Uh, I would agree gentrification as a term has typically referred to urban areas, and often redevelopment of core inner city areas that were previously blighted. But it’s also just a sociological / economic term that can evolve over time. OP is literally titled “Gentrification of Rural America”, if you oppose the thread premise, you can make that your position. I basically took the thread premise in stride because I think even though most of us are familiar with the rough outlines of the history of the term “Gentrification” and are familiar with how like 95% of reporting on gentrification is about urbanized areas, the concept as discussed in the OP can lend itself to this discussion about rural areas just fine.
To extend the meaning more, Krugman talks about the gentrification of California. What gets summarized as “people are fleeing California and moving to other states” is really that highly educated adults are moving to California to take on highly-paid tech jobs and the like and bidding up housing costs, forcing less educated adults who can’t similar jobs to move out.
Basically the people who rural folks complain about moving in and gentrifying their cities, are themselves people who were gentrified out.
So California’s “cast offs” are a red state’s “gentry?”
That tells you something about California, red states or both.
The OP also said “The people who end up leaving will then go to gentrify a place that is worse and it will move through local communities.” I’ve been asking what this means, who it applies to, how it’s different from all of history, and for cites so I can see the process. Without much success. I’d love to have a discussion but I need to know what we’re discussing.
Seriously, if “California” is an example of gentrification, we need a new term. I know why Krugman is doing it in an op-ed column: it’s just to draw your attention. He also concentrates on urban areas, makes the same case for higher-density building I made, and doesn’t provide any evidence for improvement in Republican areas.
Give me a link to a case study or online article or something I can sink my teeth into rather than just making assertions.
I think you’re referring to me when I said:
but I’m not the OP and didn’t post in this thread until post 61. @DemonTree is the OP but I don’t think their position is similar to that.
Assuming you are talking about me
I’ve given examples of how people have moved out of high cost areas to low cost areas and then fixed it up increasing the cost of the low cost areas and driving out their original residents. I’ve shown how this works in areas that were rural and became urban as well as areas that were urban but just far away from the original metro area.
How is this different from all of history? It’s not which is why your original question of
Seems very weird. It happens all over the country and has been happening continuously for 200+ years.
You then have gone on to question if the phenomena happens at all since you can’t find studdies specifically talking about towns of less than 1,000 people that are still less than 1,000 people.
Wow, they are practically begging Californians to move in!
I live in an area that also enjoys coal-rolling me while I’m out for a bike ride. And my rural area is quickly filling in, with skyrocketing house prices (Coeur d’Alene area). I guess you would call in gentrification. The median house price in Coeur d’Alene is now over $800,000. In IDAHO!!!
I just checked Realtor.com, and it says the median listing home price in Coeur d’Alene is $525,000. Still that’s more by about $100,000 than the Connecticut suburb where I grew up.
Apologies for calling you the OP.
You’ve been mentioning names, without context or background. You haven’t distinguished them as rural gentrification, which would be a new thing, separate from urban expansion. I’m asking for more information about this allegedly new phenomenon - which would be a fascinating subject that I’d like to know more about.
Fair enough. Can you define what you’re looking for? How do you define rural? How do you define gentrification? How do you define rural gentrification? Once you’ve told me what you’re looking for I’ll find examples of it happening.
It is hard for me to understand the idea that only certain people ought to live in certain areas. How would such a decree be enforced? More to the point, for what purpose?
Odd. This page from realtor.com lists it as $799,000:
https://www.realtor.com/research/topics/hottest-markets
I know that data is a few months old, but it hasn’t really cooled off. The least expensive house currently listed that isn’t a mobile home or pending is $599,000.
Sure.
I define rural the way everybody always has: “The Census Bureau definitions (new to the 2000 census), which are based on population density, defines rural areas as all territory outside Census Bureau-defined urbanized areas and urban clusters.” Same as post #68.
I define gentrification the way everybody always has. “Gentrification [is] the transformation of a working class or vacant area of the central city into middle-class residential and/or property use.” From the link in post #77.
I define rural gentrification as striking “central city” and inserting rural.
Ok, so the only way to have rural gentrification by your definition is for a town of less than 1,000 people to be transformed from working class to middle class.
Do you accept rural counties by census designation or only rural towns?
What is the time frame for this designation?
Obviously they need to be rural at the start but do they need to be considered rural still or would a town of 900 turning into a town of 20,000 not count?
I’m going by the standard census designations. This census page lays out the differences between rural and urban. Since no size definition of 1000 people exists now or in any recent time, I’m not sure how to answer your third question.
I’m going by the standard views of timing, a change of about no more than 20-25 years. Changes over more than a generation are hard to assign to single causes.
Don’t forget that my original objection was to your claim that not only was rural gentrification happening but that the displaced also gentrified new places, so please address that.
Sorry for the delay I needed to get in front of a computer to find towns that small.
Since it is basically impossible to do this manually I’ll just do it once and then we’ll see where it goes.
The town of Elizabeth, CO 2020 population 1,848 is still too small to be a urban cluster according to your definition so since there is no definition of a rural town we’ll just go with less than 2,500. In 2,000 its population was 1,434. It has seen ~29% population growth in the last 20 years. Average income in 2000 was $49,596 which has risen to $69,831 by 2019. The average home price is $634,708 up from $145,599 in 2000.
The town of Kiowa, CO is 7.4 miles to the East of Elizabeth. Its population is 767 and back in 2000 the population was 581 or 32%. Average income in 2,000 was $40,809 and has increased to $53,255. The average home price is $592,770 up from $144,793 in 2000.
So people are moving to rural towns and then pushing people further out but each town ends up with a wealthier and larger population and more valuable real estate. I can also say that I’ve seen the city services in both towns grow like crazy too but I have no idea how to quantify that for you.
-
Are your figures adjusted for inflation?
-
Mean income is likely to be more useful than average for these purposes. A handful of people whose income has gone up drastically, or who have moved into town with drastically higher incomes, can bring up the average even if most people’s income has gone up hardly or not at all.
-
You show average home price as having gone up by multiples of more than four times; while average income has gone up by about one third. Even if that increase in average income is distributed among the people who were already there instead of belonging mostly to the newcomers, what that amounts to is that the average resident of that town can no longer afford to buy a house there.
-
That increase in city services means that taxes also went up like crazy. So if Colorado pays for such things in significant part by local taxes, even the people who already own a house there may not be able to stay; which is likely to be damaging to their individual lives as well as to the community that does remain there.
There is a sense in which it makes sense to say that the town’s doing better, even if almost all the original residents are doing worse. But there is another sense in which that makes no sense at all.
I didn’t adjust anything for inflation just finding the numbers was hard enough.
If you can find mean income please add to the discussion. No one studies these specks on the map.
Correct many of the original residents were pushed out of Elizabeth and into Kiowa and many of the original Kiowans have been push south. So incomes go up because the poorest are pushed out and the the people that were poor in the previous town are now near the top. Of course, there is no way to track a single family’s movements to prove this.
Yes, according to my parents who live in Kiowa service costs have gone up though Kiowa did just have to close their police department and use the county sheriffs instead. That is primarily driven by some crazy colorado laws that have primarily cut rural budgets because of urban property values increasing.
I guess you could say that living in Kiowa is worse than Elizabeth but with the improvements in Kiowa I’d say the people who are pushed out of Elizabeth are probably holding steady in quality of life which is an improvement for the town over all.
What, no love for the thriving metropolis of Franktown ?? 