« Bicyclist Run Over in Greenpoint Will Union Market Open Before the New Year? »

'What's Wrong With Gentrification?' Asks New York Mag

This week New York Magazine takes a view on gentrification that is, if not contrarian, at least a little controversial. (The article follows a similar one in the semi-annual magazine n+1). As will come as no surprise to most readers, gentrification these days is treated as something of a dirty word. Why's that? Mostly because it conjures up associations of, as n+1 wrote, "the forced displacement of the urban working class by mobile, college-educated professionals." This may be more myth that fact though: In his recent book There Goes the 'Hood, Columbia urban planning prof Lance Freeman found that “poor residents and those without a college education were actually less likely to move if they resided in gentrifying neighborhoods" and that "the discourse on gentrification has tended to overlook the possibility that some of the neighborhood changes associated with gentrification might be appreciated by the prior residents.” In other words, the rehabilitation of an old house or the opening of an upscale bakery isn't necessarily a zero-sum game in which the long-time residents are lose out. Not only that, claims the New York Magazine article, but gentrification is the only hope that many urban centers have of saving themselves: "The ailing cities that save themselves in the 21st century will do so by following Brooklyn’s blueprint," the article says in closing. "They’ll gentrify as fast as they can."
What’s Wrong With Gentrification? [New York Magazine]
Photo by kathyylchan

120 Comments

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 15, 2009 10:05 AM

Yes with no industry, the average American's best hope is for rich people to move next door. Pretty sad.

By daveinbedstuy on December 15, 2009 10:05 AM

Sounds logical to me. I don't think any of the "oldtimers" on my block have any problem with a few "little white people" moving in and their property prices rising. I know many have welcomed the newer, better restaurants as well.

I think where the problems set in is when people see values rise and begin to tap equity with loans that have unfavorable and oftentimes fraudulent terms.

By daveinbedstuy on December 15, 2009 10:21 AM

That pic is Saraghina's backyard, I believe. i was sitting at the bar last week and this older lady from the neighborhood came in and sat down next to me ordering some take out. We got to chatting and she was so thankful that this place opened up so she could finally get some decent food.

By Petebklyn on December 15, 2009 10:21 AM

I think the term gentrification is overused and really a cliche by now.
I would really like to see statistics on change in median incomes in different zip codes over a 5 or 10 year period and compare that to change in income of entire metro area.
Part of it is that a aging population moves or dies off and is replaced by a younger set and neighborhood starts to see a change. I really don't see people forced out of an area.

By bupe on December 15, 2009 10:22 AM

I love the irony of citing a Columbia prof, when the institution is trying to use eminent domain to take over half of Harlem.

By daveinbedstuy on December 15, 2009 10:24 AM

From what I know about the history of "gentrification" in Harlem, it went through a very different history than what has happened in Brooklyn. bed Stuy's "gentrification" was home grown.

I agree, the word is a cliche.

By BK realestate veteran on December 15, 2009 10:27 AM

Hard to believe there is no displacement as prices rise.
in the 70's and 80's 100,000 SRO rooms were lost in NYC, 100,000 ! Of course rent stabilization is a strong protection, without for example the entire east and west sides of manhattan would have changed even more than they have but in brownstone neighborhoods in leases without rent controls, you've had many changes to housing composition also increases motivation to change tenants as prices rise
i like to give this example: the older person who bought a house for 30,000 and sells for 500,750,900 really makes out for sticking out rough areas for so long, but her kids then can't buy and have to rent or leave the area
so to say there is no displacement is absurd on its face

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 15, 2009 10:27 AM

I love the irony of citing a Columbia prof, when the institution is trying to use eminent domain to take over half of Harlem.

Posted by: bupe at December 15, 2009 10:22 AM

LMBWBBAO (Laughing my big white Brooklyn-born ass off!)

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 15, 2009 10:28 AM

Posted by: BK realestate veteran at December 15, 2009 10:27 AM

True.

By Grand Pa on December 15, 2009 10:29 AM

Did the Associate Prof who wrote "There Goes the ’Hood" control for housing projects which are prevalent both in Harlem and Fort Greene where the poorest people live that CANNOT be gentrified? Did he control for the NYC specific policies like rent control, rent stabilization and rent protection for the elderly. I bet he didn't.

Why doesn't he study what happens when a University tries to steal an entire neighborhood based on some cracks in the sidewalk?

By Butterfly on December 15, 2009 10:41 AM

the problem with gentrification is that neighborhoods become overrun with people who eschew the suburbs yet bring the suburban mentality to the city under the guise of being new urbanites.. when in fact they are not and never have been. they also take away the cheap bodegas and replace them with froo froo crap that real people cant afford.

*rob*

By joeingowanus on December 15, 2009 10:44 AM

joe from bk.

this is exactly the position my wife and i are in. her parents bought a place in brooklyn for 50,000 in the early 80s while working city jobs. now we are faced with the prospect of buying in the same neighborhood for 800,000. incomes certainly haven't gone up 16x since the early 80s.

By Montrose Morris on December 15, 2009 10:50 AM

The article made a few valid points that were hard to disagree with, but ignored far more points than it covered. Since it was a pretty short article, that is not surprising. Since it is NY Mag, which is a mirror in the face of upscale New Yorkers, not surprising, either.

As someone living smack in the beaker of that social experiment called gentrification, I think it's much more complicated than most people think. Gentrification involves not just new money displacing old poverty, it is a stew of issues of wealth, culture, racism, homophobia, paranoia, resentments and expectations. The problem is the often accurate perception that the only way the neighborhood can improve is for white folks to move in, they don’t even have to be wealthy. Depending on the housing available in the neighborhood, the shock troops of gentrification are under 30 aged kids, looking for housing bargains, or artists looking for space. Or both. I’ve taken the A train at Nostrand Avenue for over 25 years, and have seen it when the only white faces on the platform were cops or lost European tourists, to now, where at least a third of the passengers are white, mostly the above mentioned kids, but over the last 5 years, more older people, often with children. My corner of the hood is changing. I’d be a fool not to say that much of that is good. I happen to think the best neighborhoods are a mixture of races, cultures and incomes.

I think the resentment creeps in from 2 sources. The loudest is from those who don’t have anything, never will, and will always feel that someone else kept them from success. It’s easy to blame “white people” or “the Man”, instead of yourself. Race is incidental. These types of people exist in every group of marginal and struggling people. White supremacist groups are as full of these types as your local streetcorner. No one, no matter how well intentioned, liberal, helpful or nice is going to be able to placate this bunch. The second source of complaint is at the crux of the matter. It comes from long timers who have seen the neighborhood go from good to bad to awful, have stuck it out, dealt with crime, lack of city services, bad schools, dirty and substandard stores, and have grown weary. If they could get out and afford it, they learned to shop elsewhere, school their kids elsewhere. They are out there every morning sweeping their stoops, their homes are immaculate, and they are proud members of their local churches and civic organizations. They are the salt of the earth, they vote, even though little good came to their communities. They learned not to trust the city, and they learned to make do. Now that people have “discovered” their neighborhoods and started to move in and make changes, and the city, especially the police, have started to address their concerns, they often resent that it took gentrification to bring about changes that were long overdue.

I could go on, but this is long enough.

By thwackamole1 on December 15, 2009 10:51 AM

The 100k SRO rooms were lost in several ways:

1) Homeowners combined them back into 1,2,3,4 family buildings
2) The buildings were demolished and replaced with other structures
3) More commonly, the rents were so low that the buildings deteriorated and the tenants moved out.

NYC's SRO policy is horrific. SROs are a great way to live for the young, the single, the poor, or the temporarily relocated..

But NYC's SRO/Rent Control/Anti-Harassment policies have lead to complete market failure -- almost no new supply, no maintenance, and a complete destruction of value leading to massive conversion to other housing types.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 15, 2009 10:57 AM

joe from bk.

Posted by: joeingowanus at December 15, 2009 10:44 AM

Sometimes a 2 bedroom in a Fedders building seems like the only alternative...

By wine lover on December 15, 2009 10:57 AM

rent control, rent stabilization, and housing projects is/are THEFT pure and simple. it's taking money from one person and giving it to another, so that the politicians who facilitate the stealing can shore up a political base to vote for them. They then use their to get money and power. it's total BS.

By mopar on December 15, 2009 10:58 AM

I absolutely love that Lance Freeman book. It is one of the most enjoyable and enlightning books I have read. But I do think he discounts the negative effects of gentrifcation on renters -- specifically, he undercounts the number who have to move. I know of instances where this has happened. It's just not visible to his counting methods.

By havelc on December 15, 2009 11:00 AM

And by Columbia seizing half of Harlem, you really mean that Harlem's biggest employer (Columbia) was trying to pay market rates for a couple blocks of storage warehouses that employ almost no-one and likely pay zero benefits to the few people that do work there.

Yes, Harlem really "won" that one.

By Petebklyn on December 15, 2009 11:02 AM

"i like to give this example: the older person who bought a house for 30,000 and sells for 500,750,900 really makes out for sticking out rough areas for so long, but her kids then can't buy and have to rent or leave the area
so to say there is no displacement is absurd on its face"----but those same issues are not solely some inner city supposedly gentrified area. Prices of real estate have skyrocketed throughout metro area (which was my point).
To place the blame of not being able to afford neighborhood where grew up on 'gentrifiers' is absurd. There just aren't that many of those folks. The rise in prices in area are because of across the board demand for housing - from increase in population most of which is from immigration
(Just look at percent of city population that is foreign born). It would considered xenophobic and racist to blame immigration so I think this is displaced to attitude on Brownstoner, Curbed, etc about the 'Midwesterners', from Ohio, etc. More acceptable to vent on them.

By Brenda from Flatbush on December 15, 2009 11:06 AM

Montrose speaketh sense, as usual. My only beef with gentrification is this: Why can't it just be nice-ification? Decent-ification? Why can't the empty storefront be replaced with a nice butcher store instead of a foofy charcuterie? Why not a fishmonger instead of sushi? Every neighborhood used to have "decent" mom-and-pop stores for stuff like housewares, kids' clothes, and other staples. Now, it seems there is no middle (except, interestingly, in some of Brooklyn's kosher/orthodox quarters, where something like a middle lives on); no, we must jump from crappy 99-cent stores straight to high-end chains or indie boutiques, and from filthy bodegas to "gourmet" groceries, and from greasy spoons or Dunkin' Donuts to Asian fusion cuisine. It is very instructive to pore over photos of commercial strips in areas like Flatbush or Park Slope in the first half of the 20th century; there was little luxury, but also little overt crap. Where is the middle, and why can't that come back first?

By witchdoctor on December 15, 2009 11:07 AM

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with gentrification. The problem is the ATTITUDE of the gentrifiers! They think that problems should automatically disappear! That because they have moved in that the junkies and dealers should magically go away. They think that they can block the sidewalk with their strollers or tell the children at Underwood "the others" what they can and cannot do. If the gentrifiers would simply be a little more humble, than perhaps all of these problems wouldn't exist.

By Montrose Morris on December 15, 2009 11:10 AM

Brenda, that is so true.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 15, 2009 11:13 AM

"The second source of complaint is at the crux of the matter. It comes from long timers who have seen the neighborhood go from good to bad to awful, have stuck it out, dealt with crime, lack of city services, bad schools, dirty and substandard stores, and have grown weary. If they could get out and afford it, they learned to shop elsewhere, school their kids elsewhere. They are out there every morning sweeping their stoops, their homes are immaculate, and they are proud members of their local churches and civic organizations. They are the salt of the earth, they vote, even though little good came to their communities. They learned not to trust the city, and they learned to make do. Now that people have “discovered” their neighborhoods and started to move in and make changes, and the city, especially the police, have started to address their concerns, they often resent that it took gentrification to bring about changes that were long overdue."
I remember once being called out by a lady on Union Street for inadvertently tossing the clear cellophane from a pack of cigarettes on the floor. I was like "I've been cleaning McDonald's bags from the front of my parent's house for 25 YEARS B@%H!"

By havelc on December 15, 2009 11:15 AM

Witchdoctor-- to be honest, I think you're projecting the attitude of the people already in the gentrifying neighborhood. Besides, doesn't everyone want the junkies and dealers to disappear?

And besides-- the stroller thing is such a canard... outside of certain areas of Park Slope there is almost nowhere where you truly can't walk down the street because there are strollers blocking it.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 15, 2009 11:16 AM

Posted by: Petebklyn at December 15, 2009 11:02 AM

Interesting observation Pete.

By Bob Marvin on December 15, 2009 11:17 AM

MM's comment is, as usual, quite perceptive. I'm not sure where I fit in since, like joeingowanus's parents, I could have been seen as a gentrifier years ago and have lived in my neighborhood long enough to be an old timer. I must say that I don't resent the newcomers, although I'm sometimes amused by their imagining that they've discovered a neighborhood that doesn't need discovering.

Of course PLG, in general, and Lefferts Manor, in particular, never really needed gentrification, whatever that means. At the risk of being pedantic, I'd like to point out that the term is a British one, made up to describe middle class young people buying run down working class "terrace" row houses quite unlike anything in brownstone Brooklyn. I much prefer the term "revitalization" which is more descriptive of what happens in brownstone Brooklyn.

By JPD on December 15, 2009 11:18 AM

Joe from Brooklyn,

You should blame that woman that bought for $30k for not selling it at $45k or something, and taking a $600k loss--she's SO greedy. I mean, that would allow so many people to afford her brownstone.

And Joe, maybe you should start asking long-time homeowners to sell their homes at a 75% discount for the greater good...because that's where the real immediate change can happen to solve this problem, right?

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 15, 2009 11:19 AM

Joe from Brooklyn,

You should blame that woman that bought for $30k for not selling it at $45k or something, and taking a $600k loss--she's SO greedy. I mean, that would allow so many people to afford her brownstone.

Posted by: JPD at December 15, 2009 11:18 AM

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 15, 2009 11:21 AM

Joe from Brooklyn,

You should blame that woman that bought for $30k for not selling it at $45k or something, and taking a $600k loss--she's SO greedy. I mean, that would allow so many people to afford her brownstone.

Posted by: JPD at December 15, 2009 11:18 AM

Whatever you say angry guy. I think I'll just let what I said and your response speak for themselves...

By tinarina on December 15, 2009 11:21 AM

Totally agree, Brenda. But back in the day of more mom-and-pops, commercial rents were more reasonable and/or the shop owner owned the building.

Nowadays, gentrification also dramatically jacks up commercial rents, so often the only viable business is a fancier one. Food in particular has very low profit margins, so it's hard to be priced affordably when you're paying thousands a month in rent--the math just doesn't work.

Even if you buy a retail building, the same problem still exists.

By havelc on December 15, 2009 11:21 AM

Joe-- I think you're on to something with the point that current residents often resent the fact that it took gentrification for the city to address longstanding issues.

But why should that hostility extend to the new neighbors? That, to me, is where the breakdown occurs.

You cease to be "salt of the earth" once you start being hostile to your neighbors who have done nothing negative to you...

By havelc on December 15, 2009 11:23 AM

And let's also keep in mind-- and this is spoken from the perspective of someone who used to work minimum wage in a mom and pop store-- mom and pop stores pay shit and give zero benefits.

I love shopping local and helping local merchants as much as anyone, but let's not become too enamored with a golden age that never existed...

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 15, 2009 11:26 AM

Joe-- I think you're on to something with the point that current residents often resent the fact that it took gentrification for the city to address longstanding issues.

But why should that hostility extend to the new neighbors? That, to me, is where the breakdown occurs.

You cease to be "salt of the earth" once you start being hostile to your neighbors who have done nothing negative to you...

Posted by: havelc at December 15, 2009 11:21 AM

I didn't really call the woman a b-i btw. I am quite happy that my next door neighbors are sweet couple from Texas and that there are hot girls from all over the world living in my building.

By Jail_Bait on December 15, 2009 11:29 AM

Arguing against gentrificiation pricing people out of a neighborhood is like arguing against gravity -- pointless. Neighborhoods change, people want to live certain places, they can pay more so they will pay more, some people can't afford it, they move, end of story. The character of a neighborhood is not etched in stone. There's a market for real estate and things change. What's the alternative? Rent control the whole city? Place restrictions on who homeowners can and cannot sell their houses to? Put price limits on how much a homeowner can sell his house for?

Montrose hits the nail on the head in terms of the sociology of it all, but at the end of the day it's life and the old-timers will either have to live with it or move.

By BK realestate veteran on December 15, 2009 11:32 AM

on the funny side, my objection is the Quiche-ification and the Brunch-ification that comes with all those delicate white folks

By Petebklyn on December 15, 2009 11:35 AM

Brenda, I think it is more nostalgia to think about the mom and pop stores and variety we once had. I don't think of it as result of gentrification but just changing times, more moderm. It is what people want and how they shop.
I roll my eyes at each new pretentious shop and overpriced drinking hole that opens in my neighborhood. But that is how money is made. I see same sort of thing near my weekend house where local commercial mall strip. Drive-up starbucks...makeover of old strip stores to be more fashionable etc. Gourmet this and that. And believe me the local population is not becoming gentrified. Pretty downscale folks compared to Brooklyn(most parts).

By Montrose Morris on December 15, 2009 11:36 AM

Harlem's housing situation is very different from most parts of gentrifying Brooklyn. Harlem's brownstone stock was chopped up into apartments, early on, and many of those were SRO apartments. Many of those buildings were owned by absentee landlords. Neighborhoods like many parts of Bed Stuy and Crown Heights have been owner occupied for generations. That makes a big difference in the quality of the neighborhood.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 15, 2009 11:39 AM

on the funny side, my objection is the Quiche-ification and the Brunch-ification that comes with all those delicate white folks

Posted by: BK realestate veteran at December 15, 2009 11:32 AM

Brunch is actually a great way for low-income people to eat at some of the nicest and most expensive restaurants at a much more reasonable price.

By fsrg on December 15, 2009 11:42 AM

Jailbait - 100% correct....the whole "debate" is stupid - cause there can be no debate, it was, is and likely will always be....

And with that in mind, I would say to those that "resent" gentrification of their neighborhood - RE lasts hundreds of years, people only about 70, neighborhoods will always change - just be thankful that your neighborhood is becoming more desirable, not less.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 15, 2009 11:44 AM

Jailbait - 100% correct....the whole "debate" is stupid - cause there can be no debate, it was, is and likely will always be....

Posted by: fsrg at December 15, 2009 11:42 AM

Yeah.
Be grateful b*#@hs.

By JPD on December 15, 2009 11:45 AM

I love driving outside of the city and seeing Linens & Things and Circuit City stores all vacant and sealed up. It reminds me of the gritty and grimy way NYC used to be back in the old days. It was so much better then. I can't wait for crime to escalate again from the bad economy so I can feel rugged for living in such a cool, rough city!

By Butterfly on December 15, 2009 11:46 AM

LOL @ brunch-fication hahhhaha

one of my fav. things i used to like to do on a sunday morning when i lived in manhattan was pass outdoor brunch places and be all like "ooooh can i try a piece of that?" to the people eating their brunch.

and yes, people actually shared! lol
tho they probably thought i was a mentally deranged homeless person

*rob*

By daveinbedstuy on December 15, 2009 11:46 AM

Brunch on a Sunday at Peaches in Bed Stuy is PACKED. And from what I observe, it's mostly older long-time residents.

By dittoburg on December 15, 2009 11:51 AM

I'd like a local fishmongers, as it is I schlepp to the farmer's market. I don't think a fishmonger could make the rent though.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 15, 2009 11:54 AM

El Almacen in Williamsburg is one of my favorite restaurants. On Sat and Sunday you can get a slightly smaller version of the same steak that's on the dinner menu for around $30 WITH eggs AND truffle french fries or potatoes for like $16. Go F yourselves TGI Fridays!

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 15, 2009 11:55 AM

I'd like a local fishmongers, as it is I schlepp to the farmer's market. I don't think a fishmonger could make the rent though.

Posted by: dittoburg at December 15, 2009 11:51 AM

Grand Army Plaza Farmer's Market has sells fresh-caught LI fish.

By cillmylandlord_again on December 15, 2009 11:56 AM

Brunch-ification is hilarious. I'm using that word.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 15, 2009 11:59 AM

I'd like to see real estate prices graphed along with the # restaurants in the area which serve brunch.

We could be on to something here...

By Montrose Morris on December 15, 2009 12:01 PM

Jail bait, you may be correct in terms of dollars and cents, but isn't a neighborhood more than that, just as it is more than bricks and mortar. If we are only the product of our wallets, then neighborhoods lose their character and become no more appealing than a newly built suburb. Crown Heights North is a layering of people and incomes, culture and history, built upon a prosperous upper middle class area of fine homes and churches. Each successive layer of people and incomes, fortune and misfortune has contributed to what CHN is, and while all neighborhoods are flowing and changing, the best retain the good while improving. I don't want Crown Heights to become Park Slope. I think the difference may be that we learn from the past, and from other neighborhoods. Improvements and change and new people, even know-it-all, take-over types can be channeled in a way that doesn't mean that a new group "takes over" any more than the old group refuses obvious improvements in order to stay "real". We just need to learn to work together and learn from each other. It is possible to do.

By GoGoMrPoPo on December 15, 2009 12:07 PM

Another piece of this puzzle is the disappearance of a true middle class. When a society is more evenly stratified, you'll see services and price points to reflect the middle, but when you govern towards the most unfettered market possible and let capitalism work, you get mega-haves and mega-have-nots. Capitalism is a serious engine for growth, but not for equitable distribution of growth, and it plays out in all of our markets, especially housing and retail.

And I have to take issue with the idea that gentrification is a fact of life, so you might as well get used to it. Change is indeed a fact of life, but we can use our brains and our institutions to try to affect that change in a manner we feel more appropriate for ourselves and our communities. You can't stop it, but you can try to steer it and mold it for the better. I'm with Montrose.

By fsrg on December 15, 2009 12:12 PM

MM- the layering you refer is a direct result of the forces and factors jailbait articulates, and by definition CHN cannot become PS - because it is physically different, socially different and built different, therefore each factor will impact it different. Just like PS will never be Brooklyn Heights, etc....
Jailbaits accurate point is that there is nothing to debate - unless we resort to a total control economy (which would eventually change things more than anything else) - neighborhoods are going to change - new people will come (some may be wealthier, some maybe poorer) old people will stay, people will be born, people will die - there is nothing to "debate" - its called life!

By Grand Pa on December 15, 2009 12:14 PM

Havelc-

How exactly were the "market rates" you speak of determined by Columbia? Free market arms length negotiation?

By fsrg on December 15, 2009 12:15 PM

"Change is indeed a fact of life, but we can use our brains and our institutions to try to affect that change in a manner we feel more appropriate for ourselves and our communities. You can't stop it, but you can try to steer it and mold it for the better. I'm with Montrose."

Which we already do - its called Rent Stabilization, aid to 1st time home buyers, social Security, Disability, low-moderate income development programs, graduated income tax, empowerment zones, medicare, etc, etc, etc....who says we do not try to mitigate the effects of capitalism or change....

By fsrg on December 15, 2009 12:17 PM

Columbia negotiated with and reached deals with I beleive 95% of the private owners in the footprint of their expansion plan. Private negotiation = market price

By HDL on December 15, 2009 12:20 PM

Rob (Butterfly):
To argue that cheap bodegas that have been replaced by "foo-foo" markets is a bad thing is wrong on many levels. Studies have been done comparing prices and offerings in those bodegas to supermarkets and "foo-foo" markets which clearly show that the bodegas charge more for food and goods that are older (often past expiration), and often don't carry healthy options at all. The lack of space in those bodegas also makes buying in bulk impossible which further increases prices. Essentially those bodegas have been ripping off the poor communities that they serve because there are no other options offering quality products to compete with them.

By Jail_Bait on December 15, 2009 12:23 PM

MM you are quite right. A neighborhood is about people. However, I think it is just reality that sometimes prices in an area increase and certain people get priced out of a market. As I say, what's the alternative?

I lived in Park Slope for several years. For what we got, my wife and I thought it was too expensive. We moved. No, I hadn't been there for 100 years, and we were not "priced out" strictly speaking, but thems the breaks. The little old lady who bought her brownstone fifty years ago will sell it for $2 million, move to Florida and live her remaining days like a queen. As someone else mentioned above, should we begrudge her that money? Should she have been forced to sell to someone -- what, more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood? -- for less than she could get on the market? When the rubber hits the road, what we're talking about here are property rights.

To impose our collective will on a property owner to get the type of neighborhood "we" want, somebody's got to pay in the form of the state putting conditions on their property rights, be it rent control or otherwise (I would put landmarking in this category as well). I'm not saying that's always a bad thing, but it is what it is.

Essentially, as I see it, anti-gentrification is about not liking yuppies (and in some neighborhoods hispters too I guess). Technically I am a yuppie, and, yes, we suck. We like expensive coffee and Maclaren strollers. We're self-entitled and obnoxious. But we also pay taxes and we won't mug you, so unfortunately the old timers will have to live with us.

By Despina on December 15, 2009 12:29 PM

When I bought in eastern Clinton Hill in 1988, some of my neighbors referred to my presence as "gentrification." Why? Perhaps because I paid what was then the highest price for a (beautiful) house on a block close to good transportation? Who knows - to me (having saved for years to afford the down payment) it was worth it. I displaced noone, and the prior owner was happy about getting a good price. I joined the block association, and the term seemed to disappear. Now I'm an oldtimer watching the new wave of buyers and listening to concerns about gentrification. Plus ca change...

By brooklynnjewel on December 15, 2009 12:39 PM

Hello All,

As a Bed Stuy Resident my entire life I have seen it all from drugs, violence, local businesses come and go, schools closed to make room for luxury condos and now bike lanes ( I love the bike lanes.)

I believe it is necessary, its an evolution. I enjoy the new eateries, I enjoy the bike lanes, I enjoy having a Duane Reade and Rite Aid as well as the corner bodega. Where else can you get a 10:30pm ginger ale run? :)

I think the thing that people who have lived in my area think of when they think of gentrification is this:

Why does it take white people to move into the areas that were once called "ghetto, hood and dangerous" to be now called "hip and up and coming" ?

Why is that it takes white people to move into my neighborhood for us to finally get trees planted or a police presence?

They also see white residents only rent to white renters and then they see or don't choose to see black residents only rent to white renters because they believe the white people in these areas will pay more.

I think the line for ME is this, there needs to be affordable housing for those who can't afford a 500k luxury studio condo. There needs to be good public schools, good supermarkets and eateries, bike lanes and for ALL of the residents to feel safe and not wait for a certain type of people to move in to do so.

By JPD on December 15, 2009 12:50 PM

New York City is on the path to being the next Paris: wealthy, aesthetically beautiful, and culturally dull. Unless NYC is excessively-subsidised, there's not much that can be done. The end.

By mopar on December 15, 2009 12:52 PM

"Now, it seems there is no middle (except, interestingly, in some of Brooklyn's kosher/orthodox quarters, where something like a middle lives on); no, we must jump from crappy 99-cent stores straight to high-end chains or indie boutiques, and from filthy bodegas to "gourmet" groceries, and from greasy spoons or Dunkin' Donuts to Asian fusion cuisine. "

Jackson Heights and Bay Ridge are both places where prices have increased but it is not "gentrified" in the sense of Williamsburg or Carroll Gardens. Partly this may be because artists are not that attracted to the architecture. Jackson Heights is notable for its diversity, which I think is healthy and something to aspire to. It's diverse in income, class, country of origin, language, and sexual orientation.

To give some examples of people being displaced: There were a number of long-term, Hispanic tenants who paid $1100 or less in my second apartment building in Bushwick. Our (East Indian) landlady raised the rents to $1400 to $1800 and they moved, and now everyone in the building fits the "hipster" profile. One family moved to New Jersey; I don't know what became of the others.

Mexican immigrants and other Spanish speakers from Central and South America are as new as the hipsters in Bushwick. Those renting single rooms from other Hispanic owners (an earlier wave of Puerto Rican and Dominican immigrants) are not likely to be displaced because the total rents are higher than they could get from hipsters, plus there is a linguistic and cultural barrier for the landlords. Others, whole families, are renting flats, and they are likely to move when the landlord raises the rent or sells the building. Many older immigrants who came here in the 1960s and 1970s are under rent control and they're not going anywhere. The current mix of stores is my idea of perfection, by the way -- you've got some really great bargains of all types, from stores specializing in Mexican produce to the Northeast Kingdom restaurant.

The "improving" of Bedford Stuyvesant seems to have happened without any help from whites. It would be wonderful if the area could continue as it is without turning into Fort Greene.

By Brenda from Flatbush on December 15, 2009 12:52 PM

Rob should rent himself out to over-gentrified neighborhoods on Sunday mornings, cadging bites of people's brunch from sidewalk cafes and ranting about the good old days of scabrous NYC. Then all the brunch-ifiers would feel edgy and authentic and everyone would be happy!

By cillmylandlord_again on December 15, 2009 12:53 PM

Umm...what studies comparing bodegas vs supermarkets vs "foo foo" markets? All supermarkets do not carry un-expired food (I've found expired food in Associateds, Key Foods, Garden of Eden so far) and a lot of supermarkets are expensive (hello!) in gentrified and ungentrified communities alike. And...ALL bodegas do not carry expired food and are overpriced. And both bodegas and supermarkets carry unhealty food. Where was there a study done? What was the control? What were the cities involved...I love science, please indulge.

By Legion on December 15, 2009 12:55 PM

Alternative Argument #23

Free market capitalism is an inadvertant driving force for artistic/musical advancement in urban environments.

-artists/musicians congregate in an area

-people with money move in

-businesses catering to these folks move in

-area becomes gentrified

examples
soho in the 70's
tribeca in the 80's
LES in the 90's
Williamsburg in the 00's

It seems that such forces seem to play out predictably in racially homogenous areas but run into the socio-ethnic problems in other areas.

By DitmasSnark on December 15, 2009 1:02 PM

> Free market capitalism is an inadvertant driving force for
> artistic/musical advancement in urban environments.

I'm not sure what your argument is supposed to be, because in every instance, the artists are all forced out of a given area.

Increased cost of living in this city forces more and more emerging artists further and further out from the center, if not to other cities entirely. The end result is a city of museums, not an incubator of new art.

By bxgrl on December 15, 2009 1:02 PM

"But we also pay taxes and we won't mug you, so unfortunately the old timers will have to live with us.

Posted by: Jail_Bait at December 15, 2009 12:23 PM"

I love the assumption that no one pays taxes in poor neighborhoods. Poor neighborhoods are not welfare enclaves- they are filled with working poor who- yes- pay taxes as well. As for mugging- well. let's just say white collar crime is mass mugging at its finest.

Yes life happens and neighborhoods change, but Montrose is right. Neighborhoods and communities are more than the buildings and bricks. You may not want to credit the sociology of city living but it is a very real factor in how cities function, and quality of life for residents. Too many people on brownstoner think its all about the money and real estate, when in fact, its really all about people. And for most of the "old-timers", it isn't about gentrification, its about the air of entitlement, and the years of being ignored only to suddenly see improvements happen when "yuppies" move in. And I have heard too many of those complain that if the oldtimers had really cared, the neighborhood wouldn't be so bad. Wrong and wrong again.

By woodys on December 15, 2009 1:08 PM

I grew up in a working class neighborhood in PA--what bxgirl I guess would call a "real" neighborhood--and frankly I see no more value in that than I do in yuppie, gentrified cobble hill where I live now. I like yuppies and am happy to surround myself with them.

By Legion on December 15, 2009 1:10 PM

"I'm not sure what your argument is supposed to be, because in every instance, the artists are all forced out of a given area."
Ditmasnark

I guess what I'm saying is that an argument can be made that those things that make life in the city interesting for alot of folks are sometimes formed in a climate of flux.
Artists and Musicians are often in search of a place and a time and a movement.
In the case of gentrification by price-outs, that movement is pretty much guaranteed. Not always a good thing, but it seems to be borne out by example.

Brooklyn may very well be reaching a "strangling" point but larger economic forces may abate that as would good planning and policy.

By Butterfly on December 15, 2009 1:10 PM

quote:
To argue that cheap bodegas that have been replaced by "foo-foo" markets is a bad thing is wrong on many levels. Studies have been done comparing prices and offerings in those bodegas to supermarkets and "foo-foo" markets which clearly show that the bodegas charge more for food and goods that are older (often past expiration), and often don't carry healthy options at all. The lack of space in those bodegas also makes buying in bulk impossible which further increases prices. Essentially those bodegas have been ripping off the poor communities that they serve because there are no other options offering quality products to compete with them.

well i dont GO to bodegas for the food. gross. i go for the ammenities that are important to me. newports and cheap 40s and the occasional mega millions lotto ticket! when those kinds of stores all disappear and froofroo places take their places it's furstration!

*rob*

By bxgrl on December 15, 2009 1:13 PM

snark- I was about to say the same thing. Artists get forced out.

As for Williamsburg- it was a huge Polish neighborhood, as well as a mix of Jewish and Hispanic. Back in the 80's artists were moving there because they could find big, light filled and cheap space. It wasn't until it was declared "trendy" that it started getting overpriced.

By DitmasSnark on December 15, 2009 1:20 PM

> things that make life in the city interesting for alot of
> folks are sometimes formed in a climate of flux.

I'll definitely agree with that. If things did not change in this city, how boring would that be? But perhaps I am more of a fan of change than many people.

By Butterfly on December 15, 2009 1:22 PM

quote:
snark- I was about to say the same thing. Artists get forced out.

i will say one thing, rather tongue in cheekily tho, that if those "artists" were probably any good, they wouldnt get forced out hahah

*rob*

By daveinbedstuy on December 15, 2009 1:23 PM

woodys....have you been to Woody's in Philadelphia????

By bxgrl on December 15, 2009 1:25 PM

rob- youy need to read up on your art history. It's filled with great artists who only made it big after they died. (Don't make me kill you) :-)

By Montrose Morris on December 15, 2009 1:26 PM

I say we put the "planning" back in Urban Planning. There is nothing wrong with using a little artificial help in making sure our renaissancing neighborhoods don't just evolve into higher beings of pure affluence, but are viable communities that can accommodate a wide spectrum of people, incomes, and lifestyles. I think the programs fsrg mentioned above are necessary tools for healthy cities, not loathsome hinderances to the grand goal of JDB's perception of Paris.

I have no problem with someone's MacLaren stroller, or expensive coffee house. Each new group adds what they want to a neighborhood. West Indian restaurants predominate in my neighborhood because they serve the last large influx of newcomers into the neighborhood, a population that is still a majority here. I think we can have both the coffee shop and the roti shop, doubles, as well as double mochas. I would also like equal respect for both, as well as for their customer bases, which cross over much more than people give them both credit for.

By DitmasSnark on December 15, 2009 1:27 PM

Rob - Right, because all artists who are "any good" make tons of cash.

By Butterfly on December 15, 2009 1:28 PM

i was totally kidding with that last remark bxgirl, but im sure you know that. besides, most real art created doesnt sell for millions of dollars. that's just phoney baloney high pollutin crap for dealers and museums

*rob*

By bxgrl on December 15, 2009 1:31 PM

I know rob- it was just so much fun to intimidate and threaten you :-)

By woodys on December 15, 2009 1:33 PM

daveinbedstuy, I own the place!

By daveinbedstuy on December 15, 2009 1:40 PM

Not any more you don't. You sold it to the Bump people and opened up Knock.

And i saw you there Saturday evening.

By crazypants on December 15, 2009 1:41 PM

I agree w/ the sentiment of MM and others who would like to see neighborhoods such as CH retain a lot of their "character" and "charm" but as JPD says, realistically speaking there's only one way to do it - and that's across the board price regulation and rent-control and stabilization.

There is no mechanism in place to stop someone from selling/renting their property to another who is willing to pay more. And that's the crux of gentrification. That old-timer who bought their CH brownstone w/ all original details eons ago for $40K and has maintained it beautifully - there's a long line of people out there who would pay upwards of a million dollars for that property.

To retain charm and character there would have to be
1) a neighborhood review panel who vets your prospective buyers for appropriate fit,
2) said review panel would have final say in who purchases your property and at what price - so if the panel thinks the "real" working-class family of four who can only offer $150K for your brownstone is better match for the neighborhood than some Wall Street family offering $1M, then you're shit out of luck.

Or even a simpler solution - every apartment currently being rented in NYC, be it in an owner occupied 2 family or a 300 unit behemoth - is immediately rent controlled. That would in effect freeze neighborhoods as they are.

Is either scenario really what we want?

By GoGoMrPoPo on December 15, 2009 1:44 PM

"who says we do not try to mitigate the effects of capitalism or change"

Not me. I wasn't clear if that's how my post was interpreted. I was trying to argue for the use of institutions and resources to mitigate the effects of change, or, rather, to continue to use institutions and resources to mitigate the effects of change. But, whereas in the past those institutions and resources were generally used to protect the interests of white middle/upper class property owners, we should try to strike a more equitable balance between property rights and community needs. In the end, everybody wins if we get social and economic diversity in functional neighborhoods and communities.

In a nutshell, in the 60's/70's, housing policy and the autmobile led most wealthy white people to flee the city for what was, at that point in time, the American Dream, in the face of racial tension and social unrest in America's urban centers. Now, wealthy people (let's be clear and honest, white people are not the sole drivers of gentrification in this day and age) see the cosmopolitan life, with its culture, sophistication and its Whatever You Want Right At Your Fingertips, as a new narrative of the American Dream, and are choosing to live in cities again. Here's where the inevitability of change comes in - it's going to happen because people with money want it to happen, but hey, why don't we see if we can guide it in a way that doesn't supplant longstanding communities and displace the lower and middle classes? It might not work, and there may even be unintended consequences, but in the end I think it's the right thing to do.

By GoGoMrPoPo on December 15, 2009 1:50 PM

I call straw man, crazypants. Those are decidedly not the only two options.

By daveinbedstuy on December 15, 2009 1:57 PM

However those two options are about as far out on the lunatic fringe as I've ever heard!!!

By bxgrl on December 15, 2009 2:00 PM

GoGoMrPoPo (my word that's a mouthful!), well said.

Cities aren't healthy without an economic mix and one of the things often forgotten is that when it comes to service industries, restaurants, contracting businesses, cashiers, etc- al the people who help make things run say to say- they aren't rich. They're necessary- yet they are forced further and further out. The implications of losing the working class are far-reaching, but those who concentrate only on the wealthy don't see this. Expecting an office cleaner to travel 2 hours each way because they can no longer afford a neighborhood closer in, is not only unreasonable, it's shortsighted.

But how we address this, I wish I had some answers. But the assumption that gentrification is some sort of entitlement for those with money, is no answer at all.

By fsrg on December 15, 2009 2:03 PM

I agree w/ the sentiment of MM and others who would like to see neighborhoods such as CH retain a lot of their "character" and "charm"

Here's what I dont understand.....if neighborhoods are more than bricks and mortar - and since the bricks and mortar dont change all that much - especially since so many neighborhoods are zoned and landmarked to discourage change....how can a neighborhood lose its "charm" or "character" - unless you take the view that some people simply have less "character" than others (care to define who those characterless people are?)....Frankly I have lived here my entire adult life (and I aint that young anymore) - and while many neighborhoods have changed (most for the better as I see it - less crime - better quality of life) I have yet to been to a "boring" Brooklyn neighborhood or one lacking "charm" or "character"....

Even if your complaint is "homogenization" in that you object to a neighborhood being made up of all the same "type" of people - I think Brooklyn has improved - it is less made up of "Enclaves" where outsiders dare not tread...

An economically sure there has been changes, but how is it bad that wealthier people move in and among, the less wealthy? We have plenty of protections to help the less wealthy remain (if maybe not their off-spring) and I have again yet to been in a Brooklyn neighborhood that didnt have a some large and visable differences of economic levels within it (except maybe Brooklyn Heights - and even there, and DUMBO - which didnt even exist as a neighborhood 15yrs ago).

Look I am not so naive to think that all this hasnt resulted in some people not being able to afford the neighborhood or apartment they wanted (including me) but such is life but oiverall I just dont see Brooklyn as this horribly boring souless place, nor do I see evidence of it becoming that way...I see Brooklyn as better than ever and a wonderful place for many types of people and as such - continuing to attract the wide range of people that make it great- I guess I am just an optimist.

By fsrg on December 15, 2009 2:07 PM

"Expecting an office cleaner to travel 2 hours each way because they can no longer afford a neighborhood closer in, is not only unreasonable, it's shortsighted."

Yes especially since then there will be few office cleaners and then you'll either have very dirty offices OR they'll pay the cleaners more so they can afford to live closer....Bxgrl these "problems" are hardly new - they are as old as man, and somehow we have managed to keep our "offices clean"

By eh on December 15, 2009 2:18 PM

"Technically I am a yuppie, and, yes, we suck. We like expensive coffee and Maclaren strollers. We're self-entitled and obnoxious. But we also pay taxes and we won't mug you, so unfortunately the old timers will have to live with us."

jailbailt wins the thread.

By donatella on December 15, 2009 2:18 PM

Yeah, gentrification is a lighting-rod word which implys that improving a neighborhood is somehow turning it into a place for gentry -- essentially idle, aristocratic parasites - who live off the backs of others. That word alone is enough to get everyone excited. So people confuse investment to refurbish houses and the improvement of retail services in a neighborhood with something else. Most of the so-called gentry who have bought old falling down buildings and put them back together have put blood, sweat and tears -- not to mention love and money into this creative enterprise. Not my idea of gentry.

By Butterfly on December 15, 2009 2:21 PM

quote:
Now, wealthy people (let's be clear and honest, white people are not the sole drivers of gentrification in this day and age) see the cosmopolitan life, with its culture, sophistication and its Whatever You Want Right At Your Fingertips, as a new narrative of the American Dream, and are choosing to live in cities again.

there's a place for those kinds of boring wealthy dullars coming from the suburbs. it's called the UPPER EAST SIDE!

*rob*'

By Butterfly on December 15, 2009 2:27 PM

quote:
Yeah, gentrification is a lighting-rod word which implys that improving a neighborhood is somehow turning it into a place for gentry -- essentially idle, aristocratic parasites - who live off the backs of others

um, those parasites still exist in gentrified neighborhoods!!! they aren't aristocratic, but they sit around all day in overpriced coffee shops sucking on free wi-fi and updating their facebook status

*rob*

By Legion on December 15, 2009 2:39 PM

A Comedic Illustration:

New York 1600 AD:
Delaware Tribe Member: "what's up with these guys in funny hats and boats? I'm having a hard enough time keeping up with my tribal duties without these folks trying to push trinkets!"

New York 1700 AD:
Dutch Settler: "Jesus Christ, I just got a letter from the governor and he's telling me to expect these pushy English people to keep coming!"

New York 1800 AD:
English Settler: "I'm telling you now, if they keep sending over these Germans and Irish, this will never stay
an English Colony!"

New York 1900 AD:
American Farmer: "This place is one big factory, nobody farms anymore and all these newcomers are changing the landscape with their locomotives and electrical gadgets!"

New York 2000 AD:
Brownstoner : "This gentrification is getting out of hand!"

By infinitejester on December 15, 2009 2:43 PM

"Legion to the plate...he's been hitting well lately this season...heeeere's the windup...he swings...HARD HIT!!! IT'S UP UP UP IT'S OUTTA HERE!!! SOLO SHOT HOMERUN TO THE UPPER DECK FOR LEGION!!!"

By GoGoMrPoPo on December 15, 2009 2:45 PM

"there's a place for those kinds of boring wealthy dullars coming from the suburbs. it's called the UPPER EAST SIDE!"

They're not just coming from the subsurbs, Rob. Worse! they're coming from COLLEGE!!

By Butterfly on December 15, 2009 2:50 PM

i have no problems with fresh college grads moving to anywhere in the city really. i think it's the full fledged families who move in because they are too good for the suburbs all of a sudden lol. there's a big difference! most of the post college aged straights eventually just move to murray hill, get their fratboy and soririty chickness out of their systems for a few years, then move on and breed. i dont like when they stay in the city to breed!!!

sorry if that sounds offensive to anyone. :)

*rob*

By infinitejester on December 15, 2009 2:52 PM

But rob their jobs are in the city. You want to get rid of them, move their jobs.

By Butterfly on December 15, 2009 2:54 PM

quote:
But rob their jobs are in the city. You want to get rid of them, move their jobs.

let them commute 2 hours each way. people have no problem telling poor people to suck it up and do a 2 hour commute back and forth to their jobs!

*rob*

By donatella on December 15, 2009 2:58 PM

Rob, I know you can't be serious. Check out how many brownstoners are sitting around all day drinking expensive coffee updating Facebook. To do all the work -- and believe me it is work -- involved with refurbishing some wreck or other and paying for it doesn't give you a hell of a lot of time for that bs. Of course, I am doing this right now......

By bxgrl on December 15, 2009 3:01 PM

Donatella makes great points. People who first move into older and poorer neighborhoods, and put in their sweat equity are not the problem. The first wave usually become integral parts of the community. When I think of gentrification I usually think of those who wait until they can build on the work already done. People like Bob Marvin and others I know are the salt of the earth, and as Bob points out, found much to love already there. I forget who said it but as they posted above, gentrification is not the best word. Revitalization is.

By mopar on December 15, 2009 3:06 PM

"Why is that it takes white people to move into my neighborhood for us to finally get trees planted or a police presence?"

I'm not sure this is always the case, at least not any more.

My own block cleaned up all the open drug dealing years ago. They're not white. They have a block association, neighborhood watch, community garden, etc. There are trees on only one side of the street, and I don't want them on mine (I'm white). There was a shooting on my block a couple weeks ago. It appears the police are making a huge effort to find out who is responsible and no one will talk. There are a ton of police stations and outposts on Gates, not sure this is making any difference. Police cruise in vans and walk up and down Wyckoff Ave. This does seem effective. If this is what you want, maybe the police will do it if a variety of groups, politicians, and merchants ask for it.

By daveinbedstuy on December 15, 2009 3:12 PM

I have to agree with mopar. Bed Stuy did not get cleaned up by white people moving in. People who have lived there for generations revitalized it themselves.

By Legion on December 15, 2009 3:15 PM

hey posters,

trees are free!

all you have to do is call your community board
they will fax over a parks department form
you fill out the one page form and

voila!

in 6-12 months, a crew comes in and plants a
nice tree in front of your home. All you have to do
is keep it watered regularly for a few months while
the roots are established.

some people don't take the time to fill out
the tree form and so they don't get them.

sometimes the city does step in however, in
places where tree awareness is not optimal.

jester,

;)

By donatella on December 15, 2009 3:26 PM

I was grousing with one of my neighbors (grousing, ME?) about the crapola stores around us and she got a little misty talking about the good old days when her old Fort Greene neighborhood had a butcher, grocer, bakery (but we HAVE one now!) and this and that, etc. etc. Some of these neighborhoods really took a hit in the 60s and 70s when so many people with more money moved to the suburbs. And this old neighbor is absolutely delighted to see signs of retail life on Fulton Street on the Ft. Greene/ Clinton Hill border. Me too, even if it does include the new "Chance 11" Lounge. (yech).

By Butterfly on December 15, 2009 3:31 PM

quote:
And this old neighbor is absolutely delighted to see signs of retail life on Fulton Street on the Ft. Greene/ Clinton Hill border

until she walks into the new establishment only to be mortified to find out a loaf of bread costs 13 dollars and has to leave breadless :( oh it's happened to me before lol

*rob*

By Petebklyn on December 15, 2009 3:46 PM

"there's a place for those kinds of boring wealthy dullars coming from the suburbs. it's called the UPPER EAST SIDE!"
Rob,
The UES is the suburbs. Sterile look, sterile people.

By Butterfly on December 15, 2009 4:03 PM

yeah i agree with you petebrklyn. actually i dont think ive ever even been to the UES. unless you count spanish harlem i guess

*rob*

By Expert Textpert on December 15, 2009 4:21 PM

I can't possible read all the posts here and try to catch up. I did read the last two.

"it's called the UPPER EAST SIDE!"

Has the upper east side been gentrified yet?
I mean from the 50's to the 80's.

By dirty_hipster on December 15, 2009 4:30 PM

I feel so unwelcome everywhere I go

By BedStuyDoOrDie on December 15, 2009 5:06 PM

'The loudest is from those who don’t have anything, never will, and will always feel that someone else kept them from success. It’s easy to blame “white people” or “the Man”, instead of yourself. Race is incidental. These types of people exist in every group of marginal and struggling people.'

This is laughably shortsighted. The implication that all those who 'don't have anything' have no one but themselves to blame is just a fallacy created and sold by conservatives to justify anti-poor sentiment.

But to New York Mag's question I pose this: What's wrong with anti gentrification?

By dieselfuel222 on December 15, 2009 5:08 PM

i agree with rob as usual. let those yuppies breed in the suburbs and have them commute 2 hours each day to their shitty corporate job!

By daveinbedstuy on December 15, 2009 5:15 PM

Please define "anti gentrification."

By infinitejester on December 15, 2009 5:16 PM

"White flight."

By BedStuyDoOrDie on December 15, 2009 5:21 PM

Please define "anti gentrification."

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 15, 2009 5:15 PM

Rent control measures, zoning laws, laws preventing so called 'Business Improvement Districts' without the consent of the actual business owners, etc.

By mopar on December 15, 2009 6:02 PM

DoOrDie, you're twisting Montrose's words. She's the last to play blame the victim.

By mopar on December 15, 2009 6:03 PM

But I agree, enforcing zoning laws (not letting manufacturing areas be turned into residential) is important. Also a variety of measures to counteract or subsidize high housing costs such as building middle-income housing and so on can be helpful.

By Montrose Morris on December 15, 2009 6:04 PM

BedStuyDoOrDie, don't be ridiculous. I, of all people, am hardly blaming the poor for their state. However, within all groups there are always those who do nothing positive for themselves, but bemoan their state in life and look for someone to blame. We in the black community have our share of them. Some of that blame is historically justified, but in this day and age, no longer holds water the way it used to. "The Man" only holds you down if you let him. There are plenty of people who never got higher education, never had a break, who work hard and provide for themselves and their families. Those aren't the people who have been hanging out on the corner since 1978, still bitching that the white man is holding them back, and are now bitching that the white man is taking their neighborhood away from them. The former are the backbone and lifeblood of our community, scarcely noticed by magazine writers or those who presume to take the pulse of a community, because they are usually at work, not hanging out.

By Bob Marvin on December 15, 2009 6:43 PM

"the first wave usually become integral parts of the community. When I think of gentrification I usually think of those who wait until they can build on the work already done. People like Bob Marvin and others I know are the salt of the earth, and as Bob points out, found much to love already there. I forget who said it but as they posted above, gentrification is not the best word. Revitalization is".

Thank you bxgrl [blush!] and, I believe, I WAS the one who posted about revitalization being a better word than gentrification but, FWIW, IF I'm part of the "first wave" of "gentrification" (or whatever) in PLG, I was a very late part of that wave, and (also FWIW) I'm not sure that either term (gentrification OR revitalization) can be applied to a neighborhood that has ALWAYS been middle class (so WAS THERE a first wave here?).

I DO like to think that I've "become integral parts of the community" but I also feel that I've built "on the work already done", at least since the Lefferts Manor Association was founded 90 years ago.

What can I say? PLG/LM ARE different and what applies to other brownstone neighborhoods doesn't always apply here.

By Grumpy on December 15, 2009 7:08 PM

Excuse me for not reading every post, but at the beginning of the thread some suggested old people died and were replaced by richer, paler young people. There used to be a whole lot of young Puerto Ricans in Park Slope and they ain't here no more. As for revitalizers why don't you use the old term pioneer that quickly fell out of favor, the folks living in the "wilderness" didn't think it appropriate.

By TheBrooklynNative on December 15, 2009 11:49 PM

What i think is funny is how when we define gentrification most times it's wealthier white people moving into a "certain" neighborhood. Why couldn't it be wealthier black people moving into those neighborhoods. Doesn't the relocation of more educated or more middle class black people count as gentrification. Brooklyn is changing and growing deal with it.I just think that some Manhattanites maybe a little jealous of Brooklyn's rising star.
If pple want to just breakdown Gentrification to money and class guess what now IT'S Cooler to be Poor.

By mopar on December 16, 2009 8:19 AM

Indeed, quite a few African American professionals have moved into Bed Stuy and helped play a role in the positive changes people are describing. It's just not as noticeable. Would you say, my goodness, look at all the doctors everywhere!? Though actually, the professional, artistic Black community is a noticeable presence in Fort Greene restaurants, which is one of the things I find appealing about Fort Greene.

By donatella on December 16, 2009 12:51 PM

As Mopar points out, Fort Greene has always been home to black professionals, artists, academics, etc. My block is a really interesting mix of people who are city workers, musicians, different types of professional people. Lots of them are getting pretty old. Buildings became available for sale as the original owners got elderly or died. There is a contingent of oldtimers who get a block party together every year and have fights, petty power struggles, and actually manage to enjoy a few communal activities, like the block party, jazzmobile and spring clean up day. As the matriarchs and patriarchs (mostly matriarchs) get old, who knows if their kids will stay, since many of the families have extended families living in the brownstones. Anyway, this core of people remains and on the fringes are the lunatic "gentry" fixing leaky roofs and fixing stoops and attending to other distinctly unaristocratic chores.

Explore Neighborhoods:

Explore Neighborhoods:

Search Brownstoner

'What's Wrong With Gentrification?' Asks New York Mag

120 Comments

Post a comment

Browse Featured Topics:

Browse Topics:

Restaurant Guide

Latest Restaurant Additions