Interesting article in the WaPo today, saying Wash DC has been too successful at gentrifying and attracting young professionals, essentially killing the golden goose. Young folks are increasingly put off by unaffordable housing, bad schools, horrendous traffic, etc. are willing to move, not just out of the center city, but out of the area entirely.  A lesson for Cleveland, which is probably 20 years behind DC's pace?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/after-finally-wooing-millennials-washington-cannot-hold-them/2017/03/02/9918aef0-faa3-11e6-bf01-d47f8cf9b643_story.html?utm_term=.3d24a43e9c70

Interesting article in the WaPo today, saying Wash DC has been too successful at gentrifying and attracting young professionals, essentially killing the golden goose. Young folks are increasingly put off by unaffordable housing, bad schools, horrendous traffic, etc. are willing to move, not just out of the center city, but out of the area entirely.  A lesson for Cleveland, which is probably 20 years behind DC's pace?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/after-finally-wooing-millennials-washington-cannot-hold-them/2017/03/02/9918aef0-faa3-11e6-bf01-d47f8cf9b643_story.html?utm_term=.3d24a43e9c70

 

They're having kids.  This makes the schools an issue, and also the commute time.

That piece focused on the DC region as whole, i.e., primarily suburbia. According to the 4th paragraph down, it was Arlington residents who reported being most likely to leave the region.

 

I also get a kick out of pieces like this that fret about the high cost of living and congestion being a threat to continued ability to attract residents. Some serious Yogi Berra illogic in there.

That piece focused on the DC region as whole, i.e., primarily suburbia. According to the 4th paragraph down, it was Arlington residents who reported being most likely to leave the region.

 

Arlington (a close-in post-WWII suburb somewhat analogous to Parma) does combine the worst features of the city and suburbia; but DC itself has been the target in previous WaPo articles. The affordability issue really kicks in once 20-somethings get tired of roommates.

If you want to raise kids in any of the big cities 3+ bedroom condos or houses in areas close to work are rare and very expensive.  This isn't new news. 

I could tell this was a thing 13 years ago when I lived in DC. You didn't see many people between 27-45 around town. My theory at the time is that they had to leave town, make a bunch of money elsewhere, then come back. I suppose my theory held water. I worked in economic development there so it was part of my job to think about these kind of things. In 2004 the cost of living index for the region was 137.

That piece focused on the DC region as whole, i.e., primarily suburbia. According to the 4th paragraph down, it was Arlington residents who reported being most likely to leave the region.

 

I also get a kick out of pieces like this that fret about the high cost of living and congestion being a threat to continued ability to attract residents. Some serious Yogi Berra illogic in there.

 

That Arlington "suburbia" you are trying to portray has a population density of 8800/sq. mi. It's density is only about 1000/sq. mi. less than DC itself. In 60 years Arlington went from a quiet single-home type of suburb to a place more urban than Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. It's housing prices are right on par with DC itself. As someone who actually lives in the region, the issues are real. The metro's population growth is slowing down this decade.

 

That piece focused on the DC region as whole, i.e., primarily suburbia. According to the 4th paragraph down, it was Arlington residents who reported being most likely to leave the region.

 

Arlington (a close-in post-WWII suburb somewhat analogous to Parma) does combine the worst features of the city and suburbia; but DC itself has been the target in previous WaPo articles. The affordability issue really kicks in once 20-somethings get tired of roommates.

 

Arlington was analogous to Parma in 1955. There are more cranes in the county currently than there is in the entire state of Ohio and that's been the case for about the last two decades.

 

I could tell this was a thing 13 years ago when I lived in DC. You didn't see many people between 27-45 around town. My theory at the time is that they had to leave town, make a bunch of money elsewhere, then come back. I suppose my theory held water. I worked in economic development there so it was part of my job to think about these kind of things. In 2004 the cost of living index for the region was 137.

 

I'd agree with that for the most part. Many have to live in the outer suburbs where housing is somewhat affordable. Some live in Baltimore. It's also why DC is losing it's ethnic neighborhoods. Despite all the pretty new buildings in Chinatown, it hasn't been Chinese in any way for two decades now. A large Chinese community lives the Maryland suburbs of Silver Spring and Rockville. Likewise with Mount Pleasant which was a large Hispanic community in DC years ago. Most now live in suburbs like Falls Church, Woodbridge and Sterling, Virginia. DC is a becoming a somewhat high density Caucasian bedroom community for retirees and kids hooked on daddy's trust fund.

^You're missing the context of my point. Do you think Arlington residents are fleeing the DC region because they hate Arlington public schools? More generally, do you think the DC metro area has bad public schools compared to other metro areas?

^You're missing the context of my point. Do you think Arlington residents are fleeing the DC region because they hate Arlington public schools? More generally, do you think the DC metro area has bad public schools compared to other metro areas?

 

Schools? Yes, the DC metro has great public schools. You shouldn't have to sacrifice your first born to attend them though.

^You're missing the context of my point. Do you think Arlington residents are fleeing the DC region because they hate Arlington public schools? More generally, do you think the DC metro area has bad public schools compared to other metro areas?

 

The quality of DC area schools is VERY spotty, and spotty even within good districts. Many parents, especially those in DC itself, feel that private school tuition is part of the cost of living here.

^You're missing the context of my point. Do you think Arlington residents are fleeing the DC region because they hate Arlington public schools? More generally, do you think the DC metro area has bad public schools compared to other metro areas?

 

The quality of DC area schools is VERY spotty, and spotty even within good districts. Many parents, especially those in DC itself, feel that private school tuition is part of the cost of living here.

 

You are right about DC. But public schools in almost every urban school district struggle. What Strap was correctly alluding to is that Arlington has some of the best in the nation. Most other Northern Virginia districts are good to great. Montgomery is good. Prince George's is pretty good considering the amount of poor moving into county as they are pushed out of DC. Other Maryland county districts are good. There's no real bad districts once you get out of the city.

 

Underperforming public schools in Fairfax County would be middle of the road in Cuyahoga. I think it has to do with the county structure to school systems here as opposed to mostly city districts in Ohio. Resources are just allocated better but who knows.

County school systems stabilize regional economics as opposed to local ones that lead to chaos.

County school systems stabilize regional economics as opposed to local ones that lead to chaos.

 

Regardless of whether or not this is true, it's a poisonous topic in Cleveland and I suspect most urban areas.  Let suburbanites think there's serious discussion of such and the alarms will go off in Columbus, leading to roadblocks to the most sensible and innocuous regionalization efforts.

County school systems stabilize regional economics as opposed to local ones that lead to chaos.

 

Regardless of whether or not this is true, it's a poisonous topic in Cleveland and I suspect most urban areas.  Let suburbanites think there's serious discussion of such and the alarms will go off in Columbus, leading to roadblocks to the most sensible and innocuous regionalization efforts.

 

Well DC has it's own school district due to it's unique government status. So the example would be along the lines of having a Cleveland PSD with the remainder of suburbs being consolidated into Cuyahoga. Is that more palatable to some?

 

As you folks know there's been talk off and on for years for DC become part of Maryland. The national issues are touched on ad nauseam but on a local level it's been suggested, more than once, that Montgomery County should take over DC schools. There's a collective "Hell, no!" from the Montgomery Co. folks. So regionalism only goes so far I guess.

There's enough in this article to make everyone angry.

 

Will Los Angeles Vote to Raise Rents on Tuesday?

 

By Henry Grabar

 

Last month, the owners of Pssst, a nonprofit art space in the East Los Angeles neighborhood of Boyle Heights, announced they would close their space in the face of “constant attacks” and “persistent targeting,” both online and in person, from anti-gentrification activists.

 

A pair of neighborhood groups, Defend Boyle Heights and the Boyle Heights Alliance Against Artwashing and Displacement, celebrated the shutdown. It was a victory in a long campaign waged by tenants groups in the predominantly Latino, working-class neighborhood against art galleries, which they see as the “shock troops of gentrification.” More broadly, it was a sign of just how high tensions over housing run in Los Angeles, which has by some measures the worst affordable housing crisis in the country.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/03/07/los_angles_votes_on_measure_s_today_which_could_raise_rents.html

There's enough in this article to make everyone angry.

 

Will Los Angeles Vote to Raise Rents on Tuesday?

 

By Henry Grabar

 

Last month, the owners of Pssst, a nonprofit art space in the East Los Angeles neighborhood of Boyle Heights, announced they would close their space in the face of “constant attacks” and “persistent targeting,” both online and in person, from anti-gentrification activists.

 

A pair of neighborhood groups, Defend Boyle Heights and the Boyle Heights Alliance Against Artwashing and Displacement, celebrated the shutdown. It was a victory in a long campaign waged by tenants groups in the predominantly Latino, working-class neighborhood against art galleries, which they see as the “shock troops of gentrification.” More broadly, it was a sign of just how high tensions over housing run in Los Angeles, which has by some measures the worst affordable housing crisis in the country.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/03/07/los_angles_votes_on_measure_s_today_which_could_raise_rents.html

 

The laws of economics aren't quite as immutable as the laws of physics, but it's close.  They can't be repealed politically.

LA's Measure S was defeated last night.

As you folks know there's been talk off and on for years for DC become part of Maryland. The national issues are touched on ad nauseam but on a local level it's been suggested, more than once, that Montgomery County should take over DC schools. There's a collective "Hell, no!" from the Montgomery Co. folks. So regionalism only goes so far I guess.

 

A DC govt employee told me Friday that DC's population is growing by 1,000 people a month and the black portion of the population has fallen below 48% from a high of 70%. I suspect both of these stats will reduce any push to merge into Maryland and increase DC's own attempt to achieve statehood.

This short film from (I think) 2016 makes fun (pretty effectively) of the pedal wagon crowd by simply letting the camera run:

 

This was really well done, and I'm seeing a lot of parallels with what happened in the Tenderloin of San Francisco after Twitter moved in at the base of the hood.

 

Are evictions overwhelmingly targeting black residents and businesses? Are white people getting evicted with equal fervor?

 

*In San Francisco and Oakland, evictions overwhelmingly target black residents. SF likely now has the lowest percentage of African-Americans of any major city in America and Oakland will be close to lowest by the 2020 census. Despite still being 15-20% black (those figures are generous for 2017), it's estimated 80% of evictions in Oakland are of black residents. Oakland has had close to 60,000 evictions over the last 5 years. The black population is in freefall with no end in sight. And the massive, rapidly growing homeless camps are almost entirely black in Oakland.

 

San Francisco outlawed homeless camps in November, and they're all moving to Oakland:

 

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Homeless-tent-camps-sprouting-all-over-Oakland-8692866.php

 

Up to 1500 people a month get evicted in Oakland. It's complete insanity. I've seen many six-figure salary people end up on the streets in San Francisco and Oakland. Or even worse, live in their cars at Google HQ!

 

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/21/oakland-housing-crisis-rising-rents-evictions

 

Googlers living at Google: Tiny spaces, probably no sex

Noah Kulwin

Wednesday, 21 Oct 2015 | 5:45 AM ET

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/21/googlers-living-at-google-tiny-spaces-probably-no-sex.html

 

One of these girls applied to be my roommate last year. I turned her down because she said her boyfriend was living in the parking lot at Google and would be over a lot. That's the worst kind of roommate! Nothing is worse than dealing with couples who won't move in together because they claim they can't afford it or are too cheap to do it. One of them inevitably tries to move into the other's apartment, regardless of how many roommates are living there. I've almost had to evict two roommates exactly for this reason. They start giving out keys and slowly moving in their significant other until you've got to force them out. Thankfully they left after I warned them without me having to resort to housing court. It happens all the time in the Bay, even with six-figure salary Googlers. They don't get any sympathy from us working class people.

Are evictions overwhelmingly targeting black residents and businesses? Are white people getting evicted with equal fervor?

 

This is my problem with the "OTR is gentrifying" narrative: no one is getting evicted.

The gentrification narrative is made by writers on the coasts observing NYC and SF and gets imported here to Cincinnati wholesale with no adaptation for our local conditions. OTR's biggest problem is still disinvestment. Take walk with me on a Saturday morning I can show off all the abandoned buildings, broken glass and litter.

Yeah C-Dawg that movie was a bit amusing because the situation in Cincinnati isn't even 1% what it is on the coasts.  Very few people (like well under 100) have been evicted by any developer.  What's more, many people want to leave and many long-time building owner want to sell.  I talked to someone working for one of the local council campaigns who said they talked to the pastor at a black church who wants to sell out for $1 million to 3CDC or another developer. 

 

Lots within the City of Cincinnati are still so cheap that I'm sure if I had $100k in cash I could, over the course of 12 months, find 20 people willing to sell their vacant city lots for $5,000 each.  There are still many vacant buildings in Over-the-Rhine and nearby.  This is not like in LA where the small lot ordinance has compelled developers to buy up adjacent rent-controlled houses and put up 10 small lot market-rate houses in place of two rent controlled houses.  We don't even have rent control. 

Yeah C-Dawg that movie was a bit amusing because the situation in Cincinnati isn't even 1% what it is on the coasts.  Very few people (like well under 100) have been evicted by any developer.  What's more, many people want to leave and many long-time building owner want to sell.  I talked to someone working for one of the local council campaigns who said they talked to the pastor at a black church who wants to sell out for $1 million to 3CDC or another developer. 

 

Lots within the City of Cincinnati are still so cheap that I'm sure if I had $100k in cash I could, over the course of 12 months, find 20 people willing to sell their vacant city lots for $5,000 each.  There are still many vacant buildings in Over-the-Rhine and nearby.  This is not like in LA where the small lot ordinance has compelled developers to buy up adjacent rent-controlled houses and put up 10 small lot market-rate houses in place of two rent controlled houses.  We don't even have rent control. 

 

Yep, that’s exactly the correct take in Cleveland with Opportunity Corridor “displacements” as well.  You’ll find approximately zero building owners unwilling to sell (though a few may make a stink in order to try and get more money) and a similar number of tenants unwilling to be bought out.

Very few people (like well under 100) have been evicted by any developer.

 

I would be shocked if it were that high. The only instance I remember is when the residents of the Metropole were kicked out so the building could be converted into the 21c Hotel. Even so, 3CDC made an effort to find new places for those people to live and to cover their moving costs. I think a similar thing may have happened to the residents of The Dennison as well.

 

3CDC acquired Mercy Housing's buildings in OTR and is in the process of renovating them. But when that's done, they will still be low income apartments. People are getting shuffled around in the meantime but no one's getting displaced.

 

I hear people complaining about high rents in OTR all the time... but that does not equal gentrification. Like when I was walking down Race a few days ago and when I passed a group of college age kids, one of them was saying, "Even the really crappy apartments in OTR go for like $1,200." If somebody decides, "I don't want to live in OTR because I could live in another nearby neighborhood and save money," that's not gentrification.

Yeah, it sounds like what people are talking about in OTR is not real gentrification, at least not in the SF/OAK/NYC sense. It's early stage redevelopment. It will be at least 20 years before the middle class starts getting evicted.

 

Eviction pressures are the true definition of gentrification. Rich people forcing out working class and middle class renters is what true gentrification is. The middle class renters moving into vacant buildings generally does not force out poor renters. That's early stage, and as long as NIMBYs don't protest infill on urban prairies like in Oakland, the neighborhood can remain mixed-income. You need a lot of middle class renters getting thrown to the streets to have real gentrification. That's what happened in San Francisco and Oakland.

 

*But "abandoned buildings, broken glass and litter" do not mean a neighborhood has affordable real estate.

 

Oakland is a total dump in many of its most expensive and wealthiest neighborhoods. There are abandoned buildings, urban prairies, garbage piles, and broken glass everywhere in West Oakland. Uptown Oakland looks like a crappier version of Lima and it's one of the world's most expensive neighborhoods! Downtown Oakland looks like a crappier version of Downtown Toledo and Googlers will murder people to get apartments in Downtown Oakland. Even the traditional retired trust fund kids can't afford Oakland's urban core anymore. I'm starting to see an exodus of retired, 20-something trust fund millionaires. They are being replaced by 20-something trust fund millionaires who also make 100k-300k salary at tech startups (plus equity). Still, nothing in Downtown Oakland looks better than it did three years ago. Frequent anarchist riots keep the neighborhood looking like crap. The Tenderloin in San Francisco still looks like crap, and it's the heart of the world's most expensive city. People still leisurely defecate and shoot up heroin in the streets all the time in the TL! You'd think it was a third world drug ghetto, not a place with real estate priced $1,000 to $2,000 per square foot.

 

But rent control in SF/OAK is the real reason for the crappy condition of many of the neighborhoods. Even the hyper-hyper-hyper-gentrified Mission still has areas that look like crap (and it's on its fourth wave of gentrification). There is no motivation to keep up buildings if you have older renters in them. Cities without rent control almost always look better than cities with rent control. Seattle is in better shape than San Francisco. Portland is in better shape than Oakland. NYC is the rare rent control exception since it's so clean, safe, and well-kept compared to the Bay. Even the worst parts of the Bronx are heaven compared to some of Oakland's most expensive neighborhoods. Oakland is Newark by way of Toledo, just ten times as expensive and with the hipsters of Bushwick.

 

I hear people complaining about high rents in OTR all the time... but that does not equal gentrification. Like when I was walking down Race a few days ago and when I passed a group of college age kids said so, one of them was saying, "Even the really crappy apartments in OTR go for like $1,200." If somebody decides, "I don't want to live in OTR because I could live in another nearby neighborhood and save money," that's not gentrification.

 

OMG that's cheap!!! For a beautiful neighborhood so close to downtown, that's insanity. Even Toledo has some apartments more expensive than that. But to be fair, there are early signs of first wave gentrification in Detroit and Toledo now. Because of how bad things got in those two cities during the recession (highest percentage of job losses in America), a lot of big time projects were delayed (like Fiberglas Tower in Toledo). Now there is a mad real estate rush in Detroit/Toledo, and some first wave renters are being forced out. Pittsburgh has been dealing with this for even longer since its economy crashed hard earlier (70s/80s), but also leveled off earlier (early to mid-2000s).

 

Cincinnati was lucky it never crashed as hard as the most hardcore Rust Belt cities like Detroit/Toledo/Buffalo. It helped smooth things out and keep the pace of decline and renewal more steady. Cincy has arguably the strongest private sector economy in the Rust Belt. Due to heavy manufacturing losses and ties to the industrial north, I'd still call Cincinnati a Rust Belt city, but it never lost as much as Detroit, Toledo, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Rochester, or Cleveland. Cincy also kept more of its corporate base. Blue chip companies like P&G have been a difference maker. It's shocking how cheap real estate is in Cincinnati when you consider the stronger than normal economy for the region. As a corporate type, I think Cincinnati beats even Indianapolis and Columbus for jobs!

 

Overall, due to the large amount of vacant buildings, I think it will be a generation before Ohio cities experience real gentrification. It will happen, just later than in the rest of America. Probably by the time the median age of Gen Z hits 30, that's when SHTF in urban Ohio...

 

**Also, Cincinnati is incredibly lucky the New York Times isn't regularly stroking its ego like they do with Detroit and Pittsburgh. Because of all the media attention, Detroit and Pittsburgh are landing SF/NYC investors who can outbid locals on virtually any building. Toledo is having issues with this too. A large chunk of Toledo's downtown is now owned by San Francisco real estate investors. All those doom and gloom articles during the recession made those cities sound cool to sheltered coastal types!! Cincinnati largely avoided this kind of national press coverage and still flies under the radar. Every time New York City media did an article on how cheap real estate was in Detroit/Toledo/Buffalo/Pittsburgh, it made saltwater coastal types want to move there.

 

Does Cincy have a significant NYC/SF/OAK refugee population yet?

^What's interesting is that about 2-3 years ago I spent some time looking online for empty lots in Detroit.  None were for sale anywhere close to downtown.  It's pretty obvious that just a few entities have been at work for the past 10-20 years buying all of them directly or at sheriff's sales for $500 or less apiece.  What is happening now in Detroit is part of a long game orchestrated by Dan Gilbert and others dating back to the early 2000s. 

 

Nobody owns 500 lots and vacant buildings in Cincinnati anymore.  The guy who did lived in Pittsburgh and lost it all in a circa-2006 bankruptcy that preceded the nationwide collapse.  I spend a lot of time on the auditor's site seeing who and what own ordinary properties in the supposed "hot" neighborhoods, and nobody is busy buying up an entire neighborhood.  Ownership is still very eclectic.  This means when and if big money moves into the various "next hot neighborhood", they won't be able to steamroll the place, at least not right now.  It is rare to see an owner who owns more than one empty lot or house or apartment building on any block anywhere in Cincinnati.  Most of the time it's a business or a church, not a holding company. 

 

 

^Yeah, Detroit is getting to be a pretty unique situation in America. Not only do you have a flood of San Francisco and New York money there, but there is also a local billionaire who is going to own half the damn city lol. Still, I'd rather have those buildings in Gilbert's hands than the hands of Bay Area and Brooklyn billionaires. The typical SFer is going to strip the historic details and make it look like a damn Four Barrel or Blue Bottle coffee shop!

^The various black churches (and there are dozens and dozens of them) are going to benefit the most financially when Cincinnati neighborhoods gentrify.  Many of them own a dozen or more random properties. 

 

The dilemma is that the gentrification won't really get rolling until these churches sell because they are such prolific land owners, but then those same churches will benefit most if they hold on for 10-20 years. 

^The various black churches (and there are dozens and dozens of them) are going to benefit the most financially when Cincinnati neighborhoods gentrify.  Many of them own a dozen or more random properties. 

 

The dilemma is that the gentrification won't really get rolling until these churches sell because they are such prolific land owners, but then those same churches will benefit most if they hold on for 10-20 years. 

 

The one thing about the various black churches is that their congregations will travel for the right pastor, so it does not matter the location as much.

speaking of blue bottle -- is there any coffee outfit more over rated than that? i have one nearby, i think it was the first stand-alone of them in ny. you know how starbucks is notoriously burned? well blue bottle is notoriously sour. same in the bay area. the roaster, and that is what it comes down to for coffee joints, is all thumbs. stumptown remains far and away the most pleasing and drinkable of the west coast coffee chains. they know how to roast those beans to please no matter what style you try. i think they even roast in ny now too, which makes sense given the nyc to portland pipeline for young white post collegiates who get priced out of the burg or bushwick. still, none of those are better than my own local coffeehouse roaster's beans. i guess its kind of what you get used to. i do like blue bottle occasionally in the summer though, when they make the new orleans style ice coffee -- the chickory tamps it down.

^Blue Bottle is always a sign of hyper-gentrification in the Bay. In Oakland, they won't touch neighborhoods with a surviving middle class or a large Latino/Black population. They typically only set up shop in majority white neighborhoods where nearly everyone is a millionaire, trust fund kid, or makes at least 100k a year. They also prefer tech-heavy areas like their headquarters shop in Jack London Square. I think the one I go to in Manhattan is on 11th Ave near Hell's Kitchen in a market. What's funny is how nice the staff is there compared to Oakland! Customer service in Manhattan is unbelievably good compared to Oakland. There is none of the douchey attitude there and it's a breath of fresh air.

 

I remember taking my friend from LA to Blue Bottle once, and he almost snapped. LA hipsters typically can't handle Oakland-level hipsters. There is an intense hatred of all things LA (and SF) in Oakland that is completely unjustified (it's pure jealousy). I get called "LA" or "Hollywood" or "San Francisco" as an insult in Oakland. The great irony is that Blue Bottle only has a few locations in Oakland, and many more in other cities. It's not an "Oakland" thing anymore. So when an emaciated, trust fund burner with leg sleeve tats tells me to "Go back to San Francisco!," I'll have a much easier time finding a Blue Bottle there! Never mind I was in Oakland before he was...Oaklanders are always trying to one-up each other on who "discovered" it first. There is nothing to discover! It's a pathetic ripoff of Toledo with none of the culture! Yet somehow a large segment of young rich people think it's cool and worth more money than Boston or DC. It's almost as if the insanely intense competition to land a bedroom in Oakland makes people view winning one as an accomplishment. "Congratulations, you are getting ripped off by people much more financially savvy than you!" It's best to not even try to understand the hyper gentrifier's mind in Oakland...they have all this money, but they're fine just throwing it away. If you come from a poor or working class background, you can't possibly fit into modern Oakland culture. Your life experience is completely different from all the kids who went to Stanford, Wharton, Oxford, UC, Cambridge, private liberal arts school, etc. Their whole worldview is just Bay, NYC, Europe, and Asia. The only poor people they know are from college volunteer work in other countries, not their own backyard. They know nothing about America. That's why even Starbucks is looked at with disdain. It's too American!

 

Starbucks and Peet's are the poor people coffee shops in Oakland. They'll open up anywhere. They don't seem to care much about the income or racial demographics here because they're viewed on the same level as McDonald's or KFC by Oaklanders. Meeting at Peet's for a business meeting can be considered a great insult to certain types of people in Oakland lol...

 

What's interesting about Portland's gentrification right now is just how many damn people are coming from Brooklyn. It seems just as substantial as the pipeline of people priced out of Oakland. That's remarkable given the geographic distance. It proves just how big of a national draw Portland still has among the SWPL crowd in America.

 

*To be fair, Portland > Oakland all day. If you're a hipster, you'd be nuts to move to Oakland instead of Portland. Granted, high-paying tech jobs rain from the sky in Oakland, but Portland's job market is starting to recover a little...and lots of remote workers in Portland have jobs based in the Bay.

 

I still think Portland is insanely underpriced when you compare it to Oakland. Things are getting more expensive in Portland, but they've got a hell of a long way to go before they get as bad as Seattle, let alone San Francisco or Oakland.

 

Has Blue Bottle opened up in Ohio yet? Or more realistically, Chicago?

 

**In the Bay, the best coffee shop is Sightglass. It's top quality, and you can see multimillion-dollar VC deals go down there before 11am on any given day. It's a surreal place that can only exist in Silicon Bay. A lot of the heavy hitters in SF tech can be found there.

^Blue Bottle is always a sign of hyper-gentrification in the Bay. In Oakland, they won't touch neighborhoods with a surviving middle class or a large Latino/Black population. They typically only set up shop in majority white neighborhoods where nearly everyone is a millionaire, trust fund kid, or makes at least 100k a year.

 

Sort of like Heinen's here on a more Cleveland scale.  That's why it was such a BFD when they opened downtown.

in nyc, despite all the hipstery neighborhood gentrifier coffeeshops, without question the best coffee remains the cafe con leche's made with bustelo at the bodegas.

When did people start calling corner stores "bodegas"?  I had barely heard the word until about five years ago. 

 

In Cincinnati they are either a corner store or a del or a pony keg.  A corner store generally refers to a corner store that is actually on a corner and if it has parking is in a vacant lot to one side.  A del or a pony keg usually has a bootleg pre-zoning strip of parking in front that can't be built today, although a pony keg probably stocks more beer and is open later.  Sometimes a pony keg is also a drive-thru, but a place that is explicitly called a drive-thru usually doesn't have a store you can walk into. 

^The various black churches (and there are dozens and dozens of them) are going to benefit the most financially when Cincinnati neighborhoods gentrify.  Many of them own a dozen or more random properties.

 

Last year I was walking around taking pictures in OTR, as I do most every warm weekend. I took a picture of the church on Sycamore next to Nichola's. The pastor came running out and asked me, "Are you with 3CDC? I want to sell this church!" So despite the narrative among a number of young white liberals that 3CDC is an evil gentrifier, many of the people that have actually been in the neighborhood for decades are welcoming what 3CDC is doing.

When did people start calling corner stores "bodegas"?  I had barely heard the word until about five years ago. 

 

 

thats because you are in sw ohio. bodegas started when latinos from the islands moved to the states. we have them in lorain and cleveland too. bodegas have staples, quick grab stuff like sodas/beer, sandwiches and brain frying coffee always made with bustelo and steamed milk. and a cat. always a cat. don gato watches over the place.

The problem with bodegas is the term is being used for every corner store in a gentrified area. I think that's what jmecklenborg is talking about. In DC, the white trust-fund kids are calling corner stores run by Koreans "bodegas" when they're clearly just corner stores. They don't even know what the word means.

It's because of Half Baked

 

Yeah I remember seeing a "bodega cats" blog post or something about 4~ years ago.  It was obviously written by someone who had just started using the word. 

 

I remember when I was in college that many people were completely fascinated by Laundromats (UO is auto-capitalizing?) because most had grown up in homes with washers and dryers.  Since all these gentrifiers are renting apartments with in-unit washers and dryers, I sense that the corner store is the flashpoint where these suburban kids get to mingle with the ethnics. 

 

You guys are thinking way too hard about this.

Laundromats (UO is auto-capitalizing?)

 

Because Laundromat is a trademark that later became generalized, much like Kleenex or Xerox.

Laundr-O-Mat

One British view in favor of gentrification; he makes his point well.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/7d2e909e-0a32-11e7-97d1-5e720a26771b

 

 

 

 

One British view in favor of gentrification; he makes his point well.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/7d2e909e-0a32-11e7-97d1-5e720a26771b

 

 

Behind a paywall.

I don't know what his argument was for gentrification, but here's mine, and I think it's pretty ironclad:  physics tells us that entropy rules all: neighborhoods are always changing, buildings and people age, businesses go out of business, and infrastructure deteriorates.  The only way to fight entropy is with a constant infusion of new energy. In the urban context, this means new people, businesses, buildings, and yes, all of that means money.  If a neighborhood isn't attracting all those things, then it is by definition decaying and slowly dying.  Unless you believe that the only valid lifecycle for a neighborhood is to be built and then endure a long, slow decline to nothing then gentrification is a necessary part of that lifecycle.

I don't know what his argument was for gentrification, but here's mine, and I think it's pretty ironclad:  physics tells us that entropy rules all: neighborhoods are always changing, buildings and people age, businesses go out of business, and infrastructure deteriorates.  The only way to fight entropy is with a constant infusion of new energy. In the urban context, this means new people, businesses, buildings, and yes, all of that means money.  If a neighborhood isn't attracting all those things, then it is by definition decaying and slowly dying.  Unless you believe that the only valid lifecycle for a neighborhood is to be built and then endure a long, slow decline to nothing then gentrification is a necessary part of that lifecycle.

 

Right, especially since the loosest definition of "gentrification" is someone moving in that makes more than the neighborhood median income, it really is this simple.

 

What's also perplexing is that (in the Midwest in particular) some of the same neighborhoods that anti-gentrification activists would seek to have frozen in time were themselves formed by segregationalist policies such as redlining and followed up by decades of systematic disinvestment. Not exactly policies they would agree with I would think.

One British view in favor of gentrification; he makes his point well.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/7d2e909e-0a32-11e7-97d1-5e720a26771b

 

 

Behind a paywall.

 

Oh, sorry. I subscribe to the FT, but I thought this article was free.  I'll look for another source.

I don't know what his argument was for gentrification, but here's mine, and I think it's pretty ironclad:  physics tells us that entropy rules all: neighborhoods are always changing, buildings and people age, businesses go out of business, and infrastructure deteriorates.  The only way to fight entropy is with a constant infusion of new energy. In the urban context, this means new people, businesses, buildings, and yes, all of that means money.  If a neighborhood isn't attracting all those things, then it is by definition decaying and slowly dying.  Unless you believe that the only valid lifecycle for a neighborhood is to be built and then endure a long, slow decline to nothing then gentrification is a necessary part of that lifecycle.

 

One of the main reasons I moved to Short Vine was because of Top Cat's and Sudsy's. Both closed within a year. That's how I learned not to move to a place just because I like a few businesses in the area.

I don't know what his argument was for gentrification, but here's mine, and I think it's pretty ironclad:  physics tells us that entropy rules all: neighborhoods are always changing, buildings and people age, businesses go out of business, and infrastructure deteriorates.  The only way to fight entropy is with a constant infusion of new energy. In the urban context, this means new people, businesses, buildings, and yes, all of that means money.  If a neighborhood isn't attracting all those things, then it is by definition decaying and slowly dying.  Unless you believe that the only valid lifecycle for a neighborhood is to be built and then endure a long, slow decline to nothing then gentrification is a necessary part of that lifecycle.

 

Right, especially since the loosest definition of "gentrification" is someone moving in that makes more than the neighborhood median income, it really is this simple.

 

What's also perplexing is that (in the Midwest in particular) some of the same neighborhoods that anti-gentrification activists would seek to have frozen in time were themselves formed by segregationalist policies such as redlining and followed up by decades of systematic disinvestment. Not exactly policies they would agree with I would think.

 

The practical definition seems to be when people start to move into a deteriorating area that's character, such that is is, is dominated by poverty and the associated mndsets.

 

I don't think the G word was used when students and art galleries began moving into Little Italy, was that because those things never really happened there?

Face it, there is no true consensus on what gentrification is. You see a developer in a low income/high crime neighborhood looking to put in housing and all hell breaks loose with the residents. Maybe they feel empowered with the false narrative of gentrification, when in fact there isn't any. No one is going to be pushed out due to property tax increases anytime soon. No Whole Foods will replace the local corner store. And yet they act like tomorrow is moving day.

 

Complaints of disinvestment followed by panic of potential investment followed by rehashed complaints of empty stores. True gentrification  (with its consequences) as seen in Manhattan and San Fran are a drop in the bucket. Gentrification is such a misplaced concern in most cases.