Support NeoGAF

[Loxley]

I've been living in Cleveland for the last five years, and I can see this sort of thing happening a lot here over the next decade or so, at least certain parts of the city. Because Cleveland has had a bit of an image problem for a long time now, they've been making major efforts to knock down all of the old, abandoned shitty buildings and replace them with more upscale businesses and apartments to attract more upper-class citizens.

It's working, too. The area around The Cleveland Institute of Art in particular has been almost completely transformed in the last four/five years thanks to a $145 million dollar expansion called The Uptown Project. Where once there were giant vacant parking lots and empty shells of buildings, now there are two massive apartment complexes, a new Marriot hotel, Chipotle, Barnes & Noble, three different bars, a fancy Japanese restaurant, a Verizon store, a Jimmy Johns, and a whole mess of other businesses. They're also in the middle of building brand-new student housing dorms for the Cleveland Institute of Art - which also just broke ground on it's own new expansion.

Not to mention the brand-new Museum of Contemporary Art:

It's fucking bananas just how much development has happened (and is happening) in this area in such a short time. The really weird part of all of this rebuilding is the fact that right across the street from that museum (and sandwiched between all of the shiny new buildings) is an old-ass giant apartment complex which the police are constantly going in an out of. In fact, I'm pretty sure the local PD has one or two squad cars permanently parked outside of that building because of all the crap that goes on in there. It's a very surreal juxtaposition of upper and lower-class. I'm really curious just how much the cost of living is going to go up around here over the next few years.

 

[captmcblack]

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.

Bingo.
People come into these neighborhoods, carpetbagging so they can open more coffee shops, cupcake shops and bars and increase the price of the property they were wealthy enough to snap up cheap, and then revise the lives of the people that already live there, that already created community and culture and invested there locally. The issue with gentrification is not necessarily who is doing the gentrification - if it was rich/well-to-do space aliens, other black people, Portuguese people, or whatever that just came into the town and simultaneously priced the original residents out/wiped out the local culture/proclaimed themselves as champions for doing so, it would still be a problem - it's the fact that people come in and just pretend that they are doing someone other than themselves a favor by "improving" the neighborhood while simultaneously making it impossible for the original denizens of that neighborhood to be there and benefit from those improvements.

I have no problem with people wanting to live in Crown Heights, invest in Crown Heights, give back to Crown Heights. I have no problem with wanting to make money in/on Crown Heights. I do have a problem with pricing the good average citizens of Crown Heights out of the neighborhood (since not only did they establish the good things and history and culture that is already there, but they actually NEED to live there because the affordable price is specifically why they settled there/were pushed into that place to begin with). I doubly have a problem with the suggestion that the neighborhoods like this were like damn Iraq or something before kindly condo/real estate guys, trust fund kids and so on decided to settle there and make it "cool" by pushing people out (particularly because the people getting pushed out are disproportionally non-white ethnic minorities).

 

[Blader]

Doesn't gentrification go in cycles? Those black areas where once white neighborhoods, and before that Native American ones. Also, integration is a good thing.

What I can lament though is getting priced out of a place. It's kinda fucked up to lave to leave a home you have no desire to leave because the cost of living/rents skyrockets.

What integration? Lower-income residents are priced out of the area by gentrification. The only integration going on is among higher-income tenants.

That's my major problem with how Spike characterizes this: It's a class issue, not a racial one.

 

[MikeHaggar]

Bingo.
People come into these neighborhoods, carpetbagging so they can open more coffee shops, cupcake shops and bars and increase the price of the property they were wealthy enough to snap up cheap, and then revise the lives of the people that already live there, that already created community and culture and invested there locally. The issue with gentrification is not necessarily who is doing the gentrification - if it was rich/well-to-do space aliens, other black people, Portuguese people, or whatever that just came into the town and simultaneously priced the original residents out/wiped out the local culture/proclaimed themselves as champions for doing so, it would still be a problem[\b] - it's the fact that people come in and just pretend that they are doing someone other than themselves a favor by "improving" the neighborhood while simultaneously making it impossible for the original denizens of that neighborhood to be there and benefit from those improvements.

I have no problem with people wanting to live in Crown Heights, invest in Crown Heights, give back to Crown Heights. I have no problem with wanting to make money in/on Crown Heights. I do have a problem with pricing the good average citizens of Crown Heights out of the neighborhood (since not only did they establish the good things and history and culture that is already there, but they actually NEED to live there because the affordable price is specifically why they settled there/were pushed into that place to begin with). I doubly have a problem with the suggestion that the neighborhoods like this were like damn Iraq or something before kindly condo/real estate guys, trust fund kids and so on decided to settle there and make it "cool" by pushing people out (particularly because the people getting pushed out are disproportionally non-white ethnic minorities).

generally speaking i completely agree with what you are saying. in this specific case, i don't think spike lee would be railing against it if it was other black people moving in and "improving" these neighborhoods. that is just my opinion of course.

 

[POWERSPHERE]

Gentrification fucking sucks, but it's inevitable. Every western major city in 20 years will be completely gentrified with poor people pushed further out of the cities which will make stronger new communities to establish new cities, right? Right...?

 

[Fugu]

Yes, and it's the correct answer.

Sorry you're being priced out of your neighborhood because of new development and investment leading to new people moving in and being willing to pay higher rents. You don't believe the neighborhood is improving and that the buildings are low quality with a slick veneer, but based on the influx of new residents, plenty of people think otherwise. You think those that disagree are lemmings and falling for corporate nonsense. Your opinion is not more (or less!) valid than theirs because you were there prior to them. I don't know what else to say.

You either didn't read the OP or you didn't absorb it. One of the key tenants of gentrification is that it, by definition, incorporates the displacement of the original residents. The quality of life of the neighborhood goes up, but the people who could have benefited from that increase in quality of life are gone because with gentrification comes an increased cost of living (which they can't afford as evidenced by their living in a poor neighborhood in the first place). Saying that gentrification works to improve the quality of life for anyone except for those already experiencing that elevated quality of life is as delusional as saying that people living in poor neighborhoods should just move into more expensive neighborhoods.

Spike Lee's point -- and the point of many of the people in this thread -- is that when a neighborhood experiences gentrification, the affluent and the previous residences are forced to move elsewhere. When put in that context, the statistics that indicate that a neighborhood has improved are largely irrelevant.

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.

What gets me is always that I'm on his side 100 percent about this (and most other things) but he inevitably throws in some dumb shit like this:

You can't just – here's another thing: When Michael Jackson died they wanted to have a party for him in motherfuckin' Fort Greene Park and all of a sudden the white people in Fort Greene said, "Wait a minute! We can't have black people having a party for Michael Jackson to celebrate his life. Who's coming to the neighborhood? They're gonna leave lots of garbage." Garbage? Have you seen Fort Greene Park in the morning? It's like the motherfuckin' Westminster Dog Show. There's 20,000 dogs running around. Whoa. So we had to move it to Prospect Park!

That's a mighty big statement to attribute to "the white people in Fort Greene". It is, excuse the pun, not that black and white, and it's helping nobody that he insists on making these racialized generalizations in so many of the conversations that he's a part of. We should really all be focusing on how ridiculous of a concept that racism is rather than basically perpetuating it.

He is completely spot on about gentrification, especially in how he illustrates that it disproportionately negatively affects black people despite fundamentally being a class issue. It's important people understand that class issues (like gentrification), in North America anyway, inherently become race issues because there is still a rather wide income gap between races. Honestly, however, I wish it wasn't Spike Lee saying it, because he just can't seem to help himself from becoming part of the problem when he does.

 

[pj]

Bingo.
People come into these neighborhoods, carpetbagging so they can open more coffee shops, cupcake shops and bars and increase the price of the property they were wealthy enough to snap up cheap, and then revise the lives of the people that already live there, that already created community and culture and invested there locally. The issue with gentrification is not necessarily who is doing the gentrification - if it was rich/well-to-do space aliens, other black people, Portuguese people, or whatever that just came into the town and simultaneously priced the original residents out/wiped out the local culture/proclaimed themselves as champions for doing so, it would still be a problem - it's the fact that people come in and just pretend that they are doing someone other than themselves a favor by "improving" the neighborhood while simultaneously making it impossible for the original denizens of that neighborhood to be there and benefit from those improvements.

I have no problem with people wanting to live in Crown Heights, invest in Crown Heights, give back to Crown Heights. I have no problem with wanting to make money in/on Crown Heights. I do have a problem with pricing the good average citizens of Crown Heights out of the neighborhood (since not only did they establish the good things and history and culture that is already there, but they actually NEED to live there because the affordable price is specifically why they settled there/were pushed into that place to begin with). I doubly have a problem with the suggestion that the neighborhoods like this were like damn Iraq or something before kindly condo/real estate guys, trust fund kids and so on decided to settle there and make it "cool" by pushing people out (particularly because the people getting pushed out are disproportionally non-white ethnic minorities).

There's no trust fund kids moving into crown heights, and there are about 4 'cool' places in the whole neighborhood, centered on a few blocks of Franklin Ave. The vast majority of people that I saw come into CH, including myself, were late 20s single professionals. The reason CH is attractive to people like me is purely practical, it has nothing to do with the culture or history that black people have built up there. I had $X that I was able to spend on rent, I wanted a reasonable commute to my job, I wanted a decent sized living space. Those things all converged on crown heights. Why is their NEED to live there more valuable than mine? I was pushed to crown heights due to affordability in 2012 just like they were however many years ago.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

One of the key tenants of gentrification is that it, by definition, incorporates the displacement of the original residents. The quality of life of the neighborhood goes up, but the people who could have benefited from that increase in quality of life are gone because with gentrification comes an increased cost of living (which they can't afford as evidenced by their living in a poor neighborhood in the first place).

And once again, Columbia University did a study that showed uneducated minorities were less likely to move in gentrifying neighborhoods than non-gentrifying ones. Not to mention that "key tenant" of gentrification you point out is bull. 50% of the population of NYC are homeowners, therefore they will not be priced out of their home because they are not renters. Property tax increases are smaller and slower, and by the time they come to be a problem their property has gained so much value that they can sell it and move into the upper middle class. The only people that will be pushed out of a neighborhood are renters. There is rent control in NYC, which makes many of the lowest income residents immune to gentrification as they are either in public housing or rent controlled housing. Renters already tend to be far less involved in the social fabric of communities because they tend to move much more frequently and therefore will feel the impact of a loss of community less than others. This is a bad argument.

 

[Cagey]

You either didn't read the OP or you didn't absorb it. One of the key tenants of gentrification is that it, by definition, incorporates the displacement of the original residents. The quality of life of the neighborhood goes up, but the people who could have benefited from that increase in quality of life are gone because with gentrification comes an increased cost of living (which they can't afford as evidenced by their living in a poor neighborhood in the first place). Saying that gentrification works to improve the quality of life for anyone except for those already experiencing that elevated quality of life is as delusional as saying that people living in poor neighborhoods should just move into more expensive neighborhoods.

Spike Lee's point -- and the point of many of the people in this thread -- is that when a neighborhood experiences gentrification, the affluent and the previous residences are forced to move elsewhere. When put in that context, the statistics that indicate that a neighborhood has improved are largely irrelevant.

I was not responding to the arguments from Spike Lee contained in the OP. I was responding to that specific poster's post.

I question whether the arguments your post highlights are something to be concerned about to the level that action should be taken to stop it from happening.

 

[Stinkles]

Spike Lee is a good reminder that being a cock for twenty years will affect how people perceive your art and your opinions. Even when you're right.

 

[pj]

And once again, Columbia University did a study that showed uneducated minorities were less likely to move in gentrifying neighborhoods than non-gentrifying ones. Not to mention that "key tenant" of gentrification you point out is bull. 50% of the population of NYC are homeowners, therefore they will not be priced out of their home because they are not renters. Property tax increases are smaller and slower, and by the time they come to be a problem their property has gained so much value that they can sell it and move into the upper middle class. The only people that will be pushed out of a neighborhood are renters. There is rent control in NYC, which makes many of the lowest income residents immune to gentrification as they are either in public housing or rent controlled housing. Renters already tend to be far less involved in the social fabric of communities because they tend to move much more frequently and therefore will feel the impact of a loss of community less than others. This is a bad argument.

50% of nyc are home owners. Ok, what % are of color in gentrifying neighborhoods? South Brooklyn and Queens have a lot of home ownership I'm sure, but those aren't the areas being affected by gentrification.

 

[zero shift]

- There should be no reason to as of why the new affluent neighborhoods should get better treatment from the government services. I understand that in theory there is a tax base but to me this is just another case of age old economic beliefs (taxes fund the government) harming modern society.

- Gentrification nor segregation shouldn't really be too common. I always felt that the overall goal was to remove "black neighborhoods", "white neighborhoods", "asian neighborhoods", and what have you. I always felt that the goal is to break down racial barriers in terms of neighborhoods. Obviously there is a reason to have neighborhoods that are mostly black, latino, or white. However demanding a certain amount of racial purity is ridiculous.

- I feel that this framing this in such a context is incorrect. "My community should be for working class and poor so they can move up!" isn't logically sound. They should focus less on where those in the community live and more so where those in the community work.

 

[NH Apache]

This is such a hot topic in New Orleans right now as well.

After Katrina, population dropped in the city significantly due to the inability of many of the refugees to return. This factor as well as the draw for new business and entrepreneurs, drew a significant amount of young, educated people into the area.

Many places in the city that were historically black are now being changed and the question that is going around is if there is going to be a loss of culture.

Here is a great article on the subject: http://www.newgeography.com/content/003526-gentrification-and-its-discontents-notes-new-orleans

And response articles:
http://www.nolafugeespress.com/reading-the-white-teapot/
http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2013/06/nola_views_what_does_gentrific.html

My wife and I bought a house in a historically black neighborhood that over the past couple of years has started to become gentrified. Why? Because we could afford the house, because the location is in an area we like to frequent, and because simple observation shows that in 5 years, the house may be worth up to 30-40 percent more, minimum.

We are living here in this neighborhood. Everyday, I look outside my front window and I see people slinging hard shit, the Wire style, and the police aren't doing a damn thing. They know it happens. The people who live in the houses across from me act like lookouts.

Is it wrong for me to want to better the neighborhood or make safer the place my wife and I sleep at night? Should I not have moved into the area if I didn't want that shit out my door? I believe the first and I honestly don't believe it has anything to do with color. My wife feels the opposite way from me on the issue; she has a genuine concern for a culture loss due to the influx. I believe that there is supply and demand model that just is going to happen, irregardless of culture.

Edit: I should note that when people do move into the area, they are restricted from changing the outside of the house usually; this is due to the shotgun house culture. There is a specific demand for this type of house. At least we aren't getting cookie cutter houses here now.

 

[FlyinJ]

they fucking renamed Bushwick????? when??

The brokers renamed it. It's still Bushwick on the map.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

50% of nyc are home owners. Ok, what % are of color in gentrifying neighborhoods? South Brooklyn and Queens have a lot of home ownership I'm sure, but those aren't the areas being affected by gentrification.

One would assume it would be the same as it was pre-gentrification, it's not like people in gentrifying neighborhoods who own their home have to sell them for some mysterious reason. Their costs of living do not undergo the wild increases that renters face. What would magically cause them to leave?

- There should be no reason to as of why the new affluent neighborhoods should get better treatment from the government services. I understand that in theory there is a tax base but to me this is just another case of age old economic beliefs (taxes fund the government) harming modern society.

Is there any actual evidence of this? Are cities actually pouring more money into gentrifying neighborhoods because they are gentrifying? Or are changes in safety, cleanliness, etc incidental to the gentrification itself? In my neighborhood gentrification is cleaning up the neighborhood, not more city services.

 

[Zapperkhan]

Considering what he did to Oldboy this amuses me. I know it's not remotely the same thing but when talking about respecting cultures it's funny.

 

[danwarb]

(probably created by a hipster)

Oh the ironing.

 

[captmcblack]

There's no trust fund kids moving into crown heights, and there are about 4 'cool' places in the whole neighborhood, centered on a few blocks of Franklin Ave. The vast majority of people that I saw come into CH, including myself, were late 20s single professionals. The reason CH is attractive to people like me is purely practical, it has nothing to do with the culture or history that black people have built up there. I had $X that I was able to spend on rent, I wanted a reasonable commute to my job, I wanted a decent sized living space. Those things all converged on crown heights. Why is their NEED to live there more valuable than mine? I was pushed to crown heights due to affordability in 2012 just like they were however many years ago.

That's not the point.

Again, nobody is saying you can't live there. Please, do live there. And improve it. And keep improving it! Make it safer, make it more convenient, etc. Nothing is wrong with that. EVERYONE of every age group, ethnicity, economic class, religious group or whatever wants that and should have the right to want that/the interest in helping make that happen.

But do not make it so the people that already live there can't live there anymore. Don't call the neighborhood watch because some kids opened up a fire hydrant in the Summertime to play on the block. Don't be a landlord to the local jerk chicken shop or the little Baptist church shack on Lincoln Rd and suddenly raise the rent to $4,000 a month from the $1,600 it's been for 30 years because you know some kids will happily put up a boutique waffle hot dog shop so FUCK the people who were living their lives running that shop.

There's got to be a way to become part of the community - and even enrich yourself as well as the community - without pushing elements of the community out. There has to be a way for your needs to be met without exploiting or otherwise affecting the needs of the existing members of the community. There's got to be a way for that jerk chicken spot to exist unthreatened by the vintage apparel shop. There's got to be a way for the affordable apartments to exist and still be equally accessible to the existing community as it is for the "more desirable" people who are entering the community for the opportunities afforded them by those cheaper prices.

 

[entremet]

50% of nyc are home owners. Ok, what % are of color in gentrifying neighborhoods? South Brooklyn and Queens have a lot of home ownership I'm sure, but those aren't the areas being affected by gentrification.

The reason they're not being affected by gentrification is due to the high levels of home ownership. When you don't own your place, you're at the mercy of your landlord and market forces. Many low income minority communities are stuck in the rental cycle, never obtaining land or home ownership, so they're going to be at the mercy of these market changes.

I know Spike is a controversial character, but he does spit truth here.

And just to take away any race out of it. Many decently paid friends of mine had to move out to Brooklyn after being priced out of Manhattan. It's a funny cycle. We're not rich, but far from poor, but given NYC's crazy real estate market, many moved to Brooklyn. Getting your rent raised from 1800 to 3000 does that!

The L train is a perfect example of gentrification in effect. The East Village was garbage in the 80s, then it got gentrified, people moved to Williamsburg, which was cheap for a long time, it got gentrified, and then now places past the L are getting gentrified.

 

[MikeHaggar]

Spike Lee is a good reminder that being a cock for twenty years will affect how people perceive your art and your opinions. Even when you're right.

i agree with this 100%

 

[see5harp]

That's not the point.

Again, nobody is saying you can't live there. Please, do live there. And improve it. And keep improving it! Make it safer, make it more convenient, etc. Nothing is wrong with that. EVERYONE of every age group, ethnicity, economic class, religious group or whatever wants that and should have the right to want that/the interest in helping make that happen.

But do not make it so the people that already live there can't live there anymore. Don't call the neighborhood watch because some kids opened up a fire hydrant in the Summertime to play on the block. Don't be a landlord to the local jerk chicken shop or the little Baptist church shack on Lincoln Rd and suddenly raise the rent to $4,000 a month from the $1,600 it's been for 30 years because you know some kids will happily put up a boutique waffle hot dog shop so FUCK the people who were living their lives running that shop.

There's got to be a way to become part of the community - and even enrich yourself as well as the community - without pushing elements of the community out. There has to be a way for your needs to be met without exploiting or otherwise affecting the needs of the existing members of the community. There's got to be a way for that jerk chicken spot to exist unthreatened by the vintage apparel shop. There's got to be a way for the affordable apartments to exist and still be equally accessible to the existing community as it is for the "more desirable" people who are entering the community for the opportunities afforded them by those cheaper prices.

I agree with everything you say but screw the church shack that has no use. More boutique hot dog waffle shops please.

 

[entremet]

Spike Lee is a good reminder that being a cock for twenty years will affect how people perceive your art and your opinions. Even when you're right.

How has he been a cock?

 

[Valkerionseven]

Living in Savannah GA here, historic city and this has been happening in spades downtown lately. Downtown was almost completely poor and black aside from certain parts outside of the main downtown, recently they have been buying up homes and entire blocks to renovate these subdivisions and boarding houses into expensive up and coming expensive places to live. Its always been that there were areas of downtown with fucking Mansions (not plantations you yankee scum ) and literally down/across the street it changes into the ghetto.

I would be lying if I said it does not look better or hell feel safer but man its weird walking down a street now that I would NEVER go to before. Considering all the tourists and hipsters from the SCAD university down there I can see why they are letting it happen so fast but I really wonder how much they will just continue to push people out into "the worst" part of the town, cause that part is close by and gets worse every year.

 

[Stet]

This is about to happen in Detroit as well, and it's being applauded as if they're rebuilding it from nothing when in reality there are still 700,000 people trying to eke out a living there who will be displaced.

 

[Cat Party]

in the real world people realize that a Trader Joe's would just speed up the gentrification and the staff wouldn't really have many of the longtime locals as hires either.

No way the employees at that Trader Joes would represent the current population of the neighborhood.


The huge issue for me is that gentrification pushes out the people who need that location the most. Middle class whites can afford a car to drive into the city for work and leisure. They don't need to depend on public services just to make it through life. The poorer minorities that are pushed out are often moved to the outskirts where public transportation is limited and it's hard to get to work or even the grocery store without a vehicle. In many instances those public transportation lines and other services were originally placed in that area because the people living there actually needed it, now they no longer have access to them.

So what is your counterproposal? Leave the lot vacant?

 

[coldvein]

whats up with that anti-white (racist) signage? stay out of "neighborhoods of color", white people? what?

 

[zero shift]

Is there any actual evidence of this? Are cities actually pouring more money into gentrifying neighborhoods because they are gentrifying? Or are changes in safety, cleanliness, etc incidental to the gentrification itself? In my neighborhood gentrification is cleaning up the neighborhood, not more city services.

School funding and pothole fixing are due to the people in the neighborhood? I'm not going to be obtuse, obviously some things are fixed (most notably crime) but hardly everything is the result of just merely the people changing.

Considering what he did to Oldboy this amuses me. I know it's not remotely the same thing but when talking about respecting cultures it's funny.

Perfect.

This is such a hot topic in New Orleans right now as well.

I was under the impression that New Orleans REALLY desegregated after Katrina.

 

[Abounder]

Not a fan of gentrification. It'd be like if a bunch of rich people invaded GAF and turned it into a wine-tasting club for Frasier Crane while banning the average joes/regular users. Yea analogies are clumsy but you get the point.

Spike Lee is on point here.

 

[Blader]

How has he been a cock?

The racism, for one thing.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

School funding and pothole fixing are due to the people in the neighborhood? I'm not going to be obtuse, obviously some things are fixed (most notably crime) but hardly everything is the result of just merely the people changing.

I don't know about NYC schools, but for example in the Philly school district the funding allocation is done on a fixed basis per school based on the number of students. One school or another doesn't get extra funding all of a sudden. The schools improve, to be sure, because often the people moving in take a greater role in their children's schooling (something that varies greatly depending on class), but it's largely not because of any increase in funding. In reality in West Philadelphia it happened the opposite way, UPenn partnered with a school in West Philly and that school became one of the top performers. As a result money started moving into that neighborhood. It wasn't the other way around in that example.

And potholes? When I moved into the neighborhood I reported them, and they were gone shortly thereafter. It's sort of like the litter on the sidewalks. The more people that moved into the area, the more they cleaned up the sidewalk in front of their house, and the less litter there was. You haven't really shown in any way that those things are because of increased funding in neighborhoods rather than simply higher rates of neighborhood investment. When's the last time you took the time to call the streets department and report a pothole?

 

[Archer]

So give it back to the native americans then

well played

 

[pj]

That's not the point.

Again, nobody is saying you can't live there. Please, do live there. And improve it. And keep improving it! Make it safer, make it more convenient, etc. Nothing is wrong with that. EVERYONE of every age group, ethnicity, economic class, religious group or whatever wants that and should have the right to want that/the interest in helping make that happen.

But do not make it so the people that already live there can't live there anymore. Don't call the neighborhood watch because some kids opened up a fire hydrant in the Summertime to play on the block. Don't be a landlord to the local jerk chicken shop or the little Baptist church shack on Lincoln Rd and suddenly raise the rent to $4,000 a month from the $1,600 it's been for 30 years because you know some kids will happily put up a boutique waffle hot dog shop so FUCK the people who were living their lives running that shop.

There's got to be a way to become part of the community - and even enrich yourself as well as the community - without pushing elements of the community out. There has to be a way for your needs to be met without exploiting or otherwise affecting the needs of the existing members of the community. There's got to be a way for that jerk chicken spot to exist unthreatened by the vintage apparel shop. There's got to be a way for the affordable apartments to exist and still be equally accessible to the existing community as it is for the "more desirable" people who are entering the community for the opportunities afforded them by those cheaper prices.

I think most of those issues are due to landlord greed and very little else. Their mantra is "If you renovate it, they will come." All the landlord has to do is put the world's cheapest stainless steel appliances in the kitchen, paint it a neutral color and list it on craigslist for $1500/mo. There's very little incentive for them to not double or triple their income.

By the time I'm even looking to move into a gentrifying neighborhood the damage is already done. When people move into a place, an equal or even greater (e.g. a family used to share the apartment I now live in alone) number have already been displaced. They aren't adding apartments as fast as people want to move here so the prices can't do anything but increase.

 

[Apoc87]

(probably created by a hipster)

you're*

And this is all BS. Improving an area and building up the property values is bad?

Didn't blacks want equal treatment all these years?

Now they're getting it,

And complaining about it?

Someone explain this to me.

 

[entremet]

The racism, for one thing.

How has he been racist?

 

[IceCold]

you're*

And this is all BS. Improving an area and building up the property values is bad?

Didn't blacks want equal treatment all these years?

Now they're getting it,

And complaining about it?

Someone explain this to me.

The problem is they can't afford to live in their neighborhood now.

 

[fader]

Whoa, I didn't realize this was a problem in NY. I thought those areas were considered ghettos to most people

 

[Draft]

Look on the bright side: displaced people from gentrified neighborhoods can get a head start on building the cool places for America's next generation of rich yuppies to live.

 

[Uncle Rupee]

Spike seems to be making it a black / white issue and that rubs me the wrong way.

 

[fader]

you're*

And this is all BS. Improving an area and building up the property values is bad?

Didn't blacks want equal treatment all these years?

Now they're getting it,

And complaining about it?

Someone explain this to me.

what can you expect when the cost of living increases and makes it difficult for people who barely can pay for living before hand.

 

[NH Apache]

I was under the impression that New Orleans REALLY desegregated after Katrina.

Somewhat, but that was due to the massive migration of people leaving as refugees and not coming back and gentrification. Additionally, we saw a very large influx of latinos due to the construction effort after the storm, although they have mostly moved out to Jefferson Parish.

New Orleans was named the YoPro center of the US for a few years, the entrepenuer capital of the US for a few years and has had a very low unemployment which drew in yopros from around the country. As a result, the pop is younger, wealthier, and more educated. They need a place to live in the city and this is overflowing into traditionally lower income areas. Added to this has been a massive amount of federal funding which has helped rebuild subsidized housing, improving former blighted areas.

 

[BanGy.nz]

That's my major problem with how Spike characterizes this: It's a class issue, not a racial one.

It's both.

 

[Tom_Cody]

What unconstructive rambling from Lee.

Here's one thing that can help all parties: allow for more redevelopment and construction of higher buildings. Increased housing stock can help stabilize housing prices in gentrifying neighborhoods. More people can live there at lower prices. Obviously this has it's own consequences but it is a step in the right direction in addressing the problems he mentioned in his rant.

 

[captmcblack]

Spike seems to be making it a black / white issue and that rubs me the wrong way.

I don't think he's making it a black/white issue.

But he has pointed out - and asked explicitly - why it takes an influx of white men and women to enter these neighborhoods for them to receive improved services and additional investment from the city or other business interests.

That is a perfectly-valid question, actually. There were people living in these places before that needed better schools, that could use cleaner streets/parks/sidewalks, that could use more playgrounds, that would frequent better/newer/more convenient or trendy businesses, that would love it if their landlords would fix up or improve their buildings...but those things didn't happen because these neighborhoods were called "ghettos" or "run-down" irrespective of whether or not they actually were - largely because of the people that lived there. Now people are moving in who are not the people who already lived there, and who have decided that these neighborhoods are great places to renovate and invest in (which is great), but only at the cost of wiping out the existing culture/clientele, and/or the ability of those people to afford to be there (which is not great). Why does it have to be that way? Is it possible to acknowledge that things are that way without having the reply be "well, what would you do about it?"

That is what Spike Lee said.

 

[chaostrophy]

I don't blame current gentrifiers for the problem as much as their ancestors- if the white people who "flew" from inner cities bothered to build decent, sustainable places where they flew to, their descendants wouldn't be so desperate to escape them and return to real cities.

In some respects I'm a gentrifier- white, middle class, full-time job, bought a condo in a working class neighborhood that was rehabbed and converted from rental right before I bought it. But I had no other options- staying in the car-dependent suburbia where I grew up would be too toxic to the planet and my sanity, and I can't afford to live in the areas of Chicago that were already white and gentrified. I just try to respect the neighborhood as it is.

 

[Apoc87]

what can you expect when the cost of living increases and makes it difficult for people who barely can pay for living before hand.

obtain the better jobs that get created because of gentrification.

 

[entremet]

obtain the better jobs that get created because of gentrification.

If only it was that simple. Gentrification creates low paying jobs, service jobs. Not yuppie jobs that are needed to afford those new rents.

 

[ampere]

Gentrification is tricky as hell. I mean, what can you do? It can suck something major, but how can you stop it? When an area becomes trendy, and this can happen for all sorts of reasons, people with money will move there and businesses will follow.

Yeah.

I totally agree that it's a problem when a poor area doesn't get proper government support though. Like some parts of Detroit it takes an hour on average for the police to respond to a call? Messed up.

 

[captmcblack]

obtain the better jobs that get created because of gentrification.

Because those jobs would be well-paying jobs, and not mediocre service-style jobs?

Because those jobs would be equally available to those people, and not disproportionately unavailable for various/nebulous reasons to people that just so happen to look like the people (or may actually be the people) who were displaced from those neighborhoods?

 

[OldRoutes]

Because those jobs would be well-paying jobs, and not mediocre service-style jobs?

Because those jobs would be equally available to those people, and not disproportionately unavailable for various/nebulous reasons to people that just so happen to look like the people (or may actually be the people) who were displaced from those neighborhoods?

Wait are you trying to find excuses?

His point is valid, now you're speculating about possible ways it might not happen. "What if it's closed when I try to apply?"

 

[entremet]

Wait are you trying to find excuses?

His point is valid, now you're speculating about possible ways it might not happen. "What if it's closed when I try to apply?"

Service style jobs don't pay enough. That's not enough for someone to sustain themselves in a post gentrified neighborhood.