Is "reverse white flight" happening to our cities, and is it A Bad Thing?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=msmith537]
It is happening in New York City. In places like SoHo, East Village and Hells Kitchen, local coffee shops, speacility stores and delis are being replaced by Starbucks, Bananna Republics and Quiznos. An entire neighborhood block might be demolised to make way for a 40 story residential tower. Without proper planning what could happen is that you will go from a very walkable neighborhood to one totally populated by giant self sustained isolated towers.
[/QUOTE]

Word and a half. Hell, Hell’s Kitchen is apparently no longer Hell’s Kitchen- nor is it “Clinton” any longer. Of course, at the moment I cannot remember the new tony name for that neighborhood but it was shared with me recently.

If 9th ave between 55th and 44th becomes a wasteland of Quiznos and Starbucks I’ll scream. There are more interesting and affordable restaurants in that 11 block span…

Why does this resonate so deeply? It cuts way below the more polite rhetoric to a fundamental question. One that it’s easy to shy away from. As has been pointed out a bazillion times, poor people don’t equal crime. Criminals equal crime.

My mother grew up on Sedgewick Avenue in The Bronx, just off of Fordham Road. They didn’t have two pennies to rub together and neither did any of her friends. At the age of 8, she was walking a few dozen blocks to after-school Hebrew school. Then home in another direction. Completely safe. Utterly poor working class families in apartment house after apartment house.

I don’t like thinking about msmith537’s quote but it seems important.

42

I agree, Cartooniverse. I grew up in a southwest Atlanta neighborhood that has been undergoing gentification for some time, and it would offend me a newcomer thought they were bringing “life” to that place, as if it was a dead zone before. Or that just because we didn’t have a Starbucks on every block, that meant our neighborhood was crappy.

One thing I took away from that documentary “Flag Wars” is that often gentrifiers have an overinflated since of what constitutes a “nice” neighborhood. It’s great that you can afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on remodeling your old Victorian house so that it can be featured in Better Homes and Gardens, but don’t cry foul when your neighbors don’t go to such extremes. Some of these newcomers changed the designation of the neighborhood so that it became a historical district. All the homes, regardless of the inhabitants’ income level, were then held to a strict code that limited what people could have on their property. Violators were met with heavy fines. Guess who the violators were? And guess who often couldn’t pay those fines? It was hard not to think that the code was all concocted to get rid of the original inhabitants. It made me mad.

Another thing that pissed me off was when some of the newcomers started a petition to get rid of the local Mom and Pop store that was frequented by the poorer residents of the neighborhood, for reasons that I have forgotten (but I don’t remember as being all that convincing). It was like some of the newcomers wanted to simply wipe the old neighborhood off the map and replace it with their vision of community, disregarding all the people and businesses that were existing there before. I think that’s what sucks about gentrification.

43

American Heritage Dictionary gives us this:

Of course the gentry will try to wipe away any sign of the working class. They see themselves as entitled. Entitled to alter housing codes ( the Historic District reference above ), entitled to raze structures and alter the landscape to fit their vision.

The term as I had originally learned it meant that a gentrified neighborhood was one that was not ripped down, but rather was one that was slowly being inhabited by homeowners who took a vested interest in the condition of their home and neighborhood.

A good example is Fort Greene, Brooklyn. In the late 1980’s, some streets were becoming gentrified. This did not mean that the beautiful brownstones were being ripped down. It meant that the homes that had been abandoned or poorly kept were being bought up for less than premium price by people intent upon restoration and ownership with pride.

IMHO that is the most positive definition. The downside? The area around DeKalb and Flatbush and Lexington and South Portland and so on is now darned pricey. The physical landscape did not change in radical ways but the fiscal one did.

The most perverse definition of gentrification is the one cited in the posts above that includes wholesale demolition and forcing out previous homeowners and businesspeople. Appalling.

44

[QUOTE=Broomstick]
Yes, as I said, a few people have found spots in the new development. Good for them.

Now - where do several thousand other families displaced by the tearing down the various projects go to live?

I don’t see this as a net gain for the city, even if a few people benefit.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t have the answer, but it is hard to imagine that there doesn’t exist a better answer than the projects. My assumption is that scattered housing and mixed income are significant elements of the solution, but NIMBY can be a huge impediment. And even the most liberal can change their tune when it is their backyard in question.

What is Chicago’s population - a couple million? So you say that because “several thousand” people who are largely dependant on government subsidies are inconvenienced (or substitute whatever word of your choosing) that no possible benefit to the remaining millions who are sufficiently self sufficient that they do not depend on public housing could constitute a net gain? I’m no mathemetician, but I don’t see how that adds up.

It is not “a few people” who benefit from the improved vitality within Chicago’s central district. It is every one of the tens if not hundreds of thousands who live there, or travel there for work or pleasure every day.

Yes, I am a huge suppporter of society assisting its least fortunate. But I’m not sure the needs/interests/convenience of those least fortunate should hold an entire community hostage.

45

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
I don’t have the answer, but it is hard to imagine that there doesn’t exist a better answer than the projects.
[/quote]

Yes, but forcing large numbers of people into homelessness - which is a real possibility given the falling numbers of Section 8 housing and the waiting lines for subsidized housing along with rising rents and falling numbers of rental units - is no better. Arguably, it’s worse because at least in the projects you had a place to live other than the street.

The city itself is about 3 million. The greater metro area 6-7 depending on what you consider “metro area”

No, I said several thousand FAMILIES - not individuals. Not only lone adults but people with children as well.

You think losing your residence is an “inconvenience”?

Most would consider it a disaster or an emergency.

These are not people with lots of resources to stay in a hotel or quickly find housing. It was not unusual for extended families to all be housed in the projects, so the relatives that they might have stayed with are also losing their homes.

The number of rental units in Chicago has fallen steadily for decades

Rents have been rising for decades

Where do these people go, other than shelters while they sit on waiting lists for the few slots of subsidized housing? Yes, some move to the far suburbs - but then they must obtain a car to get around, among other things. It basically pushes the poorest Chicagoans into other communities for other people to deal with problems Chicago can’t be bothered to actually solve.

And those who lived there for years, whose families spent generations in the projects, gain nothing of that if they are forced to live in a homeless shelter or move 50 or 80 miles away, do they?

I’m not sure that in this case they poor aren’t being pushed out for the gain of speculators, allowed because most people don’t give a damn about poor people who don’t look like themselves. It’s not even a matter of ignoring or leaving the “least fortunate” alone - this is causing active harm to a lot of people whatever the original intentions of the actions were.

46

The problem with those massive housing projects is that they didn’t work. Warehousing the poor in giant stuctures and isolating them away from the rest of the city was a flawed policy and one which we are still paying for. The current trend is to build mixed income housing.

With Cabrini Green, how much notice was given to people that the projects were going to be closed down? It wasn’t like there was a fire and everything burned down overnight.

47

I never denied that some people were experiencing some harm. Sorry for not taking the time to choose a better word that “inconvenience.” I intended the parenthetical to acknowledge the inspecificity of the term.

So you prefer “emergency” and feel several thousand “families” is an order of magnitude different than several thousand “people.” Fine.

Can you quantify either of those factors in any manner that supports your apparent contention that no benefit to the 6-7 million in the metro area (not to mention out- of-town visitors) could be considered “a net gain”? And, as long as we are fine-tuning our equation, let’s try to factor in the crime and violence that seemed to go hand-in-hand with most of the projects.

48

Something ugly happening here now is those people who’d been buying those ugly McMansions out the Northeast side of town are realizing that it sucks driving an hour to get to work in Columbia freaking South Carolina, so they’re moving to sweet quaint in-town neighborhoods like mine, knocking down the older homes, and building their own McMansions there. It’s ugly and vulgar and we hates it my precious!

ETA - both sides here are white.

49

[QUOTE=Broomstick]

You think losing your residence is an “inconvenience”?

Most would consider it a disaster or an emergency.
[/quote]

It was an “emergency” that was decades in the making. It didn’t happen overnight.

Right, that’s the new strategy: a few hundred move to Oak Lawn, a few hundred move to Tinley Park, a few dozen move to Palos…the new idea is that if a few hundred very low income people move to areas of mixed wealth, that they will be…I don’t know…inspired or something. That they will be forced, as you say, to get running cars and jobs to pay for them and do something other than collect LINK funds and worry that their kids are going to be shot if they go out of the front door after dark. And that each community can absorb the costs - financial, logistical and emotional - of having a small very low-income population while still remaining decent places to live.

Will it work? Hell if I know. But warehousing them didn’t work. I’m open to other ideas, if you have any. The mayor’s office was and is open to other ideas - this was discussed and debated for a long time. Maybe this won’t work, either, and in 40 years we’ll try something else.. But I have a hard time believing it could be any worse than that hellhole.

The predators, the drug dealers, the prostitutes, the lamed caseworkers hampered by huge caseloads and not enough funds, and most importantly, the desperate malaise, the idea that this was something hardly anyone could expect to break free of - as you say, there are families that were living there for generations, with no hope of moving somewhere safe, with actual working stoves or a laundry facility - those were causing active harm to those same people.

There’s a similar, smaller scale debate going on right now about the “temporary housing” set up in New Orleans for displaced hurricane victims. Two years now, and people aren’t doing a damn thing to get out of them. So finally FEMA announced that they’re going to start evicting people. Where will they go? Hell if I know. But if they aren’t eventually forced out, then we’re infantalizing grown and capable people by letting them stay in wretched conditions because we don’t believe they’re good enough or smart enough to stand on their own.

50

[QUOTE=Caffeine.addict]
The problem with those massive housing projects is that they didn’t work. Warehousing the poor in giant stuctures and isolating them away from the rest of the city was a flawed policy and one which we are still paying for. The current trend is to build mixed income housing.

With Cabrini Green, how much notice was given to people that the projects were going to be closed down? It wasn’t like there was a fire and everything burned down overnight.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, in Chicago the late, great Daley the First combined warehousing with expressways to wall them in, resulting in (IIRC) Chicago being one of the most highly segregated cities in the US. A true visionary that man was. The city that works, indeed!

Cabrini Green was always an interesting situation, as it was guite close to a pretty prosperous neighborhood. In high school, I remember being in the area with my buddies, and as we drove they commented when we passed certain streets that they (or I) would be okay on one side but not the other. That was back in the 70s. So no, it should have surprised no one that that hellhole wouldn’t continue to exist forever.

FYI, the CHA’s site has some info on the various projects, and the status of the redevelopment plans. I have no doubt that the CHA paints a rosier picture than the displaced residents and their advocates might.

BTW - CHA has a couple of floors in the same building. Not sure exactly what function is served there.

51

WhyNot, your post is exactly right-on. When I think of people living in those high-rise cinderblock disasters I want to cry. Then I look at the Section 8 housing in my own suburb that gives people opportunities to live in a safe place and send their kids to a safe school, and I think there is no way that it’s not better for everyone.

52

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
WhyNot, your post is exactly right-on. When I think of people living in those high-rise cinderblock disasters I want to cry. Then I look at the Section 8 housing in my own suburb that gives people opportunities to live in a safe place and send their kids to a safe school, and I think there is no way that it’s not better for everyone.
[/QUOTE]

In my area, last I looked into it, Section 8 had a 3 year waiting list - where the hell are these people supposed to live while they’re waiting for an apartment?

I’m not knocking section 8 or having a safe place to live - the problem is that there isn’t enough to fill the need. Again - where do these people live in the meanwhile?

53

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Right, that’s the new strategy: a few hundred move to Oak Lawn, a few hundred move to Tinley Park, a few dozen move to Palos
[/quote]

Explain to me why Oak Lawn and Tinley Park and all those other outlying 'burbs should be asked to solve a problem caused by the misbegotten policies of Chicago? Why should those communities be forced to foot the bill for people that have been discarded by Chicago?

IF they can actually find housing in those areas, yes… But there is a shortage of rental units throughout the area.

When they lived in the heart of Chicago they didn’t need cars and could get to work without one, and without the expense of buying and maintaining one. Hell, I was middle class and lived quite happily in Chicago for 8 years with no car. Cars are not necessary if you live in Chicago. By forcing them into the suburbs you are imposing an expense over and above rent.

Over the years I’ve had several co-workers who were, at the time they were my co-workers, still living at Cabrini or another project. I realize it shocks people, but not everyone in the projects was unemployed, or a bad person.

Yes, my co-workers moved away from Cabrini when they were able to do so, just as anyone else would choose a better neighborhood.

After dark? It was a real risk of getting shot during they day.

Again - why should these other communities, which have also had poor and disadvantaged people - be forced to absorb the cost of solving a problem generated by the city of Chicago?

I’m open to the idea of SUFFICIENT supported low-rent housing IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO that doesn’t impose costs on other communities, especially since those other towns do not receive the benefits of the mixed-housing replacing the Chicago projects.

I don’t know - being homeless and living on the street during a Chicago winter has got to be pretty hellish, too. That’s the problem - they tell these people to go somewhere else, rent something else, and there aren’t enough rental units to go around.

And some of those people are the frail elderly, or the mentally ill, or the disabled who are not able go out, get full time employment, and hustle for a spot on a list for the in-short-supply rental units.

As I said, some of those people truly aren’t capable of getting employment/housing/whatever on their own. Throwing the elderly and disabled out into the cold is not a solution to this problem.

New Orleans is suffering a severe shortage of ALL housing - much more so affordable housing. If I recall, there’s already something like 12,000 homeless in New Orleans, I fail to see how adding more to that number will solve anything.

54

Just to note the obvious, tho the OP mentioned Cabrini, only a fraction of the redevelopment within Chicago is displacing public housing. In fact, much of it is on land that was not previously residential.
I’m not saying such gentrification does not impact prior residents. But I believe it may be a somewhat different discussion that the provision of subsidized housing.

55

Cabrini Green was the result of the urban planning models from the 60s. Warehousing them didn’t work.

Do you have any statistics on how many former residents of Cabrini Green are actually homeless as a result of the demolition of the projects? I would be curious to see what the numbers are.

Do you feel that the city should absorb the cost of housing people even if it weren’t a city owned property that was shutting down? Should the other residents of Chicago pay more taxes so that the poor can live in Chicago?

56

They will probably be more inspired than if they lived in a giant concrete hive full of drug dealers and unemployables. It’s not about inspiring people in some abstract way. If you grow up in a neighborhood where drug dealing, unemployment, crime and violence is common and even expected, you will likely learn those behaviors. If you live in a neighborhood where it is not tolerated and where there are people who lead successful, productive lives, those are the traits you will learn.
I think people watched too many movies about some evil developer throwing the helpless widows and orphans out into the street. Failed neighborhoods aren’t good for anyone. They discourage the investments and new business development which ultimately helps poor people more than warehousing them.

My current neighborhood of Hoboken, NJ used to be a shithole about 20 years ago. Because of it’s proximity and direct public transporation to Manhattan, it has become a hot place to live. The down side, of course, is that prices are rising. People who once had a Manhattan view on the water are finding it blocked by new high rises (including a W hotel).

Ultimately you have no inherent entitlement to live wherever you like. People can work a minimum wage job anywhere in the country, but if you want to be an investment banker or lawyer making $400,000 a year, you need to work in a place like Manhattan. I mean should we set up middle class housing projects on Park Avenue so that regular middle management types can have a view overlooking Central Park?

57

[QUOTE=msmith537]
They will probably be more inspired than if they lived in a giant concrete hive full of drug dealers and unemployables. It’s not about inspiring people in some abstract way. If you grow up in a neighborhood where drug dealing, unemployment, crime and violence is common and even expected, you will likely learn those behaviors. If you live in a neighborhood where it is not tolerated and where there are people who lead successful, productive lives, those are the traits you will learn.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, thank you, that’s much better articulated than what I was able to do.

58

[QUOTE=Broomstick]
In my area, last I looked into it, Section 8 had a 3 year waiting list - where the hell are these people supposed to live while they’re waiting for an apartment?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure who you are referring to as “these people.” If you mean the folks who had been living in Cabrini Green or Robert Taylor, IIRC they had more than 3 years’ warning that the developments were closing. If you are talking about just people in general who need affordable housing, there are always waiting lists to get in, from what I understand, so the situation isn’t different other than the type of housing they are waiting to get into. That problem can no doubt be solved some other way, other than warehousing people in those awful highrise complexes.

I’m not here to say that the transition was handled correctly or adequately. It’s the city of Chicago we are talking about, which means, no doubt, that the whole thing was screwed up beyond belief. My recollection is that there was a couple of years’ warning before hand, but even if that is not true, it doesn’t detract from my point. I’m only trying to say that highrise housing projects are a bad idea, and there has to be a better solution. It doesn’t necessarily have to be forcing people to move out of the city into far-away suburbs. I live in a close-in suburb where it’s easy to not have a car, and there is a lot of section 8 housing in suburbs like that, as well as in various neighborhoods in the city. There’s no reason that the city can’t try to provide more if necessary.

And, in answer to your question about where they live in the meanwhile, I’d like to turn the question back on you…where ARE they living? Are all these folks living on the street waiting for their apartments? Or are they living with family members or friends, which may not be ideal but is at least acceptable? Sometimes we all have to make compromises or deal with less than ideal situations, in order to have a better situation in the long run.

59

[QUOTE=Caffeine.addict]
Cabrini Green was the result of the urban planning models from the 60s. Warehousing them didn’t work.
[/quote]

I think we all know that.

I would, too, but I have not found them and since, after three weeks of unemployment, I have found some paying work please forgive me if I devote more time to working than research at the moment. On top of that, I’m not even certain anyone is keeping track as such stats would reflect poorly on City Hall.

But Cabrini WAS a city own property, so what is the point of this question in the context of this conversation?

Should the residents of outlying suburbs pay more taxes to support poor people moving in from Chicago?

Also - why do you assume ALL poor people are drains on the public coffers? I was poor enough to eat in soup kitchens at one point but I never qualified for public aid because I was making “too much” money. I never received subsidized housing. Given that qualifying for public aid is even more difficult now than it was 20-25 years ago I can only conclude that there are still plenty of people who are poor by any definition you care to use who nonetheless do not receive any form of public aid.

(By the way - about half of those poor years I did, in fact, make enough money to have to pay taxes - not only was I not draining the public treasury, I was forced to contribute while living hand to mouth)

60

We may be seeing the first movements in a major population shift where the middle class will re-colonize the inner cities and leave the suburbs to the poor – who will be even worse off than they are now, because they’ll have to worry about transportation on top of everything else.