|
Less trolly, the notion that the people who live in a neighborhood pre-gentrification should be expected to stay there seems like something worth examining. They're not the "original" residents except on a very arbitrary time scale, they're not being illegally displaced (if they are that's a problem that needs addressing), when they move out they´re moving into another neighborhood - maybe with a nice payout if they sold property. So what is the great wrong being perpetrated?
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:OK, then. Why? Isn't this hypothetical getting a little far afield. What if A has more resources and wants to live where B lives, so they pay B a bunch of money and B goes to live in a cheaper neighborhood and pockets the difference. And this repeats enough that the neighborhood becomes safer, cleaner, and generally more desirable to live in. The horror!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:Is a financial sector employee who spends all day moving stacks of imaginary money around more or less productive than a fast food worker who produces immediately tangible hamburgers? edit: more.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:There's generally not a whole lot of housing available for the poor. Gentrification cuts this down further, primarily through the increase in property taxes and indirectly rents, forcing people into homelessness and increasingly shittier housing. If we assume that there's effectively unlimited housing at every level of quality, then, yes, gentrification is not a problem. In the real world, however, it is one, and one that must be resolved if we are to be fully human. idk this raises some questions in my mind. One, I thought the deal with gentrification is that the housing started off lovely. If that's the case gentrification is sort of a lateral move for lots of people. Second, I find it really hard to believe there is a housing shortage of the type you describe. I mean, maybe if you qualify it (ie: in Manhattan) but otherwise why do you believe that's a general thing? Do you have any sources?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:Is a middle manager more productive than the people they oversee? Give me some metric to determine productivity here, as it seems a fairly arbitrary standard. Are we defining it by how much revenue they produce? Because surely if there's one thing the past decade has taught us, its that profit and reality are not required to intersect. A middle manager is a necessary cog in an enterprise once it has gotten large enough to need cogs. Sperging out about whether they're more productive than the people they manage is missing the point. ToxicSlurpee posted:Not really. A group A with more resources than B may very well be the reason B has fewer resources by actively preventing B from getting any. That's one of the issues of gentrification and the land use/rights stuff going on in America right now. People are being displaced but have nowhere to be displaced to. Coupled with stagnating wages, rising prices, and the generally lovely employment situation we have a group A that owns everything (the 1% that Occupy was bitching about) and a group B that owns nothing and is totally at their mercy. Counterpoint: Wealth distribution is not arbitrary in the way you're describing (while, yeah, being arbitrary in a different way) and the reason B isn't getting as much has more to do with the characteristics of B than oppression coming from A.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Less trolly, the notion that the native people who live on land pre-settlement should be expected to stay there seems like something worth examining. They're not the "original" residents except on a very arbitrary time scale, they're not being illegally displaced (if they are that's a problem that needs addressing), when they move out they´re moving into another area - maybe with a nice payout if they sold property. So what is the great wrong being perpetrated? I was going to be all snarky but tbh I don't disagree with you. Planning so that people can move into areas that meet their needs as neighborhoods change is a thing we should do. I don't think people are getting hosed over - there's no one doing the uprooting, nobody doing the loving, unless we view people moving into the neighborhood from outside it as doing something wrong and that seems like a weird way to look at it. That doesn't mean there aren't consequences we should think about, though. Popular Thug Drink posted:Nope! The housing is only "lovely" because it is in a "bad" neighborhood with "poor" people and "dingy" houses. Gentrification can be directly and causally traced to mid-century White Flight and suburbanization. I mean, that's a pretty big simplification, right? The housing is lovely because it's poorly maintained, in areas where crime is high, etc. To hold the people who moved out 60 years ago responsible for that seems kind of questionable when the group of current residents is absolutely, directly responsible for that state of affairs. Popular Thug Drink posted:https://www.google.com/search?q=america+affordable+housing+shortage Interesting reads. I think the standard of 30% of your annual salary being affordable is maybe questionable.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Society is doing the loving. It's like saying racism isn't a systemic problem if you can't identify particular racists pulling the strings. Society can't form the intention to gently caress and doesn't have any of the necessary parts. Moralizing about an abstraction like that isn't helpful. It's like when people accuse other people of racism, because even if they didn't do anything overtly racist they participate in SYSTEMIC RACISM  .Popular Thug Drink posted:It's a well accepted fact, if you have some substantive theory that says otherwise I would like to hear it. It's the theory that society didn't make you rob that delivery driver / steal that car / burgle that house / etc. Popular Thug Drink posted:If you have questions, ask them. 30% is a well accepted standard by experts in housing policy. 30% seems affordable for sure, but isn't it based on an estimated budget in which other elements were more expensive?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Pretty much all of them, a few decades before they started to be gentrified. Areas that are being gentrified now tended to be popular places to live decades back as well. Kind of depends on the time scale. If the evolution of the area is New neighborhood ---> lovely neighborhood ---> Gentrified neighborhood then sure at some point they were popular but when gentrification occurred they weren't.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
Josef K. Sourdust posted:Not necessarily. In many cases inner-city areas now gentrified were originally manufacturing/warehousing/commercial properties or zones that were abandoned or sold off cheaply and were then occupied by artists,musicians, squatters and immigrants because it was available, cheap/free and central. Richer people move in when that area becomes fashionable and large buildings can be converted into apartments. That has certainly been the model in much of Europe and I hear it's also true of the US's larger cities. True that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 13:59
|
|