

What Gentrification Really Is, and How We Can Avoid It - yummyfajitas
http://www.archdaily.com/540712/what-gentrification-really-is-and-how-we-can-avoid-it/

======
saeranv
The article mentions anti-development being conflated for anti-gentrification:
" In San Francisco, residents who resist gentrification do it by blocking the
development of new, high-density housing projects. They imagine that the
city’s parks and neighborhoods will be destroyed to make way for gated
communities of gleaming skyscrapers full of condos."

But, as the article goes on to point out, this also prevents new housing from
mitigating the high cost of housing in low supply. The activists are
completely wrong, high-density development has traditionally deteriorated
surrounding communities - but there are ways to build up housing supply, while
maintaining a pleasant civic environment.

But first let's address the activist's points: high density development
traditionally has a negative impact on the surrounding urban space. By
negative impact I mean things like: gated communities that segregate income
classes, skyscrapers that create harsh micro-climates at pedestrian level and
all-glass condos that create glare and require incredible heating and cooling
energy to be liveable.

So is it possible to integrate high density housing into urban areas while
mitigating the negative impact of the surrounding urban environment? Better
planning and building codes would do a lot to prevent gated communities and
unsustainable building practices. As for building density, which is
tangentially related to my area of study (M.Arch candidate) - the best
precedents are historic European cities, like Paris. Paris lies at a optimal
sweet spot for building density, that allows it to sustain a rich urban life,
achieve moderate energy usage (unlike glass condominium tower developments)
with relatively modest densities - mid-rise buildings.[1]

So if there's a path forward to deal with gentrification, it will involve
amping up the housing supply in the city using an integrated, consistent
midrise development patterns. It is possible, but blocking development is
incredibly short-sighted, you've got to tackle the development models used in
cities.

[1][http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778802...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778802000750)

~~~
jacobolus
What I wish they’d do in the Bay Area & San Francisco is figure out how
improve transit and increase the density of single-story residential areas
like the Sunset or the Richmond (I think these are zoned to require no more
than 2 units per building or something?), or turn some of the areas toward the
southern end of the city from low-density warehouses &c. into 3-5 story mixed-
use with lots of housing, and then build some more reasonable urban (again 3–5
story) centers in the towns in the peninsula (Mountain View &c.) so there
would be better/more interesting places for all the young tech workers who
work there to live and they wouldn’t get forced to all move to SF to avoid
surburban sprawl.

I’m curious what would happen if many zoning restrictions were loosened (for
instance allowing lots of units with no dedicated parking spaces, and
encouraging mixed use residential/commercial) and replaced with a 5 or 6 story
maximum height, something like central Paris density, and if property taxes
were allowed to go up commensurate with property value (damn Prop 13). If
combined with transit infrastructure improvements, I suspect it would be
possible to keep a very nice walkable livable city with dramatically increased
housing stock. [Which is I guess some of what you’re talking about.]

~~~
saeranv
YES. I think regulation is a huge problem here, there's all sorts of mandatory
parking requirements, maximum height restrictions, lot ratios etc etc. And
it's not just requirements encouraging sprawl - the opposite happens too, like
minimum density requirements requiring three story or higher buildings which
prevents development in areas with less-demand.

Personally I think there's a culture of over-prescribing development which is
making it illegal to building good cities.

------
bronbron
It's interesting watching it unfold in real-time. I've expressed opinions that
could be considered 'anti-gentrification' in the past, but the process itself
is basically unstoppable. Attempts to stem the flow of gentrification arguably
cause much more harm in the long run (e.g. as the author notes, disallowing
high-rises most likely just increases the cost of existing units
considerably).

The cynic in me wonders whether existing residents are just attempting to (and
succeeding in) increase the value of their real-estate investments (however
small) under the guise of protesting gentrification, though that might be a
little far-fetched.

Ultimately it's an incredibly fascinating process to watch. I don't know that
I'd exactly call it xenophobia, but it is incredibly interesting to see the
gentrified residents use arguments very similar to larger anti-immigration
arguments (e.g. 'they dont fit in with the local culture, they dont even try
to integrate, they ruin my livelihood'), arguments that are often used to
target those same resident populations on a national scale.

~~~
wutbrodo
> The cynic in me wonders whether existing residents are just attempting to
> (and succeeding in) increase the value of their real-estate investments
> (however small) under the guise of protesting gentrification, though that
> might be a little far-fetched.

I honestly didn't even realize this was the cynical view, I thought it was
quite evident. The fact that people protesting high housing costs could also
be against development seemed so insane that the only rational explanation was
low-information anti-high-rent voters being bamboozled by all the advertising
etc that the homeowner crowd puts out (and election advertising is made even
more potent by SF's referendum system).

~~~
watwut
Aren't they two different groups living in the same area through? Some are
happy with rising houses and do not want new buildings (most of them owners,
but not only them) and some are not (most of them renters, but not only them).

~~~
wutbrodo
Yup, that's what I'm saying. You have passionate, low-information voters in
Group 1 voting against their interest due to extremely well-run PR campaigns
by Group 2 (asshole homeowners* and others who benefit from high housing
prices).

*Note that this doesn't imply that homeowners per se are assholes, but is a modifier indicating that I'm referring to the intersection of SF homeowners and assholes.

------
frobozz
> A first step would be to revise our attitude toward immigration in cities.
> Instead of seeing immigrants as aliens, we should welcome their fresh
> perspectives, their wealth of new cultural traditions — and yes, their cash
> infusions.

London has a long history of welcoming immigration, and is currently extremely
welcoming of wealthy immigrants in particular. Housing density is always
rising. New buildings are always going up, and existing buildings are
frequently being turned into flats. This welcoming behaviour has done nothing
to prevent even reasonably well-off natives being priced out of the city.

> The only crime is in sacrificing one to make way for the other.

There's no real suggestion here. How does one avoid this sacrifice?

Builders of new flats in London are required to offset their luxury
accommodation with some "affordable housing", as an attempt to prevent this
sacrifice. This has not yet worked. Not-so-wealthy immigrants to London find
themselves either in substandard housing, or just not-very-good housing in the
outer zones. Natives find themselves living with their parents until they're
40, or leaving the city altogether.

I would say that the only way to ensure that gentrification has a positive
effect for all involved is to be more welcoming of actual immigration, but
less welcoming to cash-only immigration. The rental and flipping markets are
out of control. There is a surplus of big-money cash buyers pricing those on
normal incomes out of the homebuying market, whilst charging ever-increasing
rents to their tenants (which further reduces said tenants' abilities to
escape the rental market, and eventually forces them out to make way for
wealthier tenants).

Tipping the balance in favour of renters rather than lessors would help this.
Rent controls; making eviction harder; preventing homebuying by non-residents;
increased taxes on empty properties. All these would slow house price rises
and allow people who don't own a Russian utility company to stay in London for
longer.

------
ars
Why do you want to avoid it? Shouldn't you encourage it?

~~~
eru
People are strange. Watch debates about rent control and skilled immigration
for similar arguments.

------
comlonq
Change "rich white tech workers" to "Mulsim" or "Indian". People move, things
change, if you've got a problem with white techy folk driving house prices up
then I'm sure you also have a problem with various amounts of South Asian
immigration driving house prices down.

Anti-immigration / anti-change is stupid. Nobody would be where they are today
if change never happened. Get off my lawn.

~~~
icantthinkofone
And they say white people are racist.

Are they saying we should let the slums remain slums? Keep them in their
place? Sounds like it.

------
jmckib
I find it odd that the author takes it for granted that we are in a tech
bubble. Is this considered common knowledge nowadays?

~~~
dredmorbius
Yes.

Unsustainable start-ups? Check.

Easy Fed money? Check.

Hype and BS in proposals? Check.

Not solving real-world problems? Check.

Pre-IPO liquidity for founders and backers? Check.

Bubbleicious.

------
ghouse
tl;dr: the optimum solution is not found in the extremes

