What are your views on gentrification? Do you like it or disagree with it?

Share with us.

I personally dislike it.


Here in Nashville, the gentrified neighborhoods are traditionally the poorer neighborhoods of Nashville and since they were gentrified the prices have skyrocketted making the area unaffordable for the original lower class inhabitants. This has caused these poorer inhabitants to shift towards the northern and western parts of town while bringing the problems with them.

I dislike it and I don't think it's fair to the original inhabitants who were essentially kicked out by the new yuppie, hipstery people who gentrified the neighborhood they've lived their lives in. Most of these yuppie/hispstery folks aren't even from Nashville!


Now this is an issue in many American cities, but I'm not sure about elsewhere. It may be a good thing in many places so I would like to see other opinions.

Gentrification is, by far and large, social cleansing. What we need is mixed-income neighbourhoods, not gates communities.

Social cleansing, I like that term.

And mixed-income neighborhoods would be great! We just have to fix our income inequality problems

Inhabitants of gentryfying areas that were in severe decay (ghettos) usualy are kicked out because they didn't dare to invest in buying their units first place.

I have nothing but contempt for people who live 30 years in a decaying area, never buys their houses, and then whine that the owner of their house sold their $80.000 house (2 years ago) for $300.000 for a condo developer. Had they invested in buying the house first place, they would be the ones "cashing in".

It is not the function of a government to interfere in the socio-demographic making of a neighborhood. That is social engineering and should be avoided.

This being said, I think some protections should be in place to avoid excessive and sudden increases in property tax values for people who have been living in a place for long, as long as they are owners and keep actually living there. Property taxes should be slowly increased to give people time to make arrangements that could keep them living in the area if they wnated to.

Even so, in many cases 'ghettos' are populated by people with low mobility (at least in US). Once the commercial activities are replaced by others that can paid 10x the rent (and I'll make a firestorm whenever someone suggests protection to stores or other business), people will lose their local below-minimum-wage jobs or out-of-code food stands, and they will be displaced by lack of services and stores catering to them.

As I have not much sympathy for the usual people that are displaced by gentrification, I generally support it and praise its results. At least in the context of how it happens in Western Developed World where people are not being thrwon on the streets, but indeed just having the "inconvenience" to move 20 miles away.

Want a stake in the future of your place? Buy it, sign a mortgage. Otherwise, you are just risking eviction. That is how I see it.

The funny thing is that, on a rent-per-area-unit ($/sq. ft, E/m2) basis, ghettoized neighorhoods are usually MORE (not less) expensive than non-ghettoized suburban low-middle-class areas. Which means people are paying more money for sh#tty housing, increased crime being just a bonus. So the more rational and responsible people usually moves out before the place is gentrified.

Alright, I guess I can see it...

I don't really agree with you but I won't argue, we all have different opinions.

I dislike it and I don't think it's fair to the original inhabitants who were essentially kicked out by the new yuppie, hipstery people who gentrified the neighborhood they've lived their lives in. Most of these yuppie/hispstery folks aren't even from Nashville!


There are no ancestor rights to live in a place. That retired bankers are coming from New York and paying more to buy a place is their business only.

If you were the owner of a derelict house renting out for $ 700/month and suddenly got and offer to sell if for $ 1.100.000, would you pass the opportunity?

As I wrote before: people who own houses and keep them in good state of repair just are not "kicked out". The only "victims" are renters or owners that keep their houses in decaying state (a nuisance).

What city do you live in Suburbanist?

Honestly I think gentrification is a good thing overall.

If you look at Washington DC's U Street neighborhood as an example it is nowadays bustling with people going to various business establishments in the area and are clammoring to buy/rent apartments and condominiums just to be able to live in the neighborhood, but if you were to look at the same neighborhood back in the 90's or early 00's it was more known for decay and crime and people with no business in the area tended to avoid it.

Gentrification is a somewhat good development but it has downsides. These downsides can be addressed by pro-active social policies. This means politics has to make sure a sufficient minimum number of affordable apartments remain also in the most gentrified areas, leading to the creation of somewhat mixed neighborhoods.

The alternative to gentrification would be that central ghettos of the poor simply deteriorate so much that at some point the buildings have to be torn down due to structural problems. The replacement could not be so dirt cheap either unless you'd replace inner city neighbourhoods, in prime location with dysfunctional commie block neighbourhoods. I doubt that is something we should aim for either, not to mention the often existing historical value of the neighbourhoods.

I think why many suburbian people dislike gentrification is because to some extend it means their wealthy ghettos in the suburbs become more mixed.

Gentrification is a somewhat good development but it has downsides. These downsides can be addressed by pro-active social policies. This means politics has to make sure a sufficient minimum number of affordable apartments remain also in the most gentrified areas, leading to the creation of somewhat mixed neighborhoods.

I think why many suburbian people dislike gentrification is because to some extend it means their wealthy ghettos in the suburbs become more mixed.

Suburban areas are rarely as rich as the "prime" inner-city districts. The scales needed for viable suburbs are much lower than that of a viable inner-city dense area, so on that front things wouldn't matter much as well.

Suburban areas are rarely as rich as the "prime" inner-city districts. The scales needed for viable suburbs are much lower than that of a viable inner-city dense area, so on that front things wouldn't matter much as well.

Usually not as rich as well developed inner city areas, but they are, especially in the US often white upper middle class ghettos. Things could change leading to some greater mix in some of the suburbs as a consequence of gentrification of poor inner city neighbourhoods. I can understand how this could be seen with negative feelings in the affected suburban areas. But from the distance I could imagine worse things to happen. The segregation of the city would not change that much after all, in the worst case the poor ghettos would move outwards. In some way it is funny anyway that the best located areas should be completely deteriorated and underdeveloped.

What are your views on gentrification? Do you like it or disagree with it?

Share with us.


it's cyclical. people's penchant for "new" things goes beyond their penchant for new clothes, and that includes reinventing old neighborhoods that used to be new.

This is a striking example of how the bourgeoisie solves the housing question in practice. The breeding places of disease, the infamous holes and cellars in which the capitalist mode of production confines our workers night after night, are not abolished; they are merely shifted elsewhere! The same economic necessity which produced them in the first place, produces them in the next place also. - Frederick Engels, 1872

Let us drop all pretense: gentrification is when those with money force out those with less money. Gentrification, oftentimes with the added charm of manipulating some species of misfortune (New Orleans after Katrina being such an agreeable instance), pushes away those who collectively define a neighborhood. The result is that cities become less distinctive and less dynamic (save the dynamism of chasing former residents here to there). In exchange, we get a balance of no improvement in society at large, simply a physical rearranging of the haves and have-nots in whatever pattern fits the whim of the former.

Gentrification is, I think, the urban manifestation of modern society's greatest ill: the subversion of all human activity and all human relation to the power of the perfumed paper bill. It is something that should be opposed whenever practicable.

There are no ancestor rights to live in a place. That retired bankers are coming from New York and paying more to buy a place is their business only.
Ah, but isolationism is no longer a viable policy, and it is undeniably the business of the community at large. The economic composition of a neighborhood, and the machinations that compel inhabitants to leave for the benefit of the passing fancy of this or that retired banker is indeed the business of the whole of the city.

Though you are right on a solitary point, in that legally, that there are no "ancestor rights" to a community. But in effect what you are proposing is not the rejection of "ancestor rights", instead you are proposing the rejection of the community. A community, after all, cannot be boiled down to a mere random grouping of renters and owners, it is far more than that. And we should not be so quick to reduce this to a simple business transaction, we both know it is far more than that.

You are right in you perception: I only care about individual (renters and homeowners) rights, I mock and dislike the idea o people who are in a neighborfood to act as a "community". I don't recognize such collectivity because I care only about individual interactions and rights.

I only rwcognize nation-level community, eg the nation itself. On a local level, I wish all "unique" communities where the mere geographical place becomes a hotbed for some localist identity get disbanded and destroyed naturally . Be it things like Chinatowns or "bohemian districts" or what else. The more interchangeable places are and the weaker their own identities, the less people will care to move away if there are better opportunities elsewhere.

So anything that create uniqueness on the social fabric of a negjborhood is negative and must be never recognized as something like " the right of Afican Amerixans to keep the Harlem black" or other bs (not necessarily on ethnic lines, could be any line)

Just for clarity: by destroying a community naturally I don't mean I wish tornadoes or earthquakes but th collapse of the social fabric via passive microeconomic agents acting in a market context

You are right in you perception: I only care about individual (renters and homeowners) rights, I mock and dislike the idea o people who are in a neighborfood to act as a "community". I don't recognize such collectivity because I care only about individual interactions and rights.

I only rwcognize nation-level community, eg the nation itself. On a local level, I wish all "unique" communities where the mere geographical place becomes a hotbed for some localist identity get disbanded and destroyed naturally . Be it things like Chinatowns or "bohemian districts" or what else. The more interchangeable places are and the weaker their own identities, the less people will care to move away if there are better opportunities elsewhere.

So anything that create uniqueness on the social fabric of a negjborhood is negative and must be never recognized as something like " the right of Afican Amerixans to keep the Harlem black" or other bs (not necessarily on ethnic lines, could be any line)

But many other people, and not just those on this forum, do care about communities, therefore they are worth protecting; a community is a number of 'individuals' coming together under a common interaction and right.

Communities disband naturally anyway, none is static, and many come into and out of existence regularly depending on the needs or desires of the people in that neighbourhood at any one time. People have a personal and individual right to community, and for a government or economy to pursue actions which would restrict community goes against an individuals basic rights.

I agree certain forms of 'community' can be dangerous, often when ethnicity is involved, but ethnic culture can also be a rich asset for a city, in increasing diversity of culture and economy when these communities are integrated into the rest of the city. By this I mean normalized and accepted, rather than dispersed. Cities are far more complex than simple economic engines, and a good city reflects the people who live there; whether these people are natives, immigrants, bohemians or the upper class they all have the right to a community.

^^ I don't think any city gains from having "ethnic" neighborhoods. Maybe tourism, but that is another league: amusement park, casinos, museums, restaurants all attract tourists.

What I didn't elaborate is that I see a problem not when people just create some social dynamic, but when they want to freeze it over time. Imagine if slave traders had wanted to keep Savannah port "unique" by not allowing any other activity and profession to establish on its premises!

Sometimes, this is how I see gentrification: people resisting changes because they are too attached to the place, even if changes are unavoidable in the current model.

I'm not even going into the criminal communities that flourish with decay. Not necessarily gangs, but quasi-felony extortionists that, acting as "community organizers", feel free to replicate unwanted social order and extorsion schemes back home in US, UK or else (this is a common problem in many Asian "ethnic" areas).

But let's put the other way: if not for gentrification, decay would usually stay. Who can sanely argue decay is good? Derelict housing? Crumbling buildings?

So if the buildings are not well-kept, this is a failure of the so-called "community". Why should the government throw in millions or billions to make the area nice just because its location is nice, but restricting the ability of owners to cash in and move out?

Finally, an interesting observation: the harsher bitterness of "community activists" on gentrification process is not much about displacement of housing in the early stages of gentrification, but displacement of business. Some feel "offended" if a "high-end" boutique or a "trendy" bar opens in the area, even if in a former and long closed store, because they can't afford the products/entertainment there and the people from the area are unlikely to be hired to work there.

I have nothing but contempt for people who live 30 years in a decaying area, never buys their houses, and then whine that the owner of their house sold their $80.000 house (2 years ago) for $300.000 for a condo developer. Had they invested in buying the house first place, they would be the ones "cashing in".

What if market forces prevent someone to buy a house, because he simply can't afford a loan?

What if market forces prevent someone to buy a house, because he simply can't afford a loan?

There are a multitude of programs to help home buyers in most Western countries.

If somebody is so poor that it needs welfare for a whole life enough to "lay roots" in a neighborhood, then it is not entitled to get a major handout in the form of a free house that is not only decent but in a prime location of a city.

^^ I don't think any city gains from having "ethnic" neighborhoods. Maybe tourism, but that is another league: amusement park, casinos, museums, restaurants all attract tourists.

What about the people who live in those neighbourhoods? Do they not benefit?

What I didn't elaborate is that I see a problem not when people just create some social dynamic, but when they want to freeze it over time. Imagine if slave traders had wanted to keep Savannah port "unique" by not allowing any other activity and profession to establish on its premises!

Correct, nothing should ever be frozen in time, but the urban environment you yourself prefer (US model; poor inner city, wealthier suburbs surrounding) encourages at best stagnation of culture, at worst violence between different groups.

Sometimes, this is how I see gentrification: people resisting changes because they are too attached to the place, even if changes are unavoidable in the current model.

Yes some people do resist change, but that's natural; if you have a good thing going you'll want to keep it. The challenge lies with accommodating the needs of the incomers with the existing population.

I'm not even going into the criminal communities that flourish with decay. Not necessarily gangs, but quasi-felony extortionists that, acting as "community organizers", feel free to replicate unwanted social order and extorsion schemes back home in US, UK or else (this is a common problem in many Asian "ethnic" areas).

You're talking about crime. This isn't linked exclusively with inner city/ethnic communities.

But let's put the other way: if not for gentrification, decay would usually stay. Who can sanely argue decay is good? Derelict housing? Crumbling buildings?

So if the buildings are not well-kept, this is a failure of the so-called "community". Why should the government throw in millions or billions to make the area nice just because its location is nice, but restricting the ability of owners to cash in and move out?

If a neighbourhood is desirable and well used (regardless of which social class uses it) then the buildings will be well kept. This is a case of urban design, not free-market economics.

Finally, an interesting observation: the harsher bitterness of "community activists" on gentrification process is not much about displacement of housing in the early stages of gentrification, but displacement of business. Some feel "offended" if a "high-end" boutique or a "trendy" bar opens in the area, even if in a former and long closed store, because they can't afford the products/entertainment there and the people from the area are unlikely to be hired to work there.

They have a point. If your favourite local cafe/shop closed and was replaced with something else aimed at a different socio-economic group then you'd be pissed.

All of your arguments, Subby, seem based on property economics. There is so much more to cities than that.

^^ I don't have a favorite place. As long as there are others, I couldn't care less what about happen to the places I patronize. They do not owe me offer food or drinkgs to me. It is a market transaction: they put a menu with prices, I take it or not.

To some extent I agree, to some extent I disagree with gentrification. I agree with it because it can turn decayed, crime ridden neighbourhoods into desirable places, but I disagree with it to an extent because it kicks out the original community, and in the process colourful ethnic or bohemian communities are lost.

Gentrification prevents urban quarters to become ghetto and slip down in eternal decay. I love gentrification. Keeps cities dynamic and alive and actually promotes mixed income communities. Gentrification generally takes years or even decades and actually works upward and downwards. So it keeps the different social classes well mixed in a city.

^^ I don't have a favorite place. As long as there are others, I couldn't care less what about happen to the places I patronize. They do not owe me offer food or drinkgs to me. It is a market transaction: they put a menu with prices, I take it or not.

I am not against gentrification at all, but this quote (like many of your quotes on this forum) show that you think you act as an 'Homo Economicus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus)'.

You do have to realize that most people do not act that way. People are emotional creatures. People get attached to other people; residents have a special feeling about a place they grew up in, or invested time, energy and money in. It is not necessarily rational, so your economic arguments do not help to prove any point, because the point is not economical.

People become acquainted with the owner of the local coffee place, and wish him well. If he is gentrified out of the neighborhood, it may be a rational economic process, and even 'good' on a larger scale. But I hope you understand that a lot of people do actually enjoy that familiar feeling at this coffee place. Not to mention the drama that it might cause on a personal level for the business owner.

I think everybody understands the economic argument you make, but you show no sign of understanding the other side. Or do you just do that for the sake of argument?

And your entire race - crime - language thing does not make any sense to me. You do realize you are a labour migrant as well, right? Just out of curiosity: do you feel like you are integrating in Dutch society, and do you speak Dutch? Would you feel the same about gentrification if it would be applied to the town or neighborhood your family has lived in all their lives, but they can't afford to live there anymore?

I mock and dislike the idea o people who are in a neighborfood to act as a "community". I

Thatcher is that you?

Thatcher is that you?

No, but I'm a fan of her. She eliminated some of the most egregious union-ridden monopolies in Europe and devolved INDIVIDUAL (extra caps) responsibility to the Brits in the sense of making "look after yourself" fashionable again. Kudos to her for having sold millions of council housing units as well.

Gentrification is good when acts against ghettoization, but can also be very bad by throwing away the artists, the students, the intellectuals, the small family businesses, the popular places to eat, drink and/or party, by making rich ghettos out of lively, friendly places. I can't vote in this poll, sorry.

I really don't understand why people on SSC have so much deference to artists, students and intellectuals (sic) as if they were like disabled people needing special handouts.

What is wrong with students living scattered in a city or in university dorms and/or commuting everyday to study or to the galleries where they try to sell their works? I mean: they can have some housing, but why does it have to be: (1) in a prime location; (2) subsidized; (3) centrally located?

You are right in you perception: I only care about individual (renters and homeowners) rights, I mock and dislike the idea o people who are in a neighborfood to act as a "community". I don't recognize such collectivity because I care only about individual interactions and rights.
Don't be bashful, you only care about the individual rights of monied individuals, you mock and dislike the idea of anyone else having rights in this regard. Why? Well, when you claim to promote individual rights and reject collective rights, then you are inherently privileging rich individuals purely on account of their bank accounts: in capitalist society the ability of someone to move into a new area or hold onto their present area is determined entirely by the wealth at their disposal. Therefore, you recognize the right of money to define (and thus destroy) communities, "individual rights" is just a rough translation to make it sound less misanthropic. Money before people; that is the logical conclusion of your assertion.

But this is a curious statement compared to what comes directly before it (to say nothing of what comes after it, a misconception of yours I will look to below): if you only care about individual interactions and rights, then you would not recognize the concept of a neighborhood at all. Seeing as you do, your assumptions do not line up. I suggest you take some time to reconcile this contradiction.

I only rwcognize nation-level community, eg the nation itself. On a local level, I wish all "unique" communities where the mere geographical place becomes a hotbed for some localist identity get disbanded and destroyed naturally . Be it things like Chinatowns or "bohemian districts" or what else. The more interchangeable places are and the weaker their own identities, the less people will care to move away if there are better opportunities elsewhere.Well, then perhaps you would be so kind as to define what "the nation itself" means. Until then your points are quite meaningless, and only serves to prove that you only recognize communal identities when it suits your agenda.

At any rate, from your words above, it is quite observable that you mean the rights of a country's ruling elites, not the citizenry, for if a citizenry has the ability to enact policies through the civil institutions that pertain to its very existence (being city governments and the like), then they can say to have a body politic, something you flatly deny, and something that puts to rest your assumptions about the non-existence of communities both legally and otherwise.

Further, why do you promote cultural uniformity? Do you think this makes for a better urban environment? Do you think this makes for a more dynamic and rich experience? After all, every single cultural innovation of the past century and more has most always come from the contributions of neighborhoods that were not "interchangeable": hip hop, jazz, salsa (the music and dance), neo-soul, the Beat, Black Pride, Gay Pride, the Harlem Renaissance, impressionism and more.

So when you call for gentrification, you call for the destruction of the bases of the cultural fabric of much of our world. You call for a blander, less creative, less adaptive, poorer city. It is no wonder that the cities you seek to economically and demographically steamroll continue to give rise to new innovations while the suburbs sit mute without a thing to add to the cultural discussion.

So anything that create uniqueness on the social fabric of a negjborhood is negative and must be never recognized as something like " the right of Afican Amerixans to keep the Harlem black" or other bs (not necessarily on ethnic lines, could be any line)This misrepresentation cannot even be counted as a clever strawman. I have not argued that ethnic integration is bad, I have stated that it is about the right of a community to exercise some self-determination. Otherwise, the community is denied a voice, and if a community is denied a voice it is the victim of repression, and if it is a victim of repression then your chosen policy is oppression.

At any rate, in your ineffective attempts (see below) to mock this strawman you have set up, you have exposed precisely the result of your own position. If you believe that your obstacle is a Black Harlem, then your solution is obviously a non-Black Harlem, which would, under the marketeering rules you have set forth previously, mean a white Harlem. Thus, your position is guilty of what you set out to erroneously assign to your opponents.

While you throw around the word "negative", you never come close to telling us why what you oppose is negative. Once you resort to cheap strawman arguments, it illustrates a distinct lack of justification for your views, and that is a point that we have reached rather hastily.

Just for clarity: by destroying a community naturally I don't mean I wish tornadoes or earthquakes but th collapse of the social fabric via passive microeconomic agents acting in a market context
Of course not, you only wish that speculators wait for tornadoes and earthquakes as an opportunity to push out the people who make up a community, socially finishing off what the natural disaster started with equal callousness.

It's "compassionate conservatism", you see. No community matters...except the business community! :hilarious

^^ Well, I will not get into a row-by-row reply.

Your whole argument revolves around the "money is bad, money is evil" argument. You equals exerting market power and purchase power with oppressing people.

So I will avoid going into a basic economic argument, because it would go away from the topic of gentrification (by expanding your argument, one could argue it is oppression when I buy 800g of beef that brings up the price of corn (to feed the cow) and that makes people in Bangladesh go hungry, just because I have 40x his/her income).

As for the whole diversity thing, I didn't mean people become all equal. People are wired for a variety of possibilities and talents. That doens't mean PLACES where people live should be diverse. I'm actually in favor of de-localizing people with the places they live within a national context. People shouldn't be dependent on something like a "local identity" to flourish as persons and individuals.

So I quite like the idea of cracking down localisms confined to some neighborhood. I also tend to despise artistic manifestations that are highly tied to one specific place.

A couple of thoughts.

This emphasis on "community" is what has killed sociology and most of the rest of the social sciences. There is no such thing. It is used as a summary (like "working class", "Hispanics", etc.) but it doesn't pick out anything useful. It pretends that there is something consistency there, when in fact there isn't.

What IS there is individuals. Some of them interact with some others intensely, with other less so, with most not at all. Normally, they have little in the way of common interests (e.g., the "working class" typically votes about 60 percent Democrat, which means 40 percent vote for other parties or not at all; so talking about a typical "working class voter" just doesn't yield much information unless you are looking at very macro issues).

"Gentrification" similarly should not be treated as if it were a "thing" or single event. It is merely the sum of the actions of individuals. If 20k middle class people move into a 'hood and only 3k middle class move out, then it is becoming more middle class, or "gentrifying". This typically means that the poor are moving somewhere else (but some portion of them are just getting richer and staying, some are dying, some are the kids of the poor now grown wealthy, etc.).

It appears that those living in rundown ethnic neighborhoods with minimal language skills, largely non-existent legal rights, decaying buildings and dangerous conditions are not in danger of disappearing from the earth. But you may want to check upstairs in the tenements or in the basement where those quaint Chinese, Mexicans, Nigerians, etc., live before getting romantic about the charm and quaintness of it all.

^^ Well, I will not get into a row-by-row reply.

Your whole argument revolves around the "money is bad, money is evil" argument. You equals exerting market power and purchase power with oppressing people.

So I will avoid going into a basic economic argument, because it would go away from the topic of gentrification (by expanding your argument, one could argue it is oppression when I buy 800g of beef that brings up the price of corn (to feed the cow) and that makes people in Bangladesh go hungry, just because I have 40x his/her income).

So I quite like the idea of cracking down localisms confined to some neighborhood. I also tend to despise artistic manifestations that are highly tied to one specific place.

:hilariousThis is so thoroughly amusing; it has me in splits! :lol:

@Suburbanist:

Money itself isn't the problem (probably because money itself is nothing), it's when money becomes a higher priority than people that the problem begins. You are trying to tell us that we shouldn't listen to what a community wants because communities, in your mind, don't even matter...and yet you're ignoring how those communities are made up of individuals. Why are they pushed aside by gentrification? Well, because gentrification doesn't revolve around people, it revolves around money (or, if you want to be specific, relatively few individuals with money).

You reflect this basic value judgment by suggesting that the only thing that matters is market transaction. Well, individuals with more money can impose their will through market transactions far more ably than those with less money...and so we come back to this fact that you're putting the few with money above the many with less. I suppose it's fitting your argument boils down to this because that's what gentrification is.

Local identities form the first organized basis of human expression: artistic manifestations almost always begin in one locale, developing along the lines of that identity, and then dispersing across new communities and being infused with new identities. Just about every example I listed has done so. Hip hop was born in the south Bronx, and without the cultural dynamism of the latter (with influences from Blacks and immigrants from Jamaica and Puerto Rico, to name a few) the former would have not happened; however, hip hop changed dramatically as it became popular on the west coast, cities with their own sets of cultural climes. In that way, people were able to uniquely express their own experiences, both individual and collective.

That's how cultural growth has worked since the first cities of human history. If you claim to despise artistic manifestations that were ever highly tied to one specific place, then I suggest you proclaim your hatred of impressionism (Paris), Renaissance art (the Low Countries or Florence or Rome or Venice, depending on the specific time and style in question), jazz (New Orleans), Cubism (Montmatre, Paris), the Harlem Renaissance (obvious), salsa (Latino parts of NYC, including Harlem) and flamenco (Andalucia). If you attempt to make neighborhoods interchangeable then you're fighting against this basic human function, the one through which people and peoples and nations culturally and intellectually flourish.

By the way, what do you mean by "nations"? I'm curious as to your precise definition.

A couple of thoughts.

This emphasis on "community" is what has killed sociology and most of the rest of the social sciences. There is no such thing. It is used as a summary (like "working class", "Hispanics", etc.) but it doesn't pick out anything useful. It pretends that there is something consistency there, when in fact there isn't.
An intriguing notion. So you think there is no such thing as social class (given your mockery of the idea of the working class)? You hold that there is no such thing as ethnicity (given your dismissal of the term "Hispanics")?

So not only are we to believe that communities, in this subject a group of people living together in a shared geographic area, are mirages...but that social class and ethnicity are both pure illusions as well.

I'd like to hear you even vaguely justify that claim.

What IS there is individuals. Some of them interact with some others intensely, with other less so, with most not at all. Normally, they have little in the way of common interests (e.g., the "working class" typically votes about 60 percent Democrat, which means 40 percent vote for other parties or not at all; so talking about a typical "working class voter" just doesn't yield much information unless you are looking at very macro issues).

"Gentrification" similarly should not be treated as if it were a "thing" or single event. It is merely the sum of the actions of individuals. If 20k middle class people move into a 'hood and only 3k middle class move out, then it is becoming more middle class, or "gentrifying". This typically means that the poor are moving somewhere else (but some portion of them are just getting richer and staying, some are dying, some are the kids of the poor now grown wealthy, etc.).
So wait, gentrification isn't something, it's just the sum of many actions (logically making it something). So according to you, a war shouldn't be treated as a single thing or event, but as the sum of the actions of individuals?

That's a very convenient way to side-step criticism of anything involving multiple people. Unfortunately, it's nothing but poor sophistry concocted in order to ignore the trend as it obvious to everyone else, for or against, in this thread. You might as well tell us that this forum doesn't exist, but that it's just the sum of the posts of individuals.

It appears that those living in rundown ethnic neighborhoods with minimal language skills, largely non-existent legal rights, decaying buildings and dangerous conditions are not in danger of disappearing from the earth. But you may want to check upstairs in the tenements or in the basement where those quaint Chinese, Mexicans, Nigerians, etc., live before getting romantic about the charm and quaintness of it all.
Except as the Engels quote already explains, that's actually a problem with gentrification: it's not solving the problem of poverty or rundown neighborhoods, it's just shifting them elsewhere. Gentrification simply chases those populations here and there, but always keeping them economically deprived and politically voiceless (the two things that make gentrification possible in the first place).

So now that that argument is past us, we should look at your other assumption, that the only ones affected by gentrification are immigrants who can't string together a sentence in the national language. I think the fact that Harlem is currently fighting against gentrification as we type is enough to put this comfortably to rest.

:applause:

A certain degree could be positive. The goal however should be mixed neighboorhoods.

There comes a point where gentrification goes from improving a bad neighbourhood, making it a lively place, and moves onto making it an exclusive place. That's where it becomes bad.

Run down areas are bad because they exclude everyone accept locals and undesirables.

Too gentrified places are also bad because they exclude everyone except the well off.

The ideal is really somewhere where all can feel welcome.

Gentrification prevents urban quarters to become ghetto and slip down in eternal decay. I love gentrification. Keeps cities dynamic and alive and actually promotes mixed income communities. Gentrification generally takes years or even decades and actually works upward and downwards. So it keeps the different social classes well mixed in a city.

1+

Assuming a country provides opportunities for people of all origins (poor or rich, provided they are citizens and not illegal immigrants), and that a city doesn't hb pockets of slum or the like, why would it be of any difference if people of different incomes live or don't live in close quarters in the same streets or economically segregated in large homogenous neighborhoods?

Assuming a country provides opportunities for people of all origins (poor or rich, provided they are citizens and not illegal immigrants), and that a city doesn't hb pockets of slum or the like, why would it be of any difference if people of different incomes live or don't live in close quarters in the same streets or economically segregated in large homogenous neighborhoods?

Because it makes a difference if you have extreme segregation or not. The average quality and state of maintenance across all places of a city is worse in a highly segregated city than in a mixed one, even if you have in both scenarios the same overall number of poor, middle class and rich people. Mixed neighborhoods are not merely the average of the people that live there, but are better than that average.

Poor ghettos grow crime, but in a mixed city they don't exist, which does not eliminate crime but lead to lower overall crime rates.


Another argument is that highly segregated cities are very inefficient by leading to longer distances as the working class also has many jobs in wealthy areas but has to commute from far away places. In a mixed city also poor people can live closer to where they work even if that's in services for wealthier people. But hey, if you want to see how great an excessively segregated city is, why no visiting Johannesburg?

To me it depends how it looks after the "gentrification" is done. If crumbling buildings/roads/sidewalks are restored, or really ugly buildings are replaced with attractive ones, of course it's a good thing to me. On the other hand, tearing down interesting or beautiful old buildings and replacing them with bland new ones takes a lot of the character and beauty away from a place.

On a side note, if adding greenery is considered gentrification too, then it's always a good thing in my view

I am generally very pro-gentrification with a few qualifications. Gentrification that replaces unique neighborhood businesses with chain businesses is undesirable, and gentrification that leads to cheap, low-character housing being thrown up in the name of real estate developers making a quick buck by capitalizing on the popularity of newly trendy neighborhoods is terrible for gentrified neighborhoods in the long run.