Submitted by infocom6502 in Gentrification (edited )

I think over-gentrification is a really bad thing.

To me, early stage gentrification, or a very small amount of gentrification seems kind of nice.

Mid stage gentrification, well, I kind of ask my self is this a good thing and where's this going? Late stage gentrification, I think to myself, this isn't quite right.

With gentrification the problem usually seems to be that movements go far far in excess, especially given enough time.

I liken this to trace minerals. A little bit of manganese is a great thing, but go overboard with the dose and it becomes toxic.

1

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

Worst post ever.

1

infocom6502 OP wrote

I forgot to add to my post. What are better alternatives?

Given existing neighborhoods, what direction should they be going? No direction (steady state) is frustrating too for those that live in unsafe neighborhoods.

1

Bezotcovschina wrote

"unsafe neighborhoods"

1

infocom6502 OP wrote

they do exist afaik

1

infocom6502 OP wrote (edited )

maybe not in russia though

anyway, my point is "runaway gentrification" does seem to be a universal problem; doesn't matter what country you're in, it's pretty much the same.

1

Bezotcovschina wrote

my point is "runaway gentrification" does seem to be a universal problem

For me, your point is "a little bit of gentrification is ok". You didn't explain in what way replacement of marginalized people is good, except your veiled "they make neighborhoods unsafe".

1

infocom6502 OP wrote (edited )

suppose this neighborhood has a vacancy rate of 15% and after a little bit of gentrification it drops to 5%. I don't see that displacing marginalized people.

also, gentrification often means new construction (adding units, square footage, renovating space that wasn't habitable or was minimally habitable). A neighborhood could add total residents (and likely does).

Unless bottom third or quartile rents see a significant rise due to this low amount of gentrification, there is no displacement.

I don't get this black and white binary thinking. Quantity and degree matters.

1

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

The harm of gentrification is closely tied to home ownership rate. Attracting new wealthy residents inevitably drives rent up - I can't see another way around.

At glance, at high (total) home ownership rate, I can't see any harm in improving community infrastructure and space renovating.

Edit:

Unless bottom third or quartile rents see a significant rise due to this low amount of gentrification, there is no displacement.

Unless rent go down - there is no redeeming qualities in gentrification.

2