
The Myth of Gentrification - Mz
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_gentrification_myth_it_s_rare_and_not_as_bad_for_the_poor_as_people.single.html
======
bogomipz
The piece leads with:

"It started in Soho, then moved to Chelsea and the East Village"

As someone very familiar with these areas I can tell you this is wrong and
inaccurate. The art scene in 80's become very hot in the East Village and the
galleries moved out of the storefront galleries to SOHO because there was
larger space there. When they were priced out of SOHO, the galleries moved to
Chelsea.

Why is this important? Namely because it shows that the author's glaring
disregard for basic fact checking and attention detail. Two qualities you
might think that are important in writing a piece that deal with demography
and statistics. To me this makes the whole piece suspect.

The pieces then goes on to site data that is now 25 years old?

"Sharkey took a close look at black neighborhoods that saw significant changes
to their ethnic composition between 1970 and 1990."

Gentrification and Hyper gentrification are something that has become
something of a phenomenon in the last 10 years or so. The author then goes on
to site a study that is now 11 years old:

"In 2004, Columbia University economists Lance Freeman and Frank Braconi
conducted a similar study of gentrification in New York City in the 1990s"

Then the authors drops this nugget:

"If gentrification occurs so infrequently—and if it may help rather than hurt
existing residents—why are so many people so upset about it? ?"

Huh? Nice bit of editorializing there.

Journalism like this is dangerous as it is little more than a policy piece
disguised(not very well) as real actual journalism.

As tired as I am on the ubiquitous gentrification conversation. I have also
watched it unfold first hand in three different places I have lived. I doubt
that I have somehow imagined this phenomenon.

~~~
mkolodny
I don't think the point of the article is that gentrification isn't actually
happening. I think it's that while people often talk about gentrification as a
bad thing - something that hurts the poor - gentrification is actually more
often a good thing:

"McKinnish and her colleagues found that gentrification created neighborhoods
that were attractive to minority households, particularly households with
children or elderly homeowners. They found no evidence of displacement or
harm. While most of the income gains in these neighborhoods went to white
college graduates under the age of 40 (the archetypical gentrifiers), black
high school graduates also saw their incomes rise. They also were more likely
to stay put. In short, black households with high school degrees seemed to
benefit from gentrification."

And while people, including myself before reading the article, think of
gentrification as a widespread phenomenon that is happening all over the US,
it's actually only happening in three cities: New York, Chicago, and
Washington.

~~~
pdabbadabba
Setting aside the questions about material improvement (in the form of income,
etc) which seem well addressed by others, this way of looking at the problem
overlooks one of the most serious critiques of gentrification: it disrupts
existing communities, forcing longtime residents into environments where they
no longer feel a sense of belonging and ownership, and reduces cultural
diversity.

Another way of looking at the point: "gentrification" is more than just the
arrival of affluent people to a previously poor neighborhood. "Gentrification"
also refers to the cultural changes that come to a neighborhood as a result of
an influx of more affluent residents. The latter can happen (infrequently)
without the former.

Of course, this doesn't mean that gentrification is necessarily bad. It may be
that the improvements to safety, material wealth, etc. that often come with
gentrification are worth the trade-off.

------
lsy
This doesn't seem to make much sense. The article treats neighborhoods like
islands, and doesn't analyze the inflow of residents.

Anyone familiar with living in an area with rapidly increasing rent should
understand the results here: people move between neighborhoods at generally
equal rates all things being equal. In a gentrifying situation, people of less
means will try to stay longer because they know they won't be able to get back
in later and enjoy the same safety, amenities, etc. Rent control helps with
this.

But when they choose or are forced to move, the people coming in to replace
them are higher-income, as opposed to people in the same income bracket, which
this article doesn't address.

The way the article analyzes the situation, two working-class neighborhoods
exchanging 50% of their low-income population are experiencing more
"gentrification" than a neighborhood where 10% of low-income people are
replaced by high-income people every year. I don't think anybody thinks of
that result as a reasonable measure of gentrification.

~~~
peterwwillis
> people move between neighborhoods at generally equal rates all things being
> equal

Source?

> In a gentrifying situation, people of less means will try to stay longer
> because they know they won't be able to get back in later and enjoy the same
> safety, amenities, etc

What poor black inner-city neighborhood are you living in that has better
safety and amenities than the county surrounding it? People don't want to move
because they just don't want to move, and they already had a house paid for,
probably for more than a generation.

> But when they choose or are forced to move, the people coming in to replace
> them are higher-income, as opposed to people in the same income bracket,
> which this article doesn't address.

Again: Source? In a lot of neighborhoods in my city, people may have chosen or
been forced moved out, but nobody ever moved in. Your generalization doesn't
work for all cases.

> two working-class neighborhoods exchanging 50% of their low-income
> population

What neighborhood is this? Working class people don't just move around to the
next neighborhood all the time. They buy a house and stay put; that's the
whole idea behind the fantasy of the American dream and the working class.

~~~
jfoutz
> Source?

a priori. lsy is constructing a model. The foundation of the model is
equilibrium. They're going out of their way to highlight the things that are
out of equilibrium to explain why people might move for other than random
reasons.

Imagine a world with only two cities easterland and westerville. If crime,
safety, amenities, economy is the same, people are going to bounce around for
random reasons. maybe bobby got into westerville state. mabye sue wants to be
closer to his family. by the law of large numbers, those random fluctuations
are going to balance out. There is no threat of godzilla attacking esterland,
thus causing mass exodus to westerland.

> Again: Source?

if you accept equilibrium, then clearly things can go out of balance in two
ways. Demand going up, or demand going down. lsy isn't trying to explain all
cases, lsy is explaining the demand going up case.

> Your generalization doesn't work for all cases.

Yes, but all cases is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is what happens
when demand goes up.

You have my sympathies that your neighborhoods are turning into ghost towns.
It seems like you have a different problem that's clouding your thinking about
the demand going up case, because they're related, but different.

------
mcv
I'm not entirely sure I understand the issue with Gentrification, and what is
gentrification and what isn't.

I live in a pretty nice neighbourhood of Amsterdam. 15 years ago, when I moved
here, my uncle (who is a cop) warned me not to live here because of all the
crime (though the neighbourhood where he lives has a worse reputation). The
population at the time was a decent mix. Lots of ethnic minorities, but also
students and probably middle class families along the edges.

During the past 15 years, loads of new restaurants have opened here, there's a
small movie theatre, the dodgy-looking call shops and phone shops have
disappeared, the snack bar that changed ownership every year has now turned
into a fancy wine bar. Some old buildings have been turn down and replaced,
others have been renovated. Generally, this seems to me like a great example
of gentrification.

And I'm sure housing prices are rising, and I don't doubt the new and
renovated buildings are more expensive than the older ones. But the population
doesn't seem to have changed all that much. Maybe there are more affluent
white people now, but I still see kids from a variety of ethnic backgrounds
play in the streets (though I don't see groups of adolescents and young adults
hang around the square where that dodgy snack bar used to be), and there are
still plenty of Turkish shops (though some have closed, sometimes to be
replaced by a new Turkish shop, sometimes not).

I don't know how many people have been forced out due to the gentrification.
They include my brother-in-law, who had lived there for ages until his house
was to be renovated. But for the most part, the population doesn't seem to
have changed much, and the neighbourhood seems to be more vibrant, more stuff
to do, less need to go to the center of the city if you want to go out.

So if this is gentrification, my impression of it is pretty positive, though I
don't have any stats to back it up. Of course with those people who hung
around on that square, I have no idea who they are or where they are now. It
feels safer, but that might be subconscious racism talking.

~~~
pdkl95
> loads of new restaurants

Who is going to staff those restaurants (and other low-wage services) when the
housing prices are so high that it isn't realistically possible to find a rent
(forget a mortgage) low enough to be affordable for someone making those low
wages?

This is made worse in places like south-bay/SF area where the private busing
and 2nd/"weekend" apartments further distort local taxing/etc and drive prices
up even further.

> I don't know how many people have been forced out due to the gentrification.

That depends on a lot, but when money is involved, there are lots of creative
ways people can be forced out. Zoning laws and other "fees" are common. If
renting is involved, buying out the landlord and raising the rates on the
tenants (sometimes to unreasonable levels designed to not be paid) is a
popular move.

> Generally, this seems to me like a great example of gentrification.

From your description, that sounds like an example of how a town or city
_should_ be maintained. There is a difference between rising housing prices
from normal inflation and gentrification.

~~~
alistairSH
The US also has additional "baggage" that comes from it's past racial
problems.

I live near DC. Gentrification in the city is almost always wealthy whites
displacing poor blacks. There is very much an us-vs-them feeling among those
that are being displaced.

One ridiculous effect of the gentrification... Historically black churches in
the downtown areas now have congregations that have been displaced and commute
from the suburbs to attend services. This causes all sorts of problems with
parking that didn't exist when the congregation lived in the neighborhood.

This in turn causes conflict with new residents, who want to add bike lanes.
The congregation doesn't like that because it would reduce on-street parking.

~~~
jessaustin
It seems a modicum of regulatory creativity would result in a marvelous new
invention: a bike lane that is open to parking on Sunday mornings. This would
inconvenience approximately zero cyclists, since Sunday morning is a time of
low traffic.

~~~
mcv
Except for people who ride a bike to church.

~~~
jessaustin
As observed above, they will face very little traffic, because most commuters
are godless heathens who are snug in their beds on Sunday morning. There is
nothing wrong with travelling by bicycle in the street in general, but
certainly even less wrong with doing so near a church on Sunday morning. Bike
lanes with no nearby churches wouldn't have this special rule.

------
leereeves
I just stumbled on an amusing use of the term gentrification:

 _Average Silicon Valley millionaires are being displaced by gentrifying
billionaires_

[http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/216500/average-silicon-
valle...](http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/216500/average-silicon-valley-
millionaires-are-being-displaced-by-gentrifying-billionaires/)

~~~
sanoli
I still don't know if this is a prank or real.

------
baldfat
I hate the word Gentrification. I live in Allentown, PA and we have gotten
around 1 billion dollars of investment for our center city. It really has been
a BIG change for our city of 120,000 people city.

Problems with the city: White flight happened late (1980s) HIGH transient
population. 50% of the school district's child will end the school year at a
different school then they started the school year with. Over 90% of the
district receives free lunches. So much that 100% of students get a free lunch
with a 85% poverty level.

Claims of Gentrification: The population was being moved out of the
neighborhood. Did I already state that we have a 50% transient population? How
establishing a population that isn't below the poverty line in a city full of
beautiful Victorian three story row homes (I love mine) and dozens of mansions
moving an established population? Matter of fact the local Occupy Movement
camped at our city hall and was protesting. A city with HIGH poverty was a 1%
issue????

The conversations were hysterical with Occupy in our city about what they
thought was the Gentrification in our city. After having al

~~~
angdis
I was a "transient" in Allentown for 2 years because of work. Allentown has a
profound sadness about it that I've seen in other rust-belt cities.
Gentrification is very much a positive reaction to the vacuum that was created
after years of dis-investment. The city has good bones, housing stock that can
be restored to stunning with a little love, and a location and infrastructure
that is excellent for business. People are only starting realize this now
after moving to the exburbs and finding that they don't like driving 10 - 50
miles for virtually all excursions. Hope that Allentown makes it, it never
deserved to be abandoned.

~~~
baldfat
Things have really turned around. The sky line has been transformed and we
have a lot of more businesses in center city and a full entertainment center.

I moved here 8 years ago and I love this city and feel like everything is so
close to me.

------
mtalantikite
Just wanted to note that that third photo in the article, of the graffiti in
Williamsburg, has been replaced by construction for an Apple Store...

------
pistle
What a horrible way to determine if people are being forced out... compare the
rate against a worse situation.

We noticed that people with HIV died less frequently over the time period than
people with HIV and stage IV cancer. Therefore, there is no HIV problem.

I guess they are getting the eyeballs the wished for to read through this
flame-bait.

------
kingdomcome50
The studies the author cites seem to be asking the wrong question.

Rather than asking, "at what rate do poor people leave a neighborhood?", the
question should be, "at what rate to poor people come to a neighborhood?".

The former question above simply does not support the conclusion that
gentrification does not force poor people out. Sure, the rate at which poor
people leave can fall, but if NO poor people are moving into a neighborhood,
they are essentially being forced out.

------
peterwwillis
Baltimore has endless rows of empty buildings. Over 30,000 last I remember.
But except for the homeless, housing is not a problem in Baltimore; houses
sell for as low as $10K, $20K, $30K. Nobody is buying them (or at least at a
very slow trickle). Yet we still have various activist groups talking about
the problem of gentrification.

One interesting thing to note is how racially divided the city is. There are
five or six majority white neighborhoods in the city, surrounded by majority
black and latino neighborhoods. Those majority white neighborhoods expand a
little bit every year - sometimes just becoming more dense, but sometimes the
boundaries expand. When that happens it creates a sort of new market - new
stores with higher prices, homes converted to apartments with higher than
average rent.

At the same time, it also pushes out traditional "black culture" businesses -
babershops and hair/nail salons, liquor stores, takeout food, dingy bars.
These businesses are the social gathering places for black people in the city,
and when they disappear, so does the presence of black people in daily life.
There are other issues that come up too, like strained tensions over an
increase in (arguably hostile) police activity around majority-white
populations. Even as new businesses come into the neighborhood, you don't see
an increase in jobs for people who already lived there.

It's easy to see how the people moving in are not there to help the
impoverished existing residents. And it is true that rents do gradually
increase. But at the same time, crime does reduce, and more money is invested
in the local community.

I haven't seen anyone pushed out of their home due to rising rents around
Baltimore, mainly because we have so many god damn empty homes. But could it
happen in a crowded neighborhood? If they are renting, abso-fucking-lutely;
rents have been raising in neighborhoods around here for years, with one
landlord turning the building over to another and raising the price.

The question isn't whether this happens, but what happens to the people once
they have to move out. Where do they go? Do they have to start at a new
school, find a new job? Are they now far away from their families, some of
whom they might be supporting, like the elderly or people who need stay at
home child care? And can they even afford to move, if their home was multi-
generational and they don't have the funds to buy a new one? These are the
questions the article doesn't address.

------
weatherlight
Deplorable clickbait journalism here. This piece over simplifies issues, uses
a misleading sensational headline and then flat out gets the issue wrong
because the author has no real understanding of the issue he is attaching.
Gentrification is is no myth. Residential displacement does occur when
existing apartment buildings are torn down to clear sites for new development
and rising rents in housing stock that remains prices out local residents.
Longtime residents who live on fixed incomes can be forced out of their homes
due to rapidly rising property values and taxes. The author fails to explain
the primary reason why the Columbia studies authors found reduced displacement
in some areas. RENT CONTROL. What the data demonstrates is not that
gentrification is a myth but that reasonable government actions can mitigate
the worst negative impacts of new development. But then how many shares and
clicks would that headline generate.

------
jinushaun
I love how the article lumps techies in with lawyers and bankers.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
Quite we are the ones with our noses pressed against the window pane :-)

In London take a walk in the inns of fields (compare it to old street) and you
will see the massive gap between lawyers and techies.

