From what I've headr about it, it is basically filling "bad" neighborhoods with luxury condos and retail. But what is the point? Are the drug dealers and the homeless people going to say "Ahh! rich people!, let's get out of here!"? I mean, shouldn't we be less concerned about luxury condos and more concerned about getting people off the streets and into homes they can actually afford?

No, the drug dealers get priced out of the neighborhood due to high real estate prices and the homeless people are driven off the streets by an increased police presence and residents who have more sway in getting police to attend to their problems.

However, gentrification does not eliminate homelessness and drug dealing. It merely pushes them further south and west in the Chicago area. Then again, gentrification is not and was never intended as a solution to societies' ills.

I hate change...

No, the drug dealers get priced out of the neighborhood due to high real estate prices and the homeless people are driven off the streets by an increased police presence and residents who have more sway in getting police to attend to their problems.

However, gentrification does not eliminate homelessness and drug dealing. It merely pushes them further south and west in the Chicago area. Then again, gentrification is not and was never intended as a solution to societies' ills.

Wow, was going to reply to this earlier, and am glad I didn't now. You said exactly what I was going to, and explained it in clearer terms.

Indeed,very good post.



I have another question:

What are the major advantages and disadvantages of gentrification? Would you say, in your opinion, that it is beter overall for the community?

Advantages are it makes for a safer downtown, and the obvious disadvantage is
the poor people get emarginated even more, and are shoved even further from
the elite's collective eye. Out of sight, out of mind.

Advantages are that it is safer to roam the city streets for most of us. The disadvantage is that its socially irresponsible. But there seems to be no other way to lure well to do people into the city.

I don't really understand why crime is the only thing that's coming up here.

Gentrification can be very painful and disruptive for working people who have nothing to do with crime. Long time residents of neighborhoods are forced out of their homes- renters are forced out by evictions or rising rents, home owners on fixed incomes can lose their houses due to increasing property taxes. It is the worst for people who rent their homes or places of business though. Especially those who rent from unethical and greedy landlords. Gentrification can destroy the existing social fabric of a neighborhood.

However increasing property values in parts of a city increase the general tax-base which can help a city provide better services such as police, schools and even low-income housing. When weathier people move into a neighborhood private services that are important to quality of life follow. Most importantly, in my opinion are grocery stores and banks. Residents of low income neighborhoods suffer greatly for the lack of such things. Gentrification can, but doesn't always help preserve historic structures.

Anyway. I think it's a mixed bag. Change can be painful.

One good thing about gentrification is that the presence of it can signal the economic prosperity of a city. Gentrification in most cases is driven by market demand, so more gentrification could mean increasing prosperity. Rich people and yuppies won't live where there are no jobs to support their lifestyles.

Gentrification is, in a sense, an indirect form of eminent domain, something I oppose.

Of course, as long as the "elite" :| come in and price the middle and working class out, there will always be working and middle class people to feed sweet, sweet suburban sprawl.

There have been a lot of good posts regarding the advantages and disadvantages of gentrification. However, a disadvantage that gets left out is that old neighborhood commercial strips sometimes get destroyed in the process. There are countless examples; North Avenue between Wells and Halsted, Clark Street between Division and North Avenue (this isn't widely known), and Lake Park Avenue in Hyde Park. When neighborhoods lose local commercial strips, it decreases unity among the neighborhood as people have to drive out of their way in order to buy stuff. Seriously, if you live in a reasonably dense part of Chicago, you should be able to walk to places to care of various errands.

Gentrification also scrambles the gang power structure and forces gangs to fight with other gangs for turf or set up turf in unchartered territory.

Even though, I listed these disadvantages, I'm actually not against gentrification. There are many positives to it as well as negatives.

Even though, I listed these disadvantages, I'm actually not against gentrification. There are many positives to it as well as negatives.

Exactly. Would you rather have wealthy people restoring urban neighbourhoods or building McMantions on farmland? Cities always constantly evolve, neighbourhoods go from rich to poor to rich again over the decades.

Genetrification sucks.

Exactly. Would you rather have wealthy people restoring urban neighbourhoods or building McMantions on farmland? Cities always constantly evolve, neighbourhoods go from rich to poor to rich again over the decades.

I've always preferred the city McMansions to the more suburban or rural ones myself. I don't know why.

And yes, cities are constantly evolving. Even though gentrification did force hispanics out of Lincoln Park and Bucktown, they only lived in the area for 30-40 years. Its rare in many neighborhoods to be dominated by one ethnic group for more than 50 years or so. There are plenty of exceptions, but at the same time, many neighborhoods fit this rule.

It's weird that Lincoln Park used to be a hispanic neighborhood.

A big problem with Genetrification is that when the rich whites move back into the city from the suburbs they take their bad taste and boring suburban, milk-toast ways with them. The grit, the flavor, the real-life, the ethnic neighborhoods that are the things I love about cities can all turn into a Gap after Starbucks next to a Barnes and Noble and a bunch of boring prissy white people. Chicago is lucky in that not many neighborhoods outside of Bucktown and parts of Wicker Park have been turned into suburban theme-park style blandness. So far. Not so lucky are Seattle, SF, and Manhattan. Those cities are all filthy rich now. But where they once were viberent, gritty, interesting, real.... Now, to me they seem sterile, boring... basicly suburban but with big buildings. That's too bad I think. Money is a great thing especially if you don't have much, but it can and will kill anything.

prissy white people?

alright, i've told you folks a million times now, we don't do race on the chicago forum. it always leads to terrible places.





end.