Related Posts
Additional Posts in Consulting
This is so reassuring!
What is the final round at PwC like?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
This is so reassuring!
What is the final round at PwC like?
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Copy and paste embed code on your site
Send download link to your phone
OR
Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile
Chief
Neither. Until you decide what you value. Renovating run down buildings and starting new enterprises - most people think good. Rising rents pricing people out of the neighborhood they grew up in - most people think bad.
Rising Star
I think the challenge is that in these neighborhoods land/buildings are not typically owned by the occupants. As prices go up and developers compete, the people living in the neighborhood are typically not benefiting.
Improving neighborhoods and increasing home values is never a bad thing.
It's necessary imo. If you live in an urban center, part of what keeps it growing and attractive is the change and accommodation of new people, lifestyles and immigrants. Top talent wouldn't move half the world to come to a London/NYC without any space for us.
It’s good. A way of the times. Every city in every civilization has done this. Tear down a crack house and replace it with hopefully with something better for the community and raise property value.
Pro
Holy ugly stereotype batman
Kicking minorities out and tearing down historic neighborhoods: Bad
Building Targets and sweetgreens: not necessarily bad
There are good outcomes, but imo the bad outweighs the good. I support small business, the diversity that comes with minorities and their communities, and also support ways to renovate an area and reduce crime, without it leading to money hungry price hikes in rent for residents and commercial properties. It wrecks the lives of families.
If you’re strictly speaking about an area that is nearly abandoned, drugs are prevalent, and crime skyrocketing then perhaps this would be the one exception.
Problem is there are many neighborhoods that go through gentrification that are filled with honest living hard working people
I was in favor of gentrification except when it really started to impact me. I’ve lost a couple of my favourite places to eat, get coffee, bakeries because they’ve been replaced by chains.
Next to the building where I live there will be a slew of new buildings.
I’m some cases there will be improvements in other cases it all just starts to look the same.
Depends on your situation and perspective.
It’s good for me if I’m wealthy and want to move somewhere that has money being pumped into the local economy to make my life easier/more enjoyable.
It’s bad if I already live there, am struggling to get by, and I’m getting kicked out.
The right thing to do (because gentrification is unstoppable, because wealth has the power and poverty is mostly powerless) is to ensure anyone who is displaced is not negatively impacted (or at least compensated in some way). But that rarely, if ever, happens.
Knowing that there isn’t a perfect solution, that the whole US system runs on inequality (and greed), and this isn’t my area of expertise, here are some things that come to mind:
1. Stipend based on profit sharing from the developer based on some formula that uses how long the displaced individual lived in the area.
2. Symbiotic development plan that involves low-income housing and a jobs plan where the displaced individuals are given first opportunity to work in the new businesses that are built in the area.
3. Reimbursed transportation costs, as I imagine some of the displaced would end up living with family for some period of time.
4. COL adjustment for anyone who remains in the area. A government issued “discount card” or something similar, to defray the cost of more expensive everyday items.
5. Free tuition at the closest community college; and or free education in the K-12 system (probably a tax-related benefit, for anyone eligible)
I sense you were trying to be facetious, but with the wrong attitude nothing will improve. If everyone just talks about the problem, the problem remains. If we start talking about solutions, things might actually change.
Chief
I think with gentrification comes money and attention to a neighborhood. The cause of historic residents moving out is probably correlated because rents are rising so if someone doesn’t own, they may be in trouble. I live in Jersey City and we just went through a recent reval where many property taxes increased exponentially, which I’m sure caused people to leave.
I have very mixed feelings. I enjoy the new variety of restaurants and other activities that exist in my city now versus 5 years ago but does it come at a cost for people who have had to move out? Was it worth it? I don’t know. Selfishly, I enjoy my local book store and wine stores and I know there’s been a drop in violence so I feel safe as a female stumbling home drunk in the middle of the night. But yeah, certainly are there people who made this place their homes and can’t afford to live here anymore because of the increased taxes? I think probably. Not sure what to do about it. Very mixed feelings.
I think dangerous slums turning into trendy safe in town areas is a good thing. If your neighborhood is filled with crime and trash and occupies an area close to desirable work and places to live then prepare to be priced out.
It’s great. Better safety, economy, housing, restaurants,etc; it’s basically just making a neighborhood better. The only con is that things cost more and that’s the price of making things better. Would you rather have worse things that are slightly cheaper? This leads to population shifts where lower income residents move out and higher income residents move in. There are always other cheaper neighborhoods and gentrification takes decades so this isn’t a pressing concern though. People make a ruckus about it though because they don’t want to leave but the fact is that no one has a right to stay in a certain apartment/house if they can’t afford it.
Fact of life. I don’t think anyone is entitled to stay where they are when circumstances change.
That said pushing the working poor and lower classes further out of the cities where they work is a problem. I think in those cases housing stock needs to be increased until property values fall in general, reversing the effects at least partially. I say this as an urban homeowner.
I think zoning laws are some of the worst forms of privilege. There’s plenty I don’t want built around me but I wouldn’t pretend it doesn’t affect others. Preserving the character of an area by preventing building is not an unmitigated good.
My take is that it doesnt really provide advantages to the people (typically lower income) getting kicked as theyre still selling their property at a steep discount and pushes them into areas that disadvantage them greater. That being said gentrification provides capital infusions into these communities which help the growth of these communities at the cost of losing culture, historical significance and community
Havent taken property in awhile but i think KPMG1 is right
Chief
If you love crime, poverty and "historicity"(except that you actually don't know anything about the historicity of any neighborhood and this is just a word you use to sound smart), then you should definitely oppose gentrification. For sure.
Pro
Why is the historicity of a high crime every neighborhood more important than its revival
If the history was good and the residents cared for it, it wouldn’t be full of crime, dollar stores, bail
Bonds and payday sharks. Sometimes it’s time for crime and grime to move on.
Pro
Bad if you live in a rundown neighborhood and are resistant to new people coming in and refreshing the neighborhood, removing old houses, businesses that have a better life being bought out , generally reducing crime, it’s bad. Generally it’s good as it removes class segregation by bring like affluent individuals into older, poorer and more crime ridden neighborhoods.
There are definitely "losers" in gentrification, but on the whole I think it is a net positive. It creates new, updated infrastructure in areas that badly need it. The eventual alternative is to let neighborhoods and towns turn to dust, and that's not good for anyone.