That doesn't really make it an inherently bad thing though. Maybe they are a yoga instructor.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Spike Lee rails against Gentrification: "We been here. You just cant come and bogart"
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
That doesn't really make it an inherently bad thing though. Maybe they are a yoga instructor.
I suppose my struggle is why you think you're entitled to decide who builds what where - and who gets to live where.
Why are you more entitled than the graphic designer or yoga instructor?
I lived here first! I called dips on this entire suburb! I don't care if my suburb is becoming safer, with better amenities for the entire population! The world revolves around my needs, goddamit! And my rent may or may not increase slightly!
Devolution
Member
Well it is unfortunate that you had white flight into the suburbs and now you have white/affluent flight back into the urban areas pushing out the people who couldn't get an economic foothold thanks to racist policies on housing decades ago. It's a complicated problem that has its roots in racism.
Short answer: They're not doing it for you.
The place you made your home is no longer for you because some monolithic real estate development firm based in Dallas Texas chose your modest neighborhood as the site for their new, trendy apartment buildings with floor to ceiling windows, attractive lobby employees, covered parking, downstairs gym, computer room, recording studio (mine has one), heated pool and Jacuzzi, and colorful decor. All at the reasonable price of $1799 a month for a 300 sq. ft. "Deluxe studio" apartment or $2199 a month for a 700 sq. ft. 1 bdrm "loft".
Aimed at hip, young straight-out-of college graphic designers and yoga instructors who are just looking to find themselves in life.
AKA NOT FOR YOU.
Trust me, I live in one of these neighborhoods. It is shit. It is a thin varnish painted over a decaying turd.
All it does, is drive poor people further away from their low-paying jobs, while bilking money from trust-fund kids.
Edit:
This shit right here.
The building is called MUSE.
MUSE. Like it's a band name. What the fuck!?
And this shit. Oh, my god. I hate this shit. You think it looks good? Guess what? After a month, you will hate this place. It is not worth the price. Trust me.
I fail to see the problem in any of this.
Chie Satonaka
Member
This is just willful ignorance.
Some of you guys are trying your hardest to make a specter into what Lee is saying here. I'll grant that the delivery might not have been appropriate, but he's not wrong, and poor people being forced out of their neighboorhoods because of gentrification isn't a good thing.
I suppose it wouldn't be such a big deal if everyone had the same opportunities and abilities to create wealth, but that's a can of worms that we probably don't want to open up here.
Exactly this.
having lived in a gentrifying neighborhood, it is definitely hard to see the culture disappear, but this narrative about 'community vs capitalism' feels a little forced.
The issue of wealth creation is an important one, and the fact that only a few people are benefiting as property values go up show that capitalism had as much of a hold on the 'community' before as it does now. it seems disingenuous to blame people for charging market prices when someone else had been charging market prices all along. Doesn't seem like it was much of a community to begin with. Just the same as it was now with less wealth.
EDIT: just for the record, I believe this is a symptom of capitalism. Left without restraint the poor will only get poorer, and this is an example of it. I think the conversation needs to be about how smart growth and land use policy can be a rising tide that lifts all boats, rather than some kind of divisive discussion about evil white invaders.
The issue of wealth creation is an important one, and the fact that only a few people are benefiting as property values go up show that capitalism had as much of a hold on the 'community' before as it does now. it seems disingenuous to blame people for charging market prices when someone else had been charging market prices all along. Doesn't seem like it was much of a community to begin with. Just the same as it was now with less wealth.
EDIT: just for the record, I believe this is a symptom of capitalism. Left without restraint the poor will only get poorer, and this is an example of it. I think the conversation needs to be about how smart growth and land use policy can be a rising tide that lifts all boats, rather than some kind of divisive discussion about evil white invaders.
Edit:
This shit right here.
The building is called MUSE.
MUSE. Like it's a band name. What the fuck!?
And this shit. Oh, my god. I hate this shit. You think it looks good? Guess what? After a month, you will hate this place. It is not worth the price. Trust me.
Just a couple questions You do know Muse is not just a bands name, but an actual word, right? And they spelled it Muse, not Mews?
Look, poverty is a huge problem and I'm not going to sit here and tell you it doesn't suck to be priced out of your neighborhood - but I'm also not going to pretend like they're entitled to dictate who lives where or what gets built just so they can keep the neighborhood poor and go about business as usual.
Rookje
Member
Wow that's in NYC? That looks just like the shitty soulless rentals in OC and LA.
What is the fascination with that burnt orange/yellow color scheme. Its everywhere now.
You guys don't understand. It's not the yoga instructor I'm mad at.
It's the situation.
Everybody is getting screwed over, whether or not they can afford to live there.
I suppose the response to this is, "Who are you to decide who's getting screwed over?"
My response to that is this: at a certain point, you can no longer say that people who are dissatisfied can just move. It's not that easy. It's not easy to just pick up and leave. Hell, birds have wings, and they don't just fucking leave to another country anytime they want (Winter migration, aside).
People have jobs here. They are settled. So when a fancy building is erected down the block and new businesses start popping up left and right, these people can't just say, "Well, time to go someplace cheaper."
The people who are making 45k a year working a data entry job in Downtown LA cannot even afford to live in Downtown LA. So they take the Metro every morning to Downtown LA. The problem is, if you live in an apartment near the Metro, your rent is really high.
That's a reality for me. The rent is high because they know you'll pay it. Who are they?
Like I said before, they're these really monolithic, nationwide development firms.
IMT is a big one.
Shikamaru Ninja
任天å ã® å¿è
New York City is the capitalist epicenter of the universe, since when did renting grant entitlement? Neighborhoods change, either you change with the neighborhood, or evolve to find your new grounds.
Between the non-diverse ethnically divided neighborhoods, the rich white neighborhoods, and the trendy hipster towns, they are all what they are. I'd probably pick the latter.
Between the non-diverse ethnically divided neighborhoods, the rich white neighborhoods, and the trendy hipster towns, they are all what they are. I'd probably pick the latter.
FritoBandito
Banned
People say the same about Humboldt Park. Maybe they forgot about all the gang violence years ago.
DoktorEvil
Banned
So then let's trade. Put all of the minorities in the suburbs and stuff the rich and high income white people into tiny apartments.
Then you'll see it's not where you live, it's what your identity and skin color is.
Racism plays a part, sure. But gentrification occurs in cities/suburbs in poor, predominantly white areas too. If we're having a debate about gentrification in general, you can't make it out to be a race issue. It's not. It's an economic one.
In Melbourne (my city), there has been a huge influx of wealthy Chinese buying up properties, driving up the already high house prices even further. I don't begrudge them doing this based on their race. They just have more affluence than I do. It's an inevitable situation is population growth and finite resources.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-...st-home-buyers-out-of-property-market/5120966
If a suburb is seen as desirable, those with more money can force out those with less. It happens to otherwise wealthly neighbourhoods as well, not just affordable (gentrification) ones.
http://news.domain.com.au/domain/re...nes-prestige-school-zones-20131219-2zmbn.html
DoktorEvil
Banned
I just don't understand this. Of course the rent is high because people will pay. It demonstrates demand. People want this, so it's built or renovated or what-have-you. This is just how a competitive market works. How is this problematic or the result of some nefarious corporation or emblematic of some terrible societal breakdown?
It doesn't require adherence to some insane strand of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman worship of the free market to understand this.
Chie Satonaka
Member
So, fuck the poor, right? It's funny that you omitted the third line of my post which addressed exactly that.
This wouldn't be as much of an issue of those same people who were getting forced out had the ability to create their own wealth. There's an underlying issue of why this is bullshit that nobody seems to want to talk about here.
And once again, this isn't about "keeping the neighboorhood poor". I don't think people would complain very much about an area being invested in if it didn't also mean the very real possibility of them not being able to afford it.
You're acting really dumb. The rent doesn't go up slightly. It goes from 1000 a month to 2200 a month.
Those amenities are gimmicks.
Yes, I know what it is. Thank you.
It's not about keeping the neighborhood poor. It's about keeping the neighborhood reasonably priced and not controlled by development firms that have no fucking consideration for the lives of the people who lived in those neighborhoods before they got there. You really don't have a clue how this shit affects people, do you?
No, that's LA. North Hollywood.
And the fascination with that color scheme has ended in favor of a dark brown and green color scheme. I noticed this because they painted my building brown and green around the same time they started painting the other buildings around the block the same color.
It's probably based on surveys done to see what can attract more affluent people here.
Shikamaru Ninja
任天å ã® å¿è
If you are talking about trendy gentrification, it's completely different from the traditional rich affluent white neighborhoods in New York. The influx of young Americans aren't all white despite them being poster childs. Much of them are Asian, Latin, Mixed, etc.
It's a capitalist Country, Aksala.
IMT is in the business of building homes for people. Those people move into those homes and are presumably happy about that fact. Nobody is more or less entitled to that land or those homes: Not even the poor.
You complain about a building called "Muse", and while I can see why that is lame, you have no more a claim on what gets built than the hipster who likes it or the "nationwide development firm" who built it.
You can dislike the fact that it displaces low income families while acknowledging that those people were no more entitled to the neighborhood than the people moving into it, but I take issue with the notion that someone is in the wrong for doing it or allowing it to happen.
Keeping the neighborhood reasonably priced means keeping the neighborhood poor. You don't want anything to be developed that raises the property value of the neighborhood because it will make it more expensive to live and shop in that neighborhood, but developing bad neighborhoods is the only way to change the affluence of a neighborhood without long term systemic change. IMT opening an apartment building is not going to prevent those systemic changes from occurring.
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
So how about the Columbia University study that showed that uneducated minorities were less likely to move in gentrifying neighborhoods than in non-gentrifying ones? How about the fact that 50% of homes in NYC are owner occupied and those people stand to make immense amounts of money off of gentrification? Displacement isn't as large a problem as people think, and it disproportionally effects the middle class, not the actual poor.
So, how did they spell it?
Ignoring race ignores the history and regulations that lead to the economic mess in the first place. Gentrification is a problem involving a lot of factors that interact with each other to get where we are today. Focusing on just one aspect of gentrification is going to lead to the wrong answers.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
why are people making it sound like rich people are writing the checks that improve their local municipal infrastructure and public services?
These funds paid by everyone are not being used to serve everyone but rather the rich because the politicians that determine where the funds to are beholden to the campaign donations.
There should be no justification why public services should not be homogonous other than someone tipping the scales.
These funds paid by everyone are not being used to serve everyone but rather the rich because the politicians that determine where the funds to are beholden to the campaign donations.
There should be no justification why public services should not be homogonous other than someone tipping the scales.
They shouldn't be, but because of the way they are funded, they are. Break the property tax funding model, you'll have my support.
It's cookie cutter and soulless.
In my view, this is the one true aspect of Spike's rant that is an undeniable, inarguable tragedy. There's no excuse for Lenox Avenue walking to work being littered with garbage while the street my apartment is on is cleaned on the regular, and the distance is... two miles? Maybe?
I think there's a strong irrational sentimentality to existing neighborhoods that highly overrates the value of the "flavor" compared to the "cookie cutter and soulless" nature of building anew. That local bodega isn't "charming" because it's been around for awhile and is mom-and-pop owned. On some level, it's patronizing bullshit. I don't think continuing will be a fruitful conversation, though. Agree to disagree.
And....?
And if that isn't enough I don't know what to tell you.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Like someone said earlier in the thread.. rich people have clout because if rich people leave the city then the taxes they pay leave with them. Poor people cannot usually pick up and go and even if they do the government wont notice the difference in revenue. Money buys influence.
Not only that, it's the same sort of mindset that leads to young people initially moving to gentrified areas. The irony! "Oh, look at the new coffee house with the fair-trade blend from Peru! It's not like that soulless yuppie neighborhood all the drones live in.
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
Here's one thing people ignore about this. All of the streets in Center City Philly are swept and maintained meticulously. It's a very rich area, and it looks immaculate most of the time. Poor neighborhoods do not get this at all. Why? Because the residents of the Center City District formed a non-governmental organization and assess a fee that goes toward maintenance of the neighborhood. The city funds aren't going to it. It's private citizens money that they dedicated toward the cause. The result is that actually the city doesn't NEED to spend as much money keeping the area clean as they otherwise would have. So the next time you see your street being swept, find out if it's actually the city spending money disproportionately or if there is another organization doing it.
BlackBanditSho
Member
Too many good points to quote them all. Just took a few and reposted.
I'm from DC and moved to Cali. Coming back broke my heart. So many poor residents displaced and living in the fucking parks. Affluent kids walking up and down the streets with impunity. Reaping the benefits of an improved economy, government, and businesses that suddenly give a shit.
Pisses me off when people counter that DC/NY/Philly/Chicago/most ethnically rich Urban areas pre-gentrification were some kind of cesspool-filled Gotham Cities. Nobody remembers that these same areas, although not wealthy, were stable, safe, and had jobs. We're talking the 70's pre-crack epidemics that ravaged the metropolises.
There was a period in DC pre-crack and after white flight where it was a GREAT place to live. Communities were strong, clean, and safe. Crack changed all that.
So yeah, what Spike is saying isn't anti-white, it's anti services for the poor which would allow them the same abilities to improve and interact with their communities. Those services always come AFTER the gentrification. I've watched it happen in DC, NY, and LA now.
Everyone is always like, "Clean up is better! Yeah! Do you LIKE crime?"
Of course nobody wants crime. The people in those communities are mostly hard working, american dreaming, every day good people. The deviants are the criminal eggs screwing it up for everybody else. And of course, they're a result of a lack of opportunities.
What people WANT is the access to the same resources, same public services, and the same opportunity to create legacy and foundation that usually ONLY comes after they're kicked OUT of a neighborhood.
But of course, all most people parrot is "Spike is a bigot".
fuck.
Fury Sense
Member
live with parents in da hood
move out
rent apartment
save $
condo prices keep rising
no promotion (some hipster probably got the job)
rent goes up
condo prices still rising
move out
#gentrified
it sucks. in order to not be poor, you need to own property. but to do that, you gotta abandon your home and community
move out
rent apartment
save $
condo prices keep rising
no promotion (some hipster probably got the job)
rent goes up
condo prices still rising
move out
#gentrified
it sucks. in order to not be poor, you need to own property. but to do that, you gotta abandon your home and community
You don't understand because you're not reading.
I said that the reason why people pay is because they have no choice but to pay.
Their jobs are there. They are forced to shift more of their money into rent. They put up with it because they've been putting up with it their entire lives.
It's also not a competitive market.
There is collusion. I'm sorry that you think the free market is working. Because it's not.
The owners of the cheaper apartments actually raise their rent prices as a result of the newer, more expensive buildings erected next door. That is what is happening. This is not like a video game console that you can just choose not to buy when the price goes up. It's more like gasoline. The price goes up, you complain, but you put up with it because you can't afford an electric vehicle.
I just want people to understand what I'm saying and not dismiss it. I want people to understand that it's not easy. We're talking about where a person lives.
People are entitled.
When the Getty Center was being planned for construction, the people who lived in the homes around the area had a great deal of say in how it was built.
Not surprisingly, those people were very affluent, as owning a home in the mountains in LA is very costly.
It's funny. Nobody is entitled, and yet, there are people who are.
I think you're just saying that poor people are not entitled to anything.
But if you paid 4 million dollars for a house in the Pacific Palisades, you can actually tell Verizon to fuck off with fiber-laying project which would dig up the asphalt, and you'd win.
This country has always dicked around with the poor, and there have always been and will always be people who simply do not give a shit.
You need to understand that these are human beings who happen to be poor. That's why they're failing. It has nothing to do with the free market.
BlackBanditSho
Member
This. Jesus Christ, this.
Honestly, this attitude is horrible.
No, you assume I don't understand or am not reading, and that that is why I post in disagreement. I understand your points, I believe they are incorrect or irrelevant.
Rents raise because the newer building moves next door because the newer building signals the neighborhood is more appealing. I'm sorry that you think a rising tide lifting boats (phrase used in a neutral sense) in a manner that does a disservice to some people is collusion. It's not.
People have their jobs there, they put up with it, they have to, etc. That's bad for them. It's not a valid argument against new development.
It didn't. It took a lot of white people moving in. And it's not because they are white. It's because they are wealthy.
Let's be honest: being white is a part of it.
It was black people losing jobs left and right that lead to crack. I dont want crack to be a scapegoat when unemployment in black neighborhoods skyrocketed in that era.
http://people.ucsc.edu/~rfairlie/papers/published/aer 1997 - RacialUnemp.pdf
Oh yeah, I agree 100%
Chie Satonaka
Member
I don't deny any of this. In fact, Spike already touched on the bolded. However, that still doesn't change the point that I was trying to make, and several other people have already made in this thread.
It just so happens that most of the wealthy people moving into these areas are white, but it's not like wealthy minorities aren't playing a role in gentrification.
Historically it is an issue based in race, but in the current climate all that matters is the money.
Those people don't have the right to force you and the rest of the neighborhood to change its culture.
But somehow their culture and desires supersede the entire rest of the neighborhood's wishes.
Hmm, wonder why.
- Status