'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…
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
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).
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,
😉
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.
“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.
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.
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……
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*
But rob their jobs are in the city. You want to get rid of them, move their jobs.
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*