Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many aren't forced. Many move to inner-ring suburbs.
And then those inner-ring suburbs decline, and the people who have lived there forever feel threatened and move out, and the neighborhood declines even further ...
And then those inner-ring suburbs decline, and the people who have lived there forever feel threatened and move out, and the neighborhood declines even further ...
How is that justified?
I'm not sure there's any justification to be had?
First of all, nobody has lived in inner-ring suburbs forever. They are 70 years old. The city is much older. For example, I can trace my roots in the city back nearly 300 years, but the family living in the inner-ring suburb can probably trace his or roots back in that suburb maximum 70 years. I'm not sure a heritage claim is the right play here.
70 years ago, would you have chastised someone moving from this neighborhood to the same suburb when it was new for displacing the farmer and his way of life?
As I said, the folks who moved owned their house and then bought a new one. Which means they were homeowners, and were obviously responsbile enough to do non-miscreant things like qualify for a mortgage, etc.
Are you saying that it's unfair for people of lesser economic classes to move to the suburbs? That cities bear some responsiblity to contain the poor to preserve the vitality of inner-ring subrubs? Or are you blaming sprawl on gentrification? I'm just not sure what you're getting at here.
And then those inner-ring suburbs decline, and the people who have lived there forever feel threatened and move out, and the neighborhood declines even further ...
How is that justified?
feel threatened? by what? are you suggesting everyone leaving the inner city is a thug?
as hands said, many people would have left the inner suburbs anyway - as the folks living there aged and retired, or as folks moved further out, or in some cases their kids moved INTO the cities.
And of course some inner ring suburbs in strong metros have densified.
And why do people moving from place to place need to be "justified"?
South Boston is about as perfect an example of gentrification of a mostly-white neighborhood. Perhaps at one point this happened in the North End too with rich young professionals pushing out the ethnic Italian population.
I don't think it did. A lot of the ethnic Italian population, at least families, probably moved out to suburbs or other neighborhoods. Well-off, more middle-class than rich, younger childless people replaced than, as they care about space less than families did.
For some gentrifying neighborhoods, the old long-time population is disappearing. For example, a friend of mine referred to a gentrifying Queens neighborhood as a "grandma" neighborhood. The long-term "native" population is disportionately elderly, their children left to move elsewhere, usually suburbs, while they stayed. Unless housing is going to be abandoned (which it won't) someone else will move in. Either wealthier gentrifying types or (usually) poorer immigrant types. The statistics of the neighborhood is interesting:
Grew fast in 1990-2000, but a large population drop from 2000-2010. But the white population dropped only slightly from 2000-2010, much less than the average drop while the white population had a large drop in 1990-2000 while the overall population increased. And the number of housing units increased both decades.
I'd say gentrification didn't push out the oldest "native" population but rather cause a shift in types of newcomers.
Homeowners and renters are likely to fare quite differently in the gentrification process. Homeowners in gentrifying neighborhoods can, if they want to, sell out for an increased price. But renters are just at the mercy of the market and are more likely to get displaced with no compensation.
Just throwing it out there, but can immigrants moving into a neighborhood count as gentrification? Because in many cases, it's often an improvement from what was there before (For instance, opening up new stores, whereas before, they were just vacant), even if the immigrants don't make more money than the old residents did.
People dont realize it but San Francisco wasnt always this perfect spot for rich white millionares and yuppies. San Francisco was very gritty in the 90's and now there are no real crime filled areas. Almost all crime has suburbanized because no one can afford San Francisco. Washington D.C is extermely gentrified but it will never been on the scale of San Francisco
Any more pics of gentrified neighborhoods (Baltimore was awesome)?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
