'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
“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!!
“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!!!”
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!”
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*
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*’
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.
“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.
“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”
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.