
Old 04-16-2018, 09:31 PM
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 20,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
You didn’t take a look at the references I cited.
Have you ever been to Boston's Chinatown? It used to be a pit. It's much nicer now, and there is excellent Chinese culture moving out further from the city.
  #199  
Old 04-16-2018, 11:58 PM
Leaper Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,300
To get things straight, would “gentrification” as a term describe what’s happening to San Francisco and the Bay Area’s housing markets? What about Hawaii, where housing is being bought up by outside investors and buyers looking for AirB&B cash cows? My instinct tells me that these are different, but I want to be sure.

What do people think happens to all the former residents who can’t afford the gentrified area anymore and are forced to leave? It seems to me that, as a housing issue, it’s not doing any better than just shifting the problem around like three card monte. So I would hesitate to unflinchingly call it a universally “good thing.”
  #200  
Old 04-20-2018, 08:55 PM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 26,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
To get things straight, would “gentrification” as a term describe what’s happening to San Francisco and the Bay Area’s housing markets? What about Hawaii, where housing is being bought up by outside investors and buyers looking for AirB&B cash cows? My instinct tells me that these are different, but I want to be sure.
I feel this phenomenon is more like "Amazonification", at least in San Francisco.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017