Gentrification is bad, 'mmkay. But what happens to

In London they mostly come from the suburbs, other parts of the UK or other countries in Europe. The British ones tend to leave no empty homes because they just lived in their parents’ homes or student halls before moving to the poorer areas of the city. They’re usually from richer families who can give them substantial amounts of money for a deposit on a home.

What if you live in said place, but don’t own a home? For example, in London there’s a lot of social housing. It used to be that social housing tenants, if they earnt enough, could move out and buy a place without having to move away - and moving away means changing job, changing your kids’ schools, and leaving your community. Now we can’t. The homes in my area have increased by 1800% in twenty years. No, that’s not an extra zero, that’s the increase.

It also means the children of locals can’t afford to stay in the area, often even when renting. So they either reluctantly stay at home, often sharing bedrooms, until well into adulthood, or move so far away that they can’t help their parents when they fall ill and can’t get parental help with childcare, you know the sort of thing.

The thing with gentrification is that, like with immigration, there’s nothing bad behind the motivations of those moving in, and often it’s even a laudable motive, but it’s ridiculous to pretend that the people who are already there won’t be affected. Some of my best friends are hipsters :(:D) and I don’t think they’re bad people or anything, but them using their family money to move here has caused problems for me.

Gentrification also tends to change the local demographics so that the locals still there don’t have the choices they once had. A lot of the businesses near me, useful businesses like ironmonger’s or mechanics’ yards or stationers’, have now been turned into coffee shops, bars and clubs (often private members’ clubs) that I can’t afford to use and that create a lot of noise at night in an area that was once actually fairly quiet at night. That’s because hipsters tend to be young and childless - they move further out to get more space and a garden within a couple of years after they have kids.

BTW I am SO extremely local that my Grandad lived on this exact street and some of my ancestors lived in this borough going back to at least 1420. I think anyone’s who’s been here for ten years or more and put down roots can say “my city,” really, but by any standards I certainly can.

And now I’m trying to move out and, like someone above said, am hampered by the lack of public transport in areas I could afford to move to (I’m disabled and can’t drive, and so is my daughter), and also I’d be leaving my work, my partner’s work, my daughter’s school, my hospital, etc, and would have to start over again. All because other people from other places drove the places up where my family has lived for pretty much ever.

I know people are forced to do that all the time, but let’s not pretend they like it or that it isn’t without its problems.

Also, you talk about decayed neighbourhoods; my area was not decayed before and isn’t now. It’s just that people started noticing that and took advantage of it.

Another effect of gentrification that other people have mentioned - small old buildings being knocked down to build tall new buildings in their place. For the people already there, that means years of roadwork noise, roads closed off for the works - a pavement has been cut off increasing the walk to the main road from two minutes to ten - and in the end a lot less daylight for the flats and houses in their lea. And the flats cost ridiculous sums - I’m talking £600,000 for a one-bed - so it’s not like you could choose to move in to one of them.

And then there are suddenly 250 flats where there was once one pub and a few tradesman’s workshops (a real development on my road) so when it’s finished there will be even less parking than there is now. It’s technically “car-free” - no residents’ permits given to the tenants of the new flats - but visitors’ permits mean that the forty or so spaces in our zone will be easily gobbled up at the weekend. Disabled residents who need to use a car will not be able to park. And I mean not be able to park at all, realistically - there’s nowhere else to go unless you want to pay £6ph to park in another zone and shuffle your disabled arse from there. I don’t know what the council proposes to do about that; probably nothing.

The people moving into those flats won’t be aware of any of these problems and will just think the locals are moaning but I bet they wouldn’t like it if it happened to them.

Well I dont know too much about LA. Arent places like Burbank, Beverly Hills, Venice Beach, and such separate cities?

What we call “Kansas City” is really a big metro area that covers both Missouri and Kansas. It used to be “Kansas City” only meant Kansas City Missouri. Overland Park was just a far flung Kansas suburb surrounded by farms but over the years Overland Park as well as Shawnee, Merriam and the other suburbs are all touching. Yet they each have their own separate city government, police, fire departments, parks, and city services. Same on the Missouri side with Independence, Blue Springs, and Leawood.

Thing is though, ONLY KCMO has a city earnings tax where if you live or work in KCMO you pay that extra earnings tax.

Now the “big city” stuff like the Chiefs, Royals, the KC Zoo, the tall buildings downtown, the stuff so where you almost feel like your in Chicago or New York, that’s all KCMO. Along with all the bad big city stuff like the bad schools and the crime.

So over the years when a company moved to the area instead of looking at downtown KCMO they look to the suburbs.

KC has a great interstate system where rush hours (we have rush minutes) are rare so its easy to travel suburb to suburb.

I’m not an LA expert, but, yes, this is my understanding too.

I still am not sure what distinction you’re drawing. Sounds like KC has followed the Los-Angelesization, and it it working in that region because of a largely unconstrained topology and limited population growth coupled with the locals presumably valuing things like having space and a yard and all that over having a grocery store, four cool restaurants, and seven cool bars within walking distance. If Kansas Cityites en masse start deciding they prefer the latter, you’d have to adopt a different strategy.

On those places like bars and restaurants, thing is KC almost anyplace in the metro area can be reached within 30 minutes so no need to be within walking distance with free parking. Westport is a popular bar/club location.

I’m sure that’s very nice, but for people who are choosing to live in a dense urban area, they aren’t going to care if parking is free or if you can drive there in 30 minutes. They don’t want to have to get in a car to accomplish anything. They don’t want to drive. They want to walk out their door and have it right there.

That said, this is getting off the original tangent, which is if there was a distinction between what you’re seeing in KC and “Los-Angelesization.” Is there?

To be honest I’ve never been to LA so I dont know. I’m basically going off what transplants have told me about LA’s traffic issues.

There is a growing push here in KC for denser housing and more “urban” feel even here in the suburbs where housing is mixed with businesses, shops, and restaurants. Plus we have more mass transit.