12 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Actually under some commercial leases the building owner is *required* per their mortgage to charge X-ammount, and every month where they can't find a tenant that payment to the bank gets tacked onto the end of the mortgage like a balloon payment.  So the current owner is simply waiting around to get that tenant at no immediate cost.  Not only is there no incentive to fill a space with whatever tenant they can get, they literally aren't allowed to do it. 

 

 

ahah, it's the banks! darn those banks.

Kicking poor whites out of the city isn't gentrification because anti-gentrification commentators don't care about poor white people:

https://www.rcnky.com/articles/2020/10/27/30-million-residential-development-planned-site-bellevue-mobile-home-park?fbclid=IwAR16kPrPnapfrmSnHW7Z2d08eGe22iVsVEamvvxIOMCfX9vM86IMHstX0yQ

 

 

 

 

Seems like the people commenting on the article do. NKY does have an anti-gentrification scene. Thing is, a lot of times things like trailer parks are so far away from areas people are gentrifying that it's not on people's radar. Most trailer parks are located in the most unwalkable areas possible so mandatory car use is forced on the poor. That unwalkabilty (and little to no potential for it) means gentrifies aren't interested. Trailer parks actually end up being horribly expensive to live in between lot rent, trailer rent, expensive utilities due to lack of insulation and tendency to be located away from natural gas service, mandatory car use for anything, location far away from businesses and gasoline.

The "Keep Music Live WA" campaign warns that if local music venues don't receive assistance, they'll be replaced by generic mid-rise apartment towers!

 

 

It's not gentrification when you're trying to add more middle class merely to achieve normalcy.

 

 

On 5/17/2021 at 9:40 AM, KJP said:

 

It's not gentrification when you're trying to add more middle class merely to achieve normalcy.

 

 

 

It's not "gentrification" period in pretty much anywhere in the US except perhaps NYC and SF.

 

People with options expect to be allowed to impact their neighborhoods to make themselves more comfortable there.

On 5/17/2021 at 9:40 AM, KJP said:

 

It's not gentrification when you're trying to add more middle class merely to achieve normalcy.

 

 

 

The trouble with that Detroit News article is the period they are choosing to examine.  Going back to 2010 is almost pointless when, in Cleveland and I suspect Detroit as well, the big, measurable changes the News is discussing didn't start happening until about 2017.  The 2010-2020 census comparison will likewise dilute all the most recent numbers.

That was like in the early 2010s when people were using 2000-2010 numbers to try and prove that people weren't moving to cities since 2000-2006 had so much sprawl that it skewed the numbers even though big things were happening 2005-2010.

On 6/2/2021 at 12:35 PM, Dougal said:

 

The trouble with that Detroit News article is the period they are choosing to examine.  Going back to 2010 is almost pointless when, in Cleveland and I suspect Detroit as well, the big, measurable changes the News is discussing didn't start happening until about 2017.  The 2010-2020 census comparison will likewise dilute all the most recent numbers.

 

I would even go back to 2015-16. But yeah, things went into overdrive after that.

3 hours ago, KJP said:

 

I would even go back to 2015-16. But yeah, things went into overdrive after that.

 

In Cleveland, for sure.

 

But wasn't that mostly people coming from even larger cities?

 

NYC has apparently emptied out over the last couple years, between taxes, virii, and perhaps DeBlasio.

Good, then rents in NYC are what, $600 a month now?

 

It’s from the beginning of the year, but I found this essay by a Harvard PhD student,  Jacob Anbinder, in the Atlantic to be pretty interesting. He touches on the history of the anti-development movement and its connection with “gentrification.”

 

”These now-half-century-old arguments have had remarkable staying power well into a different era of urban history, one in which gentrification, rather than renewal, is the hot-button issue. Despite this shift, many still insist that neighborhood change remains inextricably linked to development. As Stringer’s reference to a “gentrification-industrial complex” indicates, critics have come to portray high-end shopping and glassy condos not as lagging indicators of local demographic change but as the causes thereof. The battle lines are drawn in the form of fights over discrete construction projects. Every politician wants to be seen as the second coming of Jane Jacobs, taking to the streets to block the bulldozers and save the soul of the neighborhood.”

It seems to jive with what we’ve been seeing in Columbus recently, such as the Whittier dev, for example. 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/anti-growth-alliance-fueled-urban-gentrification/617525/?surface=meter_limit_reached&article_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fideas%2Farchive%2F2021%2F01%2Fanti-growth-alliance-fueled-urban-gentrification%2F617525%2F

Edited August 24, 20213 yr by amped91

Quote

Housing policy lessons from the microchip shortage

 

With demand for cars high but supply low, the price of new cars has been surging. [...]

 

But as a longtime housing guy, what’s even more interesting to me is that the price of used cars and trucks has also surged in the face of the new car supply crunch. 

 

In the housing context, left-NIMBYs often deride the idea that adding supply of new upscale housing will impact the affordability of older units as “trickle-down economics.” Yet here is the auto industry giving us a live-fire experiment in what happens to the price of used durable goods when you curtail new production of the same kind of goods. And I think it’s really just overwhelmingly clear that if we were able to boost car production in response to the rising prices, this would in fact spill over into the used car market. Affluent people prefer new cars to used cars. But when the price of new cars goes up, some people drop out of the market for new cars and buy used ones instead. That bids up the price and makes even the cheapest cars hard to afford.

 

 

 

In 1995, Seattle voters rejected the "Seattle Commons" proposal which would have transformed the industrial South Lake Union area by building a new 61-arce park which would be surrounded by new development:

 

 

While some of the opposition was from anti-tax groups who didn't want to pay for the park, there was also opposition from anti-gentrification activists who thought this proposal would be a "giveaway to greedy developers" as they transformed the former warehouses into expensive housing.

 

In the years since the proposal was rejected, the South Lake Union area has instead been transformed by Amazon into their urban campus and... expensive housing where their employees live.

 

The moral of the story is that it isn't always smart to reject redevelopment proposal on anti-gentrification grounds, because you don't know what will eventually go there. In this case, they still got the gentrification but without the nice new public park.

LOL!!

 

 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

LOL!!

 

 

 

I'm willing to bet those are all grad school educated young professionals who moved to that neighborhood because they thought it was cool and authentic and still affordable.

On 3/23/2025 at 2:06 PM, X said:

 

I'm willing to bet those are all grad school educated young professionals who moved to that neighborhood because they thought it was cool and authentic and still affordable.

 

They have another video making the rounds in which they say if you're a 'young worker', you don't count as a gentrifier  

On 3/25/2025 at 8:26 PM, Imwalle said:

 

They have another video making the rounds in which they say if you're a 'young worker', you don't count as a gentrifier  

I watched a few of their videos. They are so dumb and misleading that I'm almost convinced they are some sort of right wing group trying to get people to hate the people who are actually trying to get affordable housing built. 

^

 

Those people are insufferable, and their type is not a ruse. I doubt this issue is even on the radar of any right-wing groups. Usually urban anti-development types are either misguided progressives like these people (i.e., more housing brings in the gentry) or limousine liberals (i.e. hypocritical NIMBYS).

Edited March 30Mar 30 by Rustbelter