I don't know about you, but I hate this "gentrification" of Neighborhoods. Like in New York, Hell's Kitchen...Clinton, in Baltimore, Pigtown...Washington Village. Frankly I'd rather live in Pigtown or Hell's Kitchen. It's more interesting and more unique.

what? why do you hate it? and if you hate it why would you want to live there??

Gentrification is not a good thing. It may reduce crime in an area, but it ruins the neighborhoods. You remove the culture of a neighborhood and they kick everybody out and replace them with ( I'm not being racist here, just stating the facts) young white people/or asians who have white collar jobs and who make above 80K.

It's like they only want rich people to live in the cities. It pisses me off, because they talk about makin affordable housing, and build 200 units of condos BUT only make 10-20 of them affordable to those who don't earn half the median income. And it seems all the projects and buildings they plan to build ONLY BENEFITS the rich, not the regular average joe who works hard for his 50K a year. Basically its' like this, If you are not rich get out we dont want you here, u can only come here to work then get out.

I also understand that ( i am black so i'm not being racist here just stating the facts)
in ghetto/bad neighborhoods it is mostly the afro-americans and latinos ( not being racist) who live there and those areas are cheap for development and they are horrible plots of land because of drugs, crime, etc, so they do ruin it for the regular people. But to kick everyone out isn't necessary. CT citites could be better than what they are, CT needs to wake up, because everyone is leaving the state and nobody is coming back it seems. Having different cultures is always good for a city

Just my thoughts folks. I'm not trying to be racist so if i offended anyone, you have my apology.

Gentrification is good in that it brings an increased tax base to the city and turns neighborhoods around. Also, if done correctly, it can ensure that people who own their homes keep their homes. In Philadelphia they have tried to impliment a program where a person can keep their home if they own it, the city will just take out a lean against the value of their home for the property taxes they cannot afford.

Here's an article from USA Today:

Studies: Gentrification a boost for everyone
By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY
Everyone knows gentrification uproots the urban poor with higher rents, higher taxes and $4 lattes. It's the lament of community organizers, the theme of the 2004 film Barbershop 2 and the guilty assumption of the yuppies moving in.

But everyone may be wrong, according to Lance Freeman, an assistant professor of urban planning at Columbia University.

In an article last month in Urban Affairs Review, Freeman reports the results of his national study of gentrification — the movement of upscale (mostly white) settlers into rundown (mostly minority) neighborhoods.

His conclusion: Gentrification drives comparatively few low-income residents from their homes. Although some are forced to move by rising costs, there isn't much more displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods than in non-gentrifying ones.

In a separate study of New York City published last year, Freeman and a colleague concluded that living in a gentrifying neighborhood there actually made it less likely a poor resident would move — a finding similar to that of a 2001 study of Boston by Duke University economist Jacob Vigdor.

Freeman and Vigdor say that although higher costs sometimes force poor residents to leave gentrifying neighborhoods, other changes — more jobs, safer streets, better trash pickup — encourage them to stay. But to others, gentrification remains a dirty word.

"All you have to do is talk to people around here," says James Lewis, a tenant organizer in Harlem, New York's most famous black neighborhood. "Everybody with money is moving into Harlem, and the people who are here are being displaced."

Even residents who have survived gentrification tend to believe it forces people out.

Maria Marquez, 37, has slept on the sofa for 12 years to give her mother and son the two bedrooms in their apartment in Chicago's gentrifying Logan Square area. But eventually, she says, "we're gonna get kicked out. It's a matter of time."

Kathe ******, assistant professor of public policy at Rutgers University, argues that Freeman's research in New York understates the extent of displacement. But she says he has raised a good question: How, in the face of relentlessly higher living costs, do so many poor people stay put?

A hot-button issue

Gentrification has spawned emotional disputes in cities around the nation:

• In northwest Fort Lauderdale, where streets are named for the district's prominent old African-American families, three of four new home buyers are white, according to a survey by the Sun-Sentinel. City Commissioner Carlton Moore told the newspaper his largely black constituency fears displacement, even though he says it won't happen.

• In the predominantly Latino working class barrio of East Austin, the new Pedernales Lofts condominiums have raised adjacent land values more than 50% since 2003. Last fall, someone hung signs from power lines outside the lofts saying, "Stop gentrifying the East Side" and "Will U give jobs to longtime residents of this neighborhood?"

• In Charlotte, a City Council committee voted in December to remove language from a city planning department report that downplayed gentrification's threat to neighborhoods. Development could uproot some people, councilman John Tabor told the Charlotte Observer "If there are people in these neighborhoods who have to move because they can't afford their taxes, that's who I want to help," he said.

• In Boston's North End, the destruction of the noisy Central Artery elevated highway promises to attract younger, more affluent new residents and dilute the traditional Italian immigrant culture.

In the two decades after World War II, government urban renewal schemes tore down whole neighborhoods and scattered residents.

Gentrification, which appeared in the 1970s, was something else. Motivated by high gasoline prices, suburban sprawl and a new taste for old architecture, some middle class whites began moving into neighborhoods that had gone out of fashion a generation or two earlier.

Here's how it works: A dilapidated and depopulated but essentially attractive neighborhood — solid housing stock, well laid-out streets, proximity to the city center — is discovered by artists, graduate students and other bohemians.

Block by block, the neighborhood changes. The newcomers fix up old buildings. Galleries and cafes open, and mom 'n' pop groceries close. City services improve. Finally, the bohemians are joined by lawyers, stockbrokers and dentists. Property values rise, followed by property taxes and rents.

To some urban planners, gentrification is a solution to racial segregation, a shrinking tax base and other problems. To others, it is a problem: Poor blacks and Hispanics, who've held on through hard times and sometimes started the neighborhood's comeback, are ousted by their own success.

Jose Sanchez, an urban planning expert at Long Island University in Brooklyn, says some changing neighborhoods stabilize with a mixture of people. But he says the poor — and the bohemian pioneers — can also be "washed out" by scheming landlords or government policies such as rezoning and urban renewal.

The poor stay put

Freeman and Vigdor say gentrification has gotten a bad rap. When they studied New York City and Boston, respectively, they found that poor and less educated residents of gentrifying neighborhoods actually moved less often than people in other neighborhoods — 20% less in New York.

For his national study published this year, Freeman found only a slight connection between gentrification and displacement. A poor resident's chances of being forced to move out of a gentrifying neighborhood are only 0.5% greater than in a non-gentrifying one.

So how do some neighborhoods change so dramatically? Freeman says it's mostly the result of what he calls "succession": Poor people in gentrifying neighborhoods who move from their homes — for whatever reason — usually are replaced by people who have more income and education.

Freeman and Vigdor say skeptics who view gentrification merely as " 'hood snatching" should remember three things:

• Many older neighborhoods have high turnover, whether they gentrify or not. Vigdor says that over five years, about half of all urban residents move.

• Such neighborhoods often have so much vacant or abandoned housing that there's no need to drive anyone out to accommodate people who want to move in. A quarter of the housing in one section of Boston's South End was vacant in 1970; the population had dropped by more than 50% over 20 years. Today, the population has increased more than 50%, and the vacancy rate is less than 2%.

• Rising housing costs in gentrifying districts may ensure that poor residents who do move leave the neighborhood, rather than settle elsewhere in it. Since their places usually are taken by more affluent, better educated people, the neighborhood's character and demographics change.

Vigdor argues that hatred of gentrification is largely irrational: "We were angry when the middle class moved out of the city," he says. "Now we're angry when they move back."

He asks whether Detroit, which in 50 years has lost half its population and most of its middle class, would not have been better off with gentrification than it has been without it.

A housing shortage

Gentrification is a symptom of a bigger problem: Metro areas don't create enough housing, Vigdor says. When prices in the suburbs get high enough, home buyers start looking at "undervalued" urban housing. If it's close to downtown and has some period charm, so much the better.

But critics insist gentrification does real harm to real people. Lewis, the Harlem organizer, says he can't get statements from people who were forced out because he doesn't know where they went.

A surprising number of poor people, however, manage to hold on. Some explanations:

•Homeownership. Homeowners face rising property taxes, but unlike renters they also stand to gain from rising values. Idida Perez, 46, complains that taxes and escrow payments on her two-family house near Logan Square in Chicago have jumped $300 a month over the past few years. But the house, which she and her husband bought for $200,000 in 1990, is now worth $400,000.

•Rent control. Samuel Ragland, 82, pays $115 a month for his one-room rent-controlled apartment on fast-gentrifying West 120th Street in Harlem. His building is being converted into condos, but under New York law, his landlord can't move him out unless he's given a comparable apartment at a comparable rent in the same area.

•Government subsidies. Carole Singleton, 52, had to retire from her job as a hospital administrator after she got cancer. But she's been able to stay in Harlem because she pays only $300 of the $971 rent for her apartment; a federal housing subsidy covers the rest.

•Doubling (or tripling) up. After the rent on Ofelia Sanchez's one-bedroom apartment in the Logan Square area went from $500 to $600, she and her two kids moved into a three-bedroom with Sanchez's mother and her sister's family. The apartment houses 10 people. Sanchez and her son share a bed, and her daughter sleeps on the floor. But Sanchez won't move; she works as a tutor at the local elementary school, and her mother babysits while she takes classes at Chicago State University. "This is home," she says of the neighborhood where she's lived for 26 of her 27 years. "I don't know anyone anywhere else."

•Landlord-tenant understandings. In return for $595 monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment, tenant Maria Marquez rakes the leaves and shovels the front walk. She lays floor tile, repairs holes in the porch and changes light fixtures. It enables her, her son and her mother to stay in an area of Chicago where two-bedrooms rent for $1,000.

•More income devoted to rent. Poor New York households in gentrifying neighborhoods spent 61% of their income on housing, compared with 52% for the poor in non-gentrifying ones, Freeman found. Klare Allen, who is in her mid-40s, has been able to keep her three-bedroom apartment in Roxbury, a black neighborhood close to downtown Boston. But she has to pay $1,400 a month — 75% of her monthly income.

•Prayer. Alma Feliciano, 46, of Boston asked God for an affordable apartment that would allow her and her four children to stay in Roxbury and continue to attend her church, Holy Tabernacle. Her prayers were granted — a unit in a federally subsidized complex. Otherwise, she says, she would have had to leave the city.

One reason poor families make such heroic efforts to stay is because the quality of life is improving — partly thanks to gentrification.

In the Logan Square area, Marquez says, an influx of higher-income newcomers has coincided with what seems like more aggressive policing.

"The gang bangers are not around as much, and you don't see the prostitutes on the corners like you used to," she says.

Idida Perez hates the rising prices but admits, "There are a lot more small cafes owned by people from the neighborhood, and I am a big coffee drinker." And new businesses mean new jobs: Someone has to pour those lattes.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-19-gentrification_x.htm

People on both sides of the fence on this issue make good points... but I think I am slightly more on the side that believes gentrification is a good thing. Expecially when they utilize the old buildings already there to beautify the neighborhood instead of totally changing it. I think most gentrification in cities changes crime and drug ridden neighborhoods into thriving and healthy ones.... and not as much kicking out longstanding immigrant cultures.

I think gentrification is bad in cities that doesn't have a lot of low income housing units. In Boston, gentrification is raising the rents for those (mostly immigrants) that don't make a lot of money and pretty soon they may end up being booted out. This can ruin a neighborhood and all the newcomers will soon replace the culture that has once been there.

how many complaints about inner-city gentrification come from white people in the 'burbs?

I stated it poorly, I mean the name change more than anything. It's nice that these areas are turning around, don't get me wrong.

I refuse to use pretty much all name changes, except perhaps Soho and Tribeca because those are fairly old by now and have some gained some dignity. DUMBO? That sounds like a ploy to make migrants pay attention by going "OMG, I can't believe there's an NYC neighborhood called Dumbo!"

Except there isn't. It's an invention to make you say what you just said, and thus make you aware of its existance.

ultimately the gentrification arguement is just the same as the low income high density housing debates of decades ago just in reverse...

then you had affordable housing showing up in neighborhoods that ultimately dragged property values down and hurt the city schools and altered the make up of the neighborhood...ultimatley the 'original residents' were forced out to other areas...

now the exact opposite is happening... its cyclical...its just now all those same people who are out pricing and displacing the poor in williamsburg, or red hook, or hells kitchen or whereever need a nice fancy word like 'gentrification' to explain the cycle...

architorture... you couldn't have summed up my thoughts any better.^^

the complaints about wealthy white folks ruining the character and displacing the residents of an area sound much like when my grandfather was complaining about all the poor black and latino destroying the character of his mostly italian neighborhood.
for better or for worse it happens

now to be fair, i think its hard for anyone to watch an area they grew up in or are familiar with change, regardless of its history, or its cultural or economic make up.

It's a cycle and each time, we try to figure out a way to do it better than we did before. I personally don't like gentrification. It goes two ways, I think many poor people can do more with the opportunities they have, but on the other side, the powers at be are more concerned with generating profits and tax revenue. Even though DC doesn't have heavy industry, now that is becoming less relevant in big cities these days, I don't think the claim that it's "soulless" is much different that a lot of places these days because of gentrification displacing people that have spent a lot of time in cities. But like DC, most cities will have people that won't leave without a fight which is good.

If gentrification actually helped the people, I would be much more in favor of it. I would love to see schools and crime get better and the people benefit from a more efficient gov't and community as opposed to having them move out and let someone else deal with it.

It's a cycle and each time, we try to figure out a way to do it better than we did before. I personally don't like gentrification. It goes two ways, I think many poor people can do more with the opportunities they have, but on the other side, the powers at be are more concerned with generating profits and tax revenue. Even though DC doesn't have heavy industry, now that is becoming less relevant in big cities these days, I don't think the claim that it's "soulless" is much different that a lot of places these days because of gentrification displacing people that have spent a lot of time in cities. But like DC, most cities will have people that won't leave without a fight which is good.

If gentrification actually helped the people, I would be much more in favor of it. I would love to see schools and crime get better and the people benefit from a more efficient gov't and community as opposed to having them move out and let someone else deal with it.

Well said

Well its pissing me off that the good people are kicked out along with the riff-raffs. I agree to kick the riff raffs out but keep the good ones in. Yes gentrification brings down crime etc, but the energy is gone from the neighborhood, replaced by boring people who do nothing but know how to be rich and spend. I have noithing against people who have money, i have no problems with white people, i have no problems with anybody, i just have a problem with those people who: 1) Tear down the neighborhood and then complain when whites move in. 2) those who complain about being a victim by the white man, but they are too lazy to work at shoprite. 3) Those who want the material things they see in life and rob, hurt people just to attain riches. 4) I cannot stand those who sit up there and lie and talk about helping the community. WHere are the mayors??? Why don't they go to those areas of their cities and stop hiding in their offices and in the rich areas doing all that talking.

At least show some honest interest in the minority community. I know you can't save everybody, but you can surely try and show people you're being honest. Be a people person, and know your city, not just the ones who give you money under the table..........

As with so many things, a decent sized dose of gentrification is great in moderation.

Cities like Buffalo, Cleveland & Detroit would benefit from more gentrification, but their depressed demographics, stagnant economics & mostly obsolete wooden frame housing stock probably precludes that from happening on a significant scale.

In the other hand cities like Boston & San Francisco and certainly Manhattan (although not all of NYC) represent gentrification taken to the extreme. Not just the low income, but even the working-class & middle-class are being pushed out. So these hyper gentrified places are in danger of becoming, to borrow a phrase from Rebecca Solnit, “Hollow Cities”.

Washington DC, & to a lesser degree Philadelphia and Baltimore, are other examples of larger Northeast cities that are benefiting from gentrification. Jersey City & Providence are examples of smaller Northeastern cities that have experienced considerable gentrification.

Pittsburgh has the just the right topography & housing stock for gentrification. But the wrong demographics & economics.

Pittsburgh has the just the right topography & housing stock for gentrification. But the wrong demographics & economics.

Though gentrification has not been as widespread in Pittsburgh compared to the East Coast cities... it has been occuring at a rather suprising rate (much more so than say Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo). The South Side is the most obvious example. It's modest working class rowhomes have skyrocketed in value. Lawrenceville is quickly becoming the next South Side. Friendship and many other pockets of the East End have experienced gentrification. The beautiful North Side has been very slowly undergoing gentrification... if this was a booming city... these gorgeous homes would be going for millions. Pittsburgh is lucky in that some of its neighborhoods never really went downhill (Shadyside, Squirrel Hill, Point Breeze) so they've never had to experience gentrification. Also, I feel that the gentrification in Pittsburgh has been less damaging to neighborhood authenticity and character... which may be a result of the more modest pace of gentrification. The South Side business district, for example, is a very functional, vibrant and diverse business district... not one of these high-end boutique business districts found in many gentrified urban neighborhoods.

I think due to the desperate state most US cities are in... gentrification is ultimately a net positive... however... I think there are examples of sensitive gentrification and out-of-control gentrification (in booming, larger cities) that shreds the traditional neighborhood fabric.


Great post, btw.

the powers at be are more concerned with generating profits and tax revenue.


a thought on tax revenue. some cities are in desperate need of developing new sources of tax revenue and capitilizing on the rapidly growing demand for urban housing is a very practical way of doing so.
i can't speak for cities outside of new york state, but new york's cities and counties are responsible for a large part of their social welfare programs.
as upstate new yorks cities have suffered from weak economies and decreasing populations their tax bases have remained stagnant while their poverty levels have increased. this has led to financial strain on city and county governments as the cost of social welfare(in particular medicaid) closes in on their total revenue. in the buffalo area for example, the county's annual state mandated contribution to medicaid excedes the entire annual property tax levy for the county. buffalo's city schools continue to operate in the red, and its costs will surely increase while it's tax revenue continues to shrink.

all im saying is that tax dollars are what pays for services for the poor, and some cities have far too many poor and far too few tax dollars.

i agree about the affects of gentrification in some large cities(usually higher density cities) and even saw some negative affects of it in portland, oregon.
i do however think that some cities desperately need it to happen in some areas or there will be nothing left.

Though gentrification has not been as widespread in Pittsburgh compared to the East Coast cities... it has been occuring at a rather suprising rate (much more so than say Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo).


When I visited Pittsburgh quite frequently, & spent quite a bit of time on the South Side, I was always amazed at how cheap those nice solid brick rowhouses were, particularly considering all the great views & other natural assets that came along with them. So great to hear that Pittsburgh's real estate market is picking up.

Hartford has never experienced much gentrification.

Like Pittsburgh, there is great housing stock, but our weak economy retarded this from happening. It does not help that, thanks to evening news, suburbanites have been scared shitless from going to Hartford beyond the 9 to 5 hours.

But, there is potential. The West End has signs of gentrification, apartments are being reconverted as condos in some areas. Housing projects are being slowly phased out...and prices are skyrocketing, growing 85% since 2000...

The South End has potential as well...the area near Trinity College is prime for it...but the college and students stay being aloof from the city, which brings zero.

Downtown has seen lots of condos being built, like the Hartford 21...37 stories high and all condos...and there is more proposed. The city government is capitalizing on the Empty nester's syndrome.

The North End is a whole other story...unlikely to gentrify anytime soon...

For some reason the word "gentrification" sounds like segregation...

But i'm all for kicking drug dealers and criminals out but keeping the good people there

its just the concept of areas being taken over by owners or at least more owners and less renters and more mobile peoples

I think higher home ownership is great for a city. People who buy and own their own homes have more pride and take better care of their home and neighborhood.

While I'm not totally against gentrification, I still don't think it's right to remove poorer people from their neighborhoods. Remember, there are alot of them who do take pride in where they live, and do take care of their properties. I also don't think that cities should be a bedroom community for the wealthy. I think a real city should have an equal amount of people from all backgrounds. So in this regard, I don't think I'm happy at all about the direction our cities are headed. Sorry.

The most bizarre aspect of gentrification in NYC, is now for a bargain for living in Manhattan, people are going to the Upper East Side! What if Williamsburg becomes more expensive than the UES? Will the trendy renters flock back once they realize they can "afford Manhattan?"

When I visited Pittsburgh quite frequently, & spent quite a bit of time on the South Side, I was always amazed at how cheap those nice solid brick rowhouses were, particularly considering all the great views & other natural assets that came along with them. So great to hear that Pittsburgh's real estate market is picking up.

BayViews, you might find this article interesting. It is from an April edition of the Pittsburgh Business Times.

Sellers of South Side houses find the market is theirs for the asking
Fast-rising values make area the place to be
Pittsburgh Business Times - April 21, 2006by Robert Sandler


Would you pay $174,900 to live on an alley behind a sports bar and a funeral home? That would be more than a threefold increase over its sale price just six years ago.

In the Pittsburgh market in general, housing values don't rise more than 2 percent to 4 percent per year, real estate agents say. But houses like that example on Wrights Way are common on the South Side, where some sell for six or seven times as much as their previous owner paid.

"It's the hot area in town attracting that 20-, 30- and maybe 40-something crowd that can walk out their door into some nightlife, some activity and what's going on in their city," said Ted Knowlton, a real estate agent with Coldwell Banker Pittsburgh.

The inexpensive housing stock and aging population have made many of the homes easy for investors to acquire and make some easy money.

"There's a lot of older people that are moving out or passing away or what have you, so a lot of these older homes are getting bought up by investors who are renting them for a profit," said Bart Hardy of O'Hara-based Howard Hanna Real Estate Services Inc.

The fast-rising values have attracted investors such as Lance Harrell to buy an old run-down house cheap, fix it up and sell it quickly for a substantial profit. Harrell flips houses throughout the area, but says South Side is the best place to make a quick profit of $40,000 or 50,000.

"You can sell it for a lot more on the South Side," Harrell said. "The market is a lot stronger, so houses sell a lot faster."

A property with off-street parking is "like gold in the South Side," he said. "That's the big selling point. You can probably ask another $15,000 for it."

Jason Moots, an agent for Coldwell Banker who also sometimes buys and flips houses, said prices are rising so fast on the South Side that it's not so easy to make a profit anymore.

"The South Side's a great place to do it," he said. "The problem is, a year or two ago, you could pick up properties cheap down there. Nowadays, it's hard to find a dump for under $100,000."

Even the South Side Slopes, which once had been thought of as unsafe or less desirable than the flats, are gaining popularity.

"People are starting to move up the hill a little bit because the prices have been a little more reasonable," said Catherine McConnell, an agent with Coldwell Banker.

McConnell is listing a house at 2320 Primrose St. in the Slopes for $249,000. If it were in the Flats, she says, she could get another $50,000 for it.

"There are some people that don't want to climb up steep streets," she said. "Other people find it's worth it because the view is pretty magical."

Living in the steep slopes can be cost-effective and provide health benefits, too, McConnell noted: "Who needs a Stairmaster in their bedroom if you've got stairs to walk up and down to get to your house?"

But the Slopes are much more affordable for the general population and usually still close to the nightlife and other amenities of East Carson Street.

"The Flats are becoming somewhat unreachable for a number of buyers," said John Adair of Coldwell Banker. "People are migrating up the hill just because it's still a very convenient location and it's close to the schools."

Property values are rising slowly in close-in South Hills neighborhoods. But the South Side Slopes, especially on Mission and Pius streets, has gained value, he said.

"Appreciation is 1 percent in Beechview or Brookline or other parts of Mount Washington," Adair said. "But South Side is just mind-boggling."

WHAT'S NEXT?

Investors are speculating on what will be the next neighborhood to take off as South Side did. Many are focused on Mexican War Streets, Regent Square and Lawrenceville's burgeoning arts district.

"You're seeing developers who, South Side got too expensive for them, went to Lawrenceville and made new housing, both loft and condo style, and are rehabbing old row houses just like they did on South Side," Knowlton said. "Prices are starting to climb, particularly along Butler Street."

The other area that speculators are betting on spreads out from the new Children's Hospital under construction on Penn Avenue into Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Friendship and Garfield.

"There's speculation of in two years what that will be when Children's opens up," Hardy said. "Penn Avenue prices have climbed because of speculators and people getting set up for new businesses (in) that whole area around the hospital."

Moots agreed that the blocks closest to the hospital, such as Main Street and 43rd Street, are popular for speculators.

"Those immediate streets near the hospital, a lot of people are fixing those up, and speculating with the hospital that a nurse or doctor will want them," Moots said.

rsandler@bizjournals.com | (412) 481-6397 x223

While I'm not totally against gentrification, I still don't think it's right to remove poorer people from their neighborhoods. Remember, there are alot of them who do take pride in where they live, and do take care of their properties. I also don't think that cities should be a bedroom community for the wealthy. I think a real city should have an equal amount of people from all backgrounds. So in this regard, I don't think I'm happy at all about the direction our cities are headed. Sorry.


I Co-Sign that. More cities are trying to become bedroom cities for the rich ( the whole state of CT is becoming that way). A town full of rich people= boring, no culture, no histroy. Just a bunch of snobs throwing their money around. Gentrificaton brings its upside, but the downside is very dibilitating. Not everyone in a ghetto/poorer area are drug dealers, thugs, and criminals. Cities need equal amount. Would NYC, Miami, LA, Chicago be so great with just rich people living there?? No way! It would be boring. All these "upscale" stores, "upscale" restaraunts...man give me some collard greens and some cornbread and mac n cheese and everything is all right. Payin glike 22 dollars just for a burger....no way. I just want to know this: Why don't these "upscale" people come to poor neighborhoods and try to help instead of taking over..

BayViews, you might find this article interesting. It is from an April edition of the Pittsburgh Business Times.

Sellers of South Side houses find the market is theirs for the asking
Fast-rising values make area the

...snip....

that a nurse or doctor will want them," Moots said.

rsandler@bizjournals.com | (412) 481-6397 x223

my fiance and i have been looking for houses recently and we've kept an eye on some city houses and neighborhoods...she is a real estate appraiser so of course that helps keep ahead of the curve a little bit...

from what i have seen from watching the listings and tracking some values in certain neighborhoods i think the mexican war streets and the area just to the north are the next 'big thing'

its a nice historic neighborhood that is geographically 'remote' enough to make it perfect for a revitilization without concern of the fringe neighborhoods...and its right across from downtown...

just some thoughts...buy mexican war street...although i agree with the article that the new hospital will also be a big force of change

While I'm not totally against gentrification, I still don't think it's right to remove poorer people from their neighborhoods. Remember, there are alot of them who do take pride in where they live, and do take care of their properties. I also don't think that cities should be a bedroom community for the wealthy. I think a real city should have an equal amount of people from all backgrounds. So in this regard, I don't think I'm happy at all about the direction our cities are headed. Sorry.

are you saying equal number? or equal based on percentage of the population?
the reason i ask is because by percentage, our cities are already disproportionately both poor and minority. so, if using percentage, and your logic, then the only way to make cities equal is by displacing the poor and the minority populations.

Most american cities have predominately white citizens ( not being racist here). Only citites like Detroit, Atlanta, Charlotte etc have a larger black population than other major cities. So by kicking th epoor out of most cities and moving the rich in, you mean to tell me it will balance out?? No, the minority percentage will decrease in all these cities, and basically to me these rich folks sending minorities down to southern cities. it seems like slavery times are coming back........the north once again filling up with whites and the south predominately filling up with blacks...........I see it as a quiet way to say: We don't want you blacks/minoritites here anymore and get out....but they quietyl talk about its for the greater good. While it does good in being positivity, it still harms the culture. I dont want to go one day to the west side part of my city trying to get some jamaican food, and i go there and its replaced by some offices of a company..............

^^ i should clarify. while only a few cities have more total blacks in their city than total white, the percentage of blacks in most cities is higher than the overall national percentage of blacks. for example, while blacks account for only 12 percent of americas population, they account for a mucher larger percentage of the urban population.
only 12 percent of the national population, but over 80% of detroit's, over 70% of atlanta's, over 35% of buffalo's, etc, etc.
for most cities in the eastern half of the country this is the case.
i would assume the distribution is somewhat similar for latinos in the western half of the country and in some of the south(could be wrong).
my point is that when you look at national percentages, then compare them with where that population is settled within each metro area, it becomes clear that minorities disproportionate numbers in urban areas and white have disproportionate numbers in suburbs and rural areas.

While I'm not totally against gentrification, I still don't think it's right to remove poorer people from their neighborhoods. Remember, there are alot of them who do take pride in where they live, and do take care of their properties. I also don't think that cities should be a bedroom community for the wealthy. I think a real city should have an equal amount of people from all backgrounds. So in this regard, I don't think I'm happy at all about the direction our cities are headed. Sorry.

i totally agree with you.

i was in new york last week for the first time in my life and i was surprised about the fact that virtually all the island -manhattan- will soon be gentrified, althought there are still some "poor" communities remaining.

it's the only thing that disappointed me a bit, i probably expected more diversity among the neighbourhoods of manhattan. even if there is a huge diversity, i expected more ... i don't know, clear differences? i don't know, manhattan is not more a "total city" by itself! i don't know if it's good or bad, probably my expectances were not very smart.

still, i loved new york. btw, i spent these days in a friend's house in park slope, brooklyn, so fortunately i know a little bit the new york out of manhattan.

don't worry you can still get a good mugging in manhattan if you really want it :)

don't worry you can still get a good mugging in manhattan if you really want it :)

xd

it's the only thing that disappointed me a bit, i probably expected more diversity among the neighbourhoods of manhattan. even if there is a huge diversity, i expected more ... i don't know, clear differences? i don't know, manhattan is not more a "total city" by itself! i don't know if it's good or bad, probably my expectances were not very smart.


It probably surprises most people to realize that Manhattan, along with Staten Island, is the most segragated of all the boroughs--probably because the groups intermingle the most in Manhattan because many residents of the outerboroughs come into Manhattan for work, shopping, entertainment, etc. While many Manhattan residents deride the outerboroughs as being "suburban" or just plain "not the real city", I have great affection for the outerboroughs because I feel they contribute just as much to the spirit and ambience of NYC as Manhattan does itself, whether you're in Brownsville or Bellerose. Hell, even good ol' Staten Island is fine with me, if only because it's the single best preserver of our famous accent, haha :horse:

i totally agree with you.

i was in new york last week for the first time in my life and i was surprised about the fact that virtually all the island -manhattan- will soon be gentrified, althought there are still some "poor" communities remaining.

it's the only thing that disappointed me a bit, i probably expected more diversity among the neighbourhoods of manhattan. even if there is a huge diversity, i expected more ... i don't know, clear differences? i don't know, manhattan is not more a "total city" by itself! i don't know if it's good or bad, probably my expectances were not very smart.

still, i loved new york. btw, i spent these days in a friend's house in park slope, brooklyn, so fortunately i know a little bit the new york out of manhattan.
I see where you are coming from. I hope you liked Brooklyn. It has more character than Manhattan IMO ( people of all income, bodegas,etc).

I've seen and live on both sides of the fence when it comes to Gentrification.

I think it can be a very good thing when it comes time to reutilize structures, and the reinvestment that can come along with it. The feeling of seeing a place that was once like a ghosttown Vibrant, is weird but at the same time very exciting

but I dont like it when people are promised something like affordable housing in Urban Renewal (or Urban Removal, however you figure it) and the promise isn't held up. It hurts when you see people you know lose their homes, and a year later you see a brand new condo thats not even close to being fully occupied already built. I say this because I can remember growing up, how My mother would actually go outside the building, and clean the street up, chase bums aways, pour bleach on hallway floors to make them shine brighter...sweep up the elevator...and what did she get in return??? She was treated awful by Cops and people in the neighborhood who could have help out. One thing I've come to understand is that wherever you choose to live you have to own.

^^^^^^^^^^ I agree heavily. "Affordable Housing" is a bunch of BS. You have a 400 Unit complex, and ONLY 10-20 units are affordable?? That's a joke. I see people lose their homes and it hurts to that happen, especially the good people who care.

In stamford, every other day a brand new condo goes up and hardly anyone in it. And the thing that upsets me is they building "luxury" condos now....why luxury condos??

Obviously most of these mayors, politicians, developers haven't come from the bottom. they have come from the middle and higher, and don't know anything about the people who live in the poorer areas. They just assume its more poor black and latino folks, lets kick them out and put our rich white/asian friends in there. To me gentrification is sort of like racism. And the people who are on the bottom of the barrel are the ones getting taxed the most and are the ones that they take the money from. You could gentrify an area but only to a certain extent, when you overdo it then it becomes a problem.



( I don't mean to use the term "white" or "Blacks" or "latinos" purposely to spite anyone, so If i have menitoned any racial comments , i apologize, i don't mean to offend anyone here, i'm just speaking from a point of view that alot of folks dont understand, dont see, and dont want to see. My apologies again if anyone has been offended)

gentrification has saved quite a few architecturally significant buildings from the wrecking ball.