Support NeoGAF

[captmcblack]

NYC is a melting pot. Some of you seem to WANT there to be ghetto's. I'm a first-generation immigrant.. so what if I'm white and from Europe? Do I not have a right to live here, and should the larger Dominican community in my area have to suffer with shady illegal cabs, downtrodden subway entrances, and garbage littering the streets like it's Mad Max?

This area doesn't belong to anyone but everyone.

Nobody wants there to be "ghettos".
If anything, the people in the ghetto want to know why people can't invest in making their neighborhoods "not ghettos".

And what makes those neighborhoods ghettos anyway? Is it the kind of people that live there? If it's run-down buildings, why not renovate those buildings and rent them to low-income people? If it's downtrodden subway entrances, why shouldn't the MTA have to renovate and improve them more quickly? If it's the garbage, why shouldn't the DSNY be tasked with doing a better job of picking up the trash there?

Those city organizations like the DSNY and MTA aren't supposed to pick and choose where they do their improvements, right? So why are their improvements more often than not coincidentally located where the people with the most money (who are "coincidentally" not minority/ethnic people) live? Shouldn't all parts of the city be treated equally - and equally well?

You do have a right to live here. Everyone has a right to live here. That right to live here shouldn't specifically be "a right to live here as well as your income can extend you the opportunity to" - at least, not as a function of people manipulating what your income can extend itself to do.

Everything costs money. Everyone expects prices to increase for things. Everyone expects demand to increase prices for things. People move in and move out. Many of the people who live in these neighborhoods live there because they were the low-income neighborhoods they were forced into to begin with. Now they should just be forced out despite the lives they've built in these places, the friends and family they've made, the businesses they've made or patronized for years and years and years because there needs to be more awesome doorman condos with roof decks? I just want to understand why that is, and why the agencies that are more responsible for what people are looking for (safe neighborhoods, cleanliness, good transportation, etc) aren't being held responsible.

 

[Air]

Orchard Beach off season is actually quite beautiful. Of course any urban beach during the summer is gonna be less desirable. Even South Beach, Miami beaches are a shit show during Spring Break.

I think it's because every time I've gone there I've had a bad experience.

As for transportation, I hear ya but that's really a problem anywhere outside of Manhattan and gentrified Brooklyn. The sparsely placed points of interest really are also not exclusive to the Bronx. Ever try to chill in Queens? Iol. You wanna talk about sparsely placed.

I actually avoid queens because of that lol. I have a lot of friends who live there and I always swerve to the right when they want me to come by.

 

[Slo]

This is only happening because the city isn't doing a good job. There isn't always only 'one logical' endpoint for something to happen. I don't think you're being a realist, I think you're being a defeatist.

I don't see this as defeatism because I think having coffee shops and bars and stores that I want to go to to be GOOD . I want your neighborhood to have an awesome steakhouse. As soon as one opens up, I'm going to start dining there, and so will everybody else. Thats where the prices start going up.

You seem to want the same awesome steakhouse, but you want to build a wall around it and make it for locals only. It doesn't work like that.

 

[DoktorEvil]

There shouldn't be a limit to who we need that can live in the city. I don't think we need more of one or the other, but if someone wants to get a job in a certain field, they should still be able to live in the city.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I'm also not sure if your theory of landlords making income to compete is a good thing. I don't care if my landlord can compete with another, I care about if I can live here. I'm also not sure about your uber slight. Having these new business coming in compete with the older models. Isn't that what you want? Why does that apply to housing but not taxi service. You do know taxi's in the city are awful right?

I don't want there to be limits on what career options exist for people in NYC, but let's be real here: there is a distinct lack of workers who want to work service jobs/construction jobs/blue collar jobs, where the income can be so much better than a salaried office worker or someone who's struggling to make an income on their craft.

If landlords are forced to compete for tenants who are already considering moving to other buildings because of competition, they'll be forced to offer more amenities that draw better tenants in and maintain the building as well. Which means investment into an existing property. Good for the tenants.

Awful based on what? speed? price? convenience?

Uber offers one of those three, but these people are operating without any oversight or regulation that exists to protect cab riders from shady stuff.

We can't have it both way where we have the cheapest, most efficient taxi system and have the cheapest, best amenity offering buildings for renters.

 

[Ingueferroque]

Nobody wants there to be "ghettos".
If anything, the people in the ghetto want to know why people can't invest in making their neighborhoods "not ghettos".

And what makes those neighborhoods ghettos anyway? Is it the kind of people that live there? If it's run-down buildings, why not renovate those buildings and rent them to low-income people? If it's downtrodden subway entrances, why shouldn't the MTA have to renovate and improve them more quickly? If it's the garbage, why shouldn't the DSNY be tasked with doing a better job of picking up the trash there?

Those city organizations like the DSNY and MTA aren't supposed to pick and choose where they do their improvements, right? So why are their improvements more often than not coincidentally located where the people with the most money (who are "coincidentally" not minority/ethnic people) live? Shouldn't all parts of the city be treated equally - and equally well?

You do have a right to live here. Everyone has a right to live here. That right to live here shouldn't specifically be "a right to live here as well as your income can extend you the opportunity to" - at least, not as a function of people manipulating what your income can extend itself to do.

Everything costs money. Everyone expects prices to increase for things. Everyone expects demand to increase prices for things. People move in and move out. Many of the people who live in these neighborhoods live there because they were the low-income neighborhoods they were forced into to begin with. Now they should just be forced out despite the lives they've built in these places, the friends and family they've made, the businesses they've made or patronized for years and years and years because there needs to be more awesome doorman condos with roof decks? I just want to understand why that is, and why the agencies that are more responsible for what people are looking for (safe neighborhoods, cleanliness, good transportation, etc) aren't being held responsible.

Notice how I did not mention rent pricing. You sound like I want the rent to go even higher. I'm just happy my area is getting nicer, and I do not specifically attribute that to race or income level.

I don't want there to be limits on what career options exist for people in NYC, but let's be real here: there is a distinct lack of workers who want to work service jobs/construction jobs/blue collar jobs, where the income can be so much better than a salaried office worker.

If landlords are forced to compete for tenants who are already considering moving to other buildings because of competition, they'll be forced to offer more amenities that draw better tenants in and maintain the building as well. Which means investment into an existing property. Good for the tenants.

Awful based on what? speed? price? convenience?

Uber offers one of those three, but these people are operating without any oversight or regulation that exists to protect cab riders from shady stuff.

We can't have it both way where we have the cheapest, most efficient taxi system and have the cheapest, best amenity offering buildings for renters.

Only tried Uber twice, but my experience was vastly superior to a regular cab service. Most likely due to their review/rating system. I figure you take just as much, if not less risk with a Uber cab since you at least have some ratings to go by before you choose to get in.

 

[entremet]

This thread is getting me nostalgic. NYC 80s era was legendary, yet dangerous and I loved it.

I do love the nice neighborhoods of NYC--like the West Village, but they lack a certain grit and character.

I don't really see myself living here long term--it's just too expensive and that's not getting abated anytime soon.

 

[Air]

I don't see this as defeatism because I think having coffee shops and bars and stores that I want to go to to be GOOD . I want your neighborhood to have an awesome steakhouse. As soon as one opens up, I'm going to start dining there, and so will everybody else. Thats where the prices start going up.

You seem to want the same awesome steakhouse, but you want to build a wall around it and make it for locals only. It doesn't work like that.

Nope. I'm saying, if that awesome steakhouse means driving people who live around that area out, than the city should do better in accommodating them so they can still live in their home. There are things that are luxuries, but living shouldn't be one of them unless you want to live in a palace. Otherwise, it's a problem where people who could once live in a place can't because they don't make high enough wages and the city only artificially wants to keep them there. You're steakhouse analogy is a problem too. You don't have to eat steak or drink coffee every day. You do need a home.

 

[captmcblack]

Notice how I did not mention rent pricing. You sound like I want the rent to go even higher. I'm just happy my area is getting nicer, and I do not specifically attribute that to race or income level.

Okay, that's cool.

Do you care about why your area is getting nicer? Do you care that the niceness you are perceiving is likely at the expense of people who live there (and who likely aren't responsible or complicit in any way for the things you mentioned having a problem with, like trash/shady and dirty subway entrances/illegal cabs or whatever)?

 

[Cagey]

You do have a right to live here. Everyone has a right to live here. That right to live here shouldn't specifically be "a right to live here as well as your income can extend you the opportunity to" - at least, not as a function of people manipulating what your income can extend itself to do.

Everything costs money. Everyone expects prices to increase for things. Everyone expects demand to increase prices for things. People move in and move out. Many of the people who live in these neighborhoods live there because they were the low-income neighborhoods they were forced into to begin with. Now they should just be forced out despite the lives they've built in these places, the friends and family they've made, the businesses they've made or patronized for years and years and years because there needs to be more awesome doorman condos with roof decks? I just want to understand why that is,

Because other people want that, are willing to pay for that, and that's it. As you mentioned earlier, money talks. The people who built their lives in those places have no stronger claim to continue residing there than the person who seeks to move into a fancy new building with the roof deck that just went up in the vacant lot down the block. None. Zero.

and why the agencies that are more responsible for what people are looking for (safe neighborhoods, cleanliness, good transportation, etc) aren't being held responsible.

The city's failings insofar as public renovations, subway maintenance, adequate policing, adequacy of public school options are the city's failings. The South Bronx shouldn't need an influx of organic, gluten-free, vegan juice bars for there to be a sizable outcry and sweeping changes to the failing schools in CSD 7, 9, 12, etc. It's a tremendous problem, and one that gentrification serves to highlight, but one that gentrification doesn't cause.

 

[Air]

I don't want there to be limits on what career options exist for people in NYC, but let's be real here: there is a distinct lack of workers who want to work service jobs/construction jobs/blue collar jobs, where the income can be so much better than a salaried office worker or someone who's struggling to make an income on their craft.

Ok there's a lack of people who want to do that, but I don't see a problem. Those jobs aren't appealing to the workers in the city or they just don't know enough about them. That seems like a layered problem that needs acute parsing to really get to why it isn't working out.

If landlords are forced to compete for tenants who are already considering moving to other buildings because of competition, they'll be forced to offer more amenities that draw better tenants in and maintain the building as well. Which means investment into an existing property. Good for the tenants.

But after the basic needs are met, water, shelter, electricity, what more do you need where it will really matter. Yeah, having those better amenities are nice, but you know what's nicer, living in your apartment.

Awful based on what? speed? price? convenience?

Uber offers one of those three, but these people are operating without any oversight or regulation that exists to protect cab riders from shady stuff.

We can't have it both way where we have the cheapest, most efficient taxi system and have the cheapest, best amenity offering buildings for renters.

All of the above. The taxi service in the city is poor at best. I'm not sure how the quality of the taxi system matches with a living situation. You're gonna have to explain that to me. Taxis are totally optional to take especially with the subway system as is.

 

[Slo]

I'm being an idealist because I think government should be providing the same high standard of security to taxpayers, regardless of how wealthy they are?


As our wealth inequality and social mobility worsens this will just become an even bigger problem further down the road.

You're being idealistic because you're not acknowledging that poverty and crime are closely associated. Im all for stamping out poverty, and in effect lessening crime, but you can't complaining about losing the "culture" of a neighborhood when the culture is one that's built on being poor. Give the people some money and a whole foods is going to open up and other people will start wanting to live there.

 

[entremet]

Okay, that's cool.

Do you care about why your area is getting nicer? Do you care that the niceness you are perceiving is likely at the expense of people who live there (and who likely aren't responsible or complicit in any way for the things you mentioned having a problem with, like trash/shady and dirty subway entrances/illegal cabs or whatever)?

Places like NYC and SF are very interesting to me.

Both are liberal enclaves, but housing is very unaffordable.

Additionally, both are huge cities that depend on a low wage labor to staff stuff like restaurants, retail shops, cleaning staff for office buildings and all sorts of labor needed to keep these metropolis running. Yet those same people need to schlep from faraway slums, as those are the rents they can afford.

It's a strange class dichotomy.

 

[brokenbeans]

This happens to most major city's I guess I still consider London the most diverse city in the world.

 

[entremet]

This happens to most major city's I guess I still consider London the most diverse city in the world.

NYC beats it. Heck Queens, a section of NYC, is the most diverse in the world by far by itself.

 

[Valhelm]

I have such mixed feelings about this. For the past seven years, I've gone to New York almost once a year and every time it's been noticeably nicer. There are so many great new restaurants and things to do, and the city appeals to me much more now than it did a few years ago. In Brooklyn especially, I've noticed that fast food restaurants and liquor stores are being replaced by unique restaurants and independent shops.

But unless I decide to move there, I'm just a tourist and the city isn't for me. This cultural enrichment, while awesome, is also causing the eroding of another culture. I'm not complicit in that, because I live 1800 miles away, but it's still happening to my benefit.

 

[captmcblack]

Because other people want that, are willing to pay for that, and that's it. As you mentioned earlier, money talks. The people who built their lives in those places have no stronger claim to continue residing there than the person who seeks to move into a fancy new building with the roof deck that just went up in the vacant lot down the block. None. Zero.

"Money talks" is fine. Like I said, that's an acceptable position to take. "Sorry bro, I'm rich and you're not" is totally fine. These ideas are fine if you're willing to just own that instead of trying to marginalize the lives of the people being displaced and say they don't have a stronger claim. People don't want to own that though, because it also means they're open to being considered heartless for not caring about the people they push out. People want to have their cake and eat it too.

Those neighborhoods are built culturally on those people. I'd argue they do have a stronger claim for continuing to live there. The Harlems, the Bed-Stuys, the Chinatowns (it's in the fucking name!) you know and love and want to erect condos in are the way that they are because of those people and their culture - their ethnic traditions, their religious and spiritual traditions, their foods, and so on. Again, it's not about whether one should live there instead of the other...it's about figuring out how BOTH groups can live there at the same time without limiting the other. Those condos and that affordable housing should be in the neighborhood. In fact, some condos have affordable housing in it and they even try to have poverty entrances/exits for those people (you can just google "poverty entrance nyc" for more info on that).

 

[tbm24]

I have such mixed feelings about this. For the past seven years, I've gone to New York almost once a year and every time it's been noticeably nicer. There are so many great new restaurants and things to do, and the city appeals to me much more now than it did a few years ago. In Brooklyn especially, I've noticed that fast food restaurants and liquor stores are being replaced by unique restaurants and independent shops.

But unless I decide to move there, I'm just a tourist and the city isn't for me. This cultural enrichment, while awesome, is also causing the eroding of another culture. I'm not complicit in that, because I live 1800 miles away, but it's still happening to my benefit.

Nothing wrong with you coming here and enjoying what's available. I do it all the time while living here and aware of it all. The shops/restaurants aren't the problem.

 

[Loki]

The people who built their lives in those places have no stronger claim to continue residing there than the person who seeks to move into a fancy new building with the roof deck that just went up in the vacant lot down the block. None. Zero.

Nonsense.

 

[HighResTomato]

Well when shady billionaires are buying apartments for $50.000.000 a pop thats what is going to happen. New York is one of the most divided cities (class wise) in the world along with London.

 

[entremet]

This is the problem with renting, which is what most New Yorker do out of the necessity--buying is too expensive--and mobility.

You don't own shit and are at the mercy at landlord and developers.

What many middle class communities did to avoid this fate in NYC was set up co-op buildings, pooling their money.

It's hard to do that in poorer neighborhoods, however. No money to pool.

 

[Cagey]

Nonsense.

Count of Concision indeed.

"Money talks" is fine. Like I said, that's an acceptable position to take. "Sorry bro, I'm rich and you're not" is totally fine. These ideas are fine if you're willing to just own that instead of trying to marginalize the lives of the people being displaced and say they don't have a stronger claim. People don't want to own that though, because it also means they're open to being considered heartless for not caring about the people they push out. People want to have their cake and eat it too.

Those neighborhoods are built culturally on those people. I'd argue they do have a stronger claim for continuing to live there. The Harlems, the Bed-Stuys, the Chinatowns (it's in the fucking name!) you know and love and want to erect condos in are the way that they are because of those people and their culture - their ethnic traditions, their religious and spiritual traditions, their foods, and so on. Again, it's not about whether one should live there instead of the other...it's about figuring out how BOTH groups can live there at the same time without limiting the other. Those condos and that affordable housing should be in the neighborhood. In fact, some condos have affordable housing in it and they even try to have poverty entrances/exits for those people (you can just google "poverty entrance nyc" for more info on that).

See, where I agree is that there's a moral bankruptcy and dishonesty in someone shying away from saying that the money is what matters.

Where I disagree is your characterization that the marginalized people have a stronger claim to the area independent of means. They don't; that's a fiction that has been created. If they can't afford to live in the area as the area becomes in much higher demand, then that's that. There's no intangible "claim" to live there because they've been there for awhile. It's a similar dishonesty (though not equal, it's not nearly as obnoxious as someone painstakingly avoiding saying "money is what matters breh") to rely upon such nebulous "claims" when the actual argument is sympathy for the plight of people priced out of neighborhoods.

They live in that neighborhood. It's their neighborhood when they live in it. When they don't live it in, it's not theirs. There's no damn intangible claim to the space. The space that Chinatown occupies will exist 100 years from now, even if the "soul" or the "charm" or the "whatever the hell" of Chinatown today died 50 years into the future, was replaced by a new "soul" or "charm" or "whatever the hell", and that new thing is now under threat in this 100 years into the future Chinatown.

 

[pj]

I don't want there to be limits on what career options exist for people in NYC, but let's be real here: there is a distinct lack of workers who want to work service jobs/construction jobs/blue collar jobs, where the income can be so much better than a salaried office worker or someone who's struggling to make an income on their craft.

If landlords are forced to compete for tenants who are already considering moving to other buildings because of competition, they'll be forced to offer more amenities that draw better tenants in and maintain the building as well. Which means investment into an existing property. Good for the tenants.

Compete for tenants are you dreaming? The competition for apartments is so fierce that you'd probably have to double the amount of housing in the desirable parts of the city (i.e. manhattan and the parts of boroughs close to manhattan) to make that a reality.

My friend went to see my apartment on the first day it was on the market and the person showing it had run out of applications by the time he got there. He only got it because the landlord liked the balance of his checking account.

At least 10 people applied in one day for that $3000 apartment which was last renovated in the 80s and is about 750sq ft.

To satisfy the demand for housing and get to the point where landlords compete for tenants, there would have to be so much housing and so many people that the city would be unbearably crowded. It would be a miserable place to live, no matter how much granite and stainless steel your kitchen had.

 

[Loki]

Count of Concision indeed.

How is displacing indigenous peoples ever not a bad thing? How can the same arguments commonly used to support the idea of indigenous peoples remaining in their homelands not be adduced - albeit less forcefully, since we are all in fact from the same nation - in arguing against gentrification and arguing that indigenous people do in fact have a greater claim to land, having laid their roots down there and made lives, oftentimes over many generations. Just because we're from the same nation doesn't change the tenor of the argument.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Ok there's a lack of people who want to do that, but I don't see a problem. Those jobs aren't appealing to the workers in the city or they just don't know enough about them. That seems like a layered problem that needs acute parsing to really get to why it isn't working out.

But after the basic needs are met, water, shelter, electricity, what more do you need where it will really matter. Yeah, having those better amenities are nice, but you know what's nicer, living in your apartment.

All of the above. The taxi service in the city is poor at best. I'm not sure how the quality of the taxi system matches with a living situation. You're gonna have to explain that to me. Taxis are totally optional to take especially with the subway system as is.

Those jobs exist because of demand. People who move here expecting to work in a creative field and make barely enough to cover basic sustenance vs choosing a more lucrative field and practicing the craft as a hobby instead always baffles me. You can't enjoy it all. Life has always been about compromise in NYC.

Tenants can either push for better amenities or Landlords will begin(if they haven't done so already) chopping up apartments to make room for more people and lobbying the Mayor's office and city council to legally allow for micro-apartments, which I abhor.

The taxi commission protects people from unlicensed operators, but at the same time makes those medallions that much more valuable if a cabbie chooses to sell it(a form of a monopoly). You can lease a medallion out, as you would an apartment. It creates a revenue stream for people who live in NYC to be able to maintain rising costs of NYC, one of those rising costs includes housing.

Compete for tenants are you dreaming? The competition for apartments is so fierce that you'd probably have to double the amount of housing in the desirable parts of the city (i.e. manhattan and the parts of boroughs close to manhattan) to make that a reality.

My friend went to see my apartment on the first day it was on the market and the person showing it had run out of applications by the time he got there. He only got it because the landlord liked the balance of his checking account.

At least 10 people applied in one day for that $3000 apartment which was last renovated in the 80s and is about 750sq ft.

To satisfy the demand for housing and get to the point where landlords compete for tenants, there would have to be so much housing and so many people that the city would be unbearably crowded. It would be a miserable place to live, no matter how much granite and stainless steel your kitchen had.

The fuck? So every other borough besides manhattan is undesireable?

Don't live in Manhattan. Get used to living in someplace that isn't manhattan, trendy brooklyn, or trendy queens.

I don't see housing shortages in the areas that aren't trendy...

The first rule of Real Estate: Location, Location, Location. Every landlord has a right to increases prices in areas that are more popular/attractive to wealthier people.

That doesn't mean people will willingly pay that price.

 

[yencid]

If you guys want nice neighborhoods move to the heights or inwood now. Its quickly getting gentrified up the ass but the rent is still manageable

 

[pj]

Nope. I'm saying, if that awesome steakhouse means driving people who live around that area out, than the city should do better in accommodating them so they can still live in their home. There are things that are luxuries, but living shouldn't be one of them unless you want to live in a palace. Otherwise, it's a problem where people who could once live in a place can't because they don't make high enough wages and the city only artificially wants to keep them there. You're steakhouse analogy is a problem too. You don't have to eat steak or drink coffee every day. You do need a home.

People have a right to live, but they don't have a right to live in some particular place. Unfortunately, living in NYC has become a luxury. I'm going to be priced out of my neighborhood when my lease ends. Why would I be more deserving to live here than the person who replaces me and has slightly more money? It's quickly becoming a luxury I can't afford, and I will have to move someplace more affordable and less good.

 

[entremet]

If you guys want nice neighborhoods move to the heights or inwood now. Its quickly getting gentrified up the ass but the rent is still manageable

Yeah. Rent is going up like crazy over there. I got hit pretty bad with a big increase.

I wonder what the native Dominican population will do as they get displaced. They tend to work lower paying jobs.

 

[yencid]

Yeah. Rent is going up like crazy over there. I got hit pretty bad with a big increase.

I wonder what the native Dominican population will do as they get displaced. They tend to work lower paying jobs.

The Bronx. Fordham and the Concourse and further down. Its already happening.

(im one of those Dominicans)

 

[Air]

People have a right to live, but they don't have a right to live in some particular place. Unfortunately, living in NYC has become a luxury. I'm going to be priced out of my neighborhood when my lease ends. Why would I be more deserving to live here than the person who replaces me and has slightly more money? It's quickly becoming a luxury I can't afford, and I will have to move someplace more affordable and less good.

I agree, but the point is that gentrification is a wave. It affects one area at one point and another at another point. This gives us the advantage to see it happen and address it. I'm not saying you need to live in Manhattan. The city has always been expensive, but when the other boroughs get that way and you're pushed out to westchester, long island and so on to live, I think is unreasonable. I think there is plenty of compromise the government can do to alleviate this, but I think they are unwilling.

Those jobs exist because of demand. People who move here expecting to work in a creative field and make barely enough to cover basic sustenance vs choosing a more lucrative field and practicing the craft as a hobby instead always baffles me. You can't enjoy it all. Life has always been about compromise in NYC.

The point is that even if they can't make enough money to have a million dollar condo, the city said (with artist housing) that you should still be able to live and do your work. I'm saying the city needs to hold up to its end of the deal, because the reason why it's getting popular are these 'artists' and people who made it what it was. They use that as a selling point and they made it their goal to have housing subsidies for artists. But they're not doing enough with it because the money they make else where is lucrative. You get poor people to make a name for an area, than when that area becomes popular, you have business move in and have the poor people move out. For a city that claims to be diverse, it's also hypocritical.

 

[Cagey]

White flight was (still is) kind of shit, no?

My father's poor Italian family left a rough part of Newark in the early 70s, along with countless other Italian families, for 'working class' suburbs (not exactly fleeing to gated communities, but fleeing all the same). They think their neighborhood was "taken" from them by criminals and bangers and that they were forced to leave. Not only is the argument racist (the "there goes the neighborhood" nonsense because black people moved in, but that's another topic), I also find it wrong at it's very core: the neighborhood was never theirs. It was a place they lived. It's now a place where new residents live. That neighborhood transitioned from Italian => black => Hispanic. A distinct vibe, culture, etc. existed at each time, eroded and replaced when new groups moved in. At no point did it "belong" to any of those groups.

If that spot ever gentrifies (Newark, not a chance...), it won't suddenly be taking something away from whatever non-wealthy group resides there during the process.

How is displacing indigenous peoples ever not a bad thing? How can the same arguments commonly used to support the idea of indigenous peoples remaining in their homelands not be adduced - albeit less forcefully, since we are all in fact from the same nation - in arguing against gentrification and arguing that indigenous people do in fact have a greater claim to land, having laid their roots down there and made lives, oftentimes over many generations. Just because we're from the same nation doesn't change the tenor of the argument.

I wouldn't presume those "same" arguments to be necessarily correct, but this goes beyond the thread.

 

[tbm24]

Yeah. Rent is going up like crazy over there. I got hit pretty bad with a big increase.

I wonder what the native Dominican population will do as they get displaced. They tend to work lower paying jobs.

If it really got that bad, they'd likely go to the bronx or deeper into Queens. Though, I can't see it getting reaching that point where a significant amount are displaced.

 

[NYCrooner]

The Bronx. Fordham and the Concourse and further down. Its already happening.

(im one of those Dominicans)

Dominicans have definitely made a home of the Bronx (in droves I might add), while Puerto Ricans, who where once the majority Latino group in the Bronx/NYC, are now moving down to Florida and New Jersey. Ethnic groups will forever play this game of musical chairs.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Yeah. Rent is going up like crazy over there. I got hit pretty bad with a big increase.

I wonder what the native Dominican population will do as they get displaced. They tend to work lower paying jobs.

Whats the justification for the increase?

 

[yencid]

You serious? Yankee Stadium? The Bronx Zoo? Arthur Ave? City Island? Orchard Beach? Botanical Gardens? Wave Hill? Plus a ton of great public parks, museums, bars and restaurants. Plenty of shopping too. The Bronx has plenty of shit to do. Nothing compares to Manhattan but you can argue that the Bronx has more attractions than any other borough outside Manhattan.

a mall now too

 

[tbm24]

a mall now too

Not to mention the upcoming NYC Football Club which will kick off this coming March . I encourage many of you guys to join me to watch a match or two!

 

[Loki]

My father's poor Italian family left a rough part of Newark in the early 70s, along with countless other Italian families, for 'working class' suburbs (not exactly fleeing to gated communities, but fleeing all the same). They think their neighborhood was "taken" from them by criminals and bangers and that they were forced to leave. Not only is the argument racist (the "there goes the neighborhood" nonsense because black people moved in, but that's another topic), I also find it wrong at it's very core: the neighborhood was never theirs. It was a place they lived. It's now a place where new residents live. That neighborhood transitioned from Italian => black => Hispanic. A distinct vibe, culture, etc. existed at each time, eroded and replaced when new groups moved in. At no point did it "belong" to any of those groups.

In none of those cases were people literally forced out, though. People move out of neighborhoods for various cultural and demographic reasons (right or wrong), but that remains their choice. The inability to pay a 100% rent increase is not a choice.

 

[yencid]

If it really got that bad, they'd likely go to the bronx or deeper into Queens. Though, I can't see it getting reaching that point where a significant amount are displaced.

Its happening.

theres a starbucks in dyckman!

 

[DoktorEvil]

White flight was (still is) kind of shit, no?

My father's poor Italian family left a rough part of Newark in the early 70s, along with countless other Italian families, for 'working class' suburbs (not exactly fleeing to gated communities, but fleeing all the same). They think their neighborhood was "taken" from them by criminals and bangers and that they were forced to leave. Not only is the argument racist (the "there goes the neighborhood" nonsense because black people moved in, but that's another topic), I also find it wrong at it's very core: the neighborhood was never theirs. It was a place they lived. It's now a place where new residents live. That neighborhood transitioned from Italian => black => Hispanic. A distinct vibe, culture, etc. existed at each time, eroded and replaced when new groups moved in. At no point did it "belong" to any of those groups.

If that spot ever gentrifies (Newark, not a chance...), it won't suddenly be taking something away from whatever non-wealthy group resides there during the process.
.

Therin lies your problem: once Italian/Irish/Jewish immigrants were considered "Mainstream" and successful according to American standards, they were thrown into the blob that is called "white people". The term itself is racist, but that's ok, the government is only concerned with another poor group instead.

Any distinct culture preserved in those neighborhoods is now gone and replaced by something else. That is the crux of renewal programs in any major Urban city, that something was inherently wrong with living in older housing, not that these people had no other options.

 

[tbm24]

Its happening.

(theres a starbucks in dyckman!)

So long as they don't touch Elsa's!

 

[pj]

The fuck? So every other borough besides manhattan is undesireable?

Don't live in Manhattan. Get used to living in someplace that isn't manhattan, trendy brooklyn, or trendy queens.

Wait, are you talking to me or the long standing residents being displaced from these areas?

I don't see housing shortages in the areas that aren't trendy...

If there aren't housing shortages then obviously they're not that desirable...

My personal definition of desirable is '<30 mins to manhattan'. Judging by rent prices, I'm not saying anything crazy. Even if you decide to live further south or east, unless you can afford the 600K+ to buy a home, you will still eventually be priced out by the people who come after you. I lived in crown heights for a year and liked it, but I'm not sure I could afford to live there on my own at this point, just 18 months later. That's how quickly prices are going up.

And you didn't address my point, there will never be enough housing to have competition among landlords.

 

[blastprocessor]

NYC sounds like London with it's crazy rents and housing prices; social/ethnic cleansing.

 

[yencid]

So long as they don't touch Elsa's!

lmfao best chicharon. i actually work in the school in front of elsas during the summer. That would be a huge loss for the neighborhood.

Speaking of gentrification those new modular apartments they made in broadway right by academy stick out like a sore thumb in the neighborhood.

studios starting at $1,755, one-bedrooms from $2,400, two-bedrooms from $2,850,

 

[Cagey]

In none of those cases were people literally forced out, though. People move out of neighborhoods for various cultural and demographic reasons (right or wrong), but that remains their choice. The inability to pay a 100% rent increase is not a choice.

Does such logic extend to a middle-class suburb near Silicon Valley that, once inundated with well-off techies and a wealthy property construction boom that drove up property taxes, forced people to flee because their cost of living became untenable? Or is there an income/class cutoff to the notion that an inevitable rise in cost of living "literally" forces residents out of their residence?

 

[Loki]

Does such logic extend to a middle-class suburb near Silicon Valley that, once inundated with well-off techies and a wealthy property construction boom that drove up property taxes, forced people to flee because their cost of living became untenable? Or is there an income/class cutoff to the notion that an inevitable rise in cost of living "literally" forces residents out of their residence?

Yes, it does extend to that as well.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Wait, are you talking to me or the long standing residents being displaced from these areas?

If there aren't housing shortages then obviously they're not that desirable...

My personal definition of desirable is '<30 mins to manhattan'. Judging by rent prices, I'm not saying anything crazy. Even if you decide to live further south or east, unless you can afford the 600K+ to buy a home, you will still eventually be priced out by the people who come after you. I lived in crown heights for a year liked it, but I'm not sure I could afford to live there on my own at this point, just 18 months later. That's how quickly prices are going up.

And you didn't address my point, there will never be enough housing to have competition among landlords.

That comes down to the city council and the Mayor's office allowing for rezoning of derelict/abandoned industrial and commercial buildings to build better use/mixed use residential. Frankly, the city needs it.

And there are housing situations that are okay. Sorry it can't always be desirable.

I had a friend who moved much farther from a place right near his job & into Ridgewood & into a smaller apartment simply because the building accommodated dogs. He pays more rent for a shittier space.

So yes I take issue with people who are adamant about living in areas that are trendy spots and not looking at the bigger picture.

 

[Cagey]

Yes, it does extend to that as well.

I sincerely appreciate the consistency in logic.

 

[Valhelm]

How is displacing indigenous peoples ever not a bad thing? How can the same arguments commonly used to support the idea of indigenous peoples remaining in their homelands not be adduced - albeit less forcefully, since we are all in fact from the same nation - in arguing against gentrification and arguing that indigenous people do in fact have a greater claim to land, having laid their roots down there and made lives, oftentimes over many generations. Just because we're from the same nation doesn't change the tenor of the argument.

How do you define "indigenous people" in this context?

 

[zero shift]

I love how these "liberal" cities that are suppose to be "for the people" have no problem driving out the poor, working class,

Spoiler

and even middle class

in favor of the rich for the same reason conservatives do.

Any reasonable person knows that if you want to end poverty and disenfranchisement, an effective way to do that is mix up the neighborhoods.

 

[dbztrk]

I want anyone - everyone - who wants to, to be able to live with me in Crown Heights.

I want it to be just as safe as any other neighborhood in New York City, which means it should have just as many (or just as few) NYPD walking around/patrolling as any other neighborhood does.

I want it to have apartments that are as reasonably renovated and affordable to all people who want to live there, whether it's the 47-year old substitute teacher who has lived there for 34 years on 40k a year, or the new 27 year old general counsel for a startup non-profit that just moved there 2 years ago on 65k a year, or the 32-year old mortgage broker for Citigroup that just got there making 120k a year.

I want there to be properties that are "more awesome" for people who want to pay more for "more awesome" amenities, but I want them to exist without requiring buildings that already exist for lower-income people who can't afford and don't want or need "more awesome"/more expensive amenities to be torn down, forcing them out of the neighborhood.

I want there to be room for impromptu drumlines outside of Medgar Evers College Prep HS, and milk crate basketball on Nostrand Ave, and also room for boutique BBQ restaurants, and gastropubs on Franklin Ave. I want everyone to share the space without leveraging the power of money to displace anyone else that doesn't fit your idea of what "safe" is, or what "profitable" is, or what "cool" is. I want everyone to feel welcomed, but not for that welcome to mean that the neighborhood's existing cultural tenor/flavor can't be there.

I want white people, black people, Hispanic people, Asian people, young people, old people, religious people, non-religious people, all the people to want to live in Crown Heights.

I want everyone to be able to make and run whatever kind of business they want to - a little baptist church, a grocery store, a restaurant, a muffin/coffee shop, a laundromat, a bar and grill, a pharmacy, a Caribbean beef pattie place, a Korean-Mexican fusion tapas bar, an organic dogwalking business, a day care, a kosher deli...whatever. I just don't want it if it means that demanding these things means that everyone's rent needs to be $5,000 a month.

If that's unreasonable, that's fine - I accept that. I just don't see anyone in this thread explaining why that's unreasonable short of, essentially, "money talks" - which if the people who had that opinion just said that instead of trying to explain how gentrification is really about not wanting certain ethnicities (in either direction), I'd at least be more okay with.

Because gentrification is also about the perception of who has money, who don't and how these people impact the neighborhood for better or for worse.

As long as minorities are viewed as a hindrance to landlords maximizing their dollars, they will push out them out via rising rents, buying them out, not making necessary repairs in the hopes that they leave.

Also, I won't get into how systematic racism plays into the whole thing but i'm pretty sure you can figure it out.

 

[tbm24]

lmfao best chicharon. i actually work in the school in front of elsas during the summer. That would be a huge loss for the neighborhood.

Speaking of gentrification those new modular apartments they made in broadway right by academy stick out like a sore thumb in the neighborhood.

It'd be a huge loss for NYC considering I've yet to find anywhere else that makes them like you find them back in DR. All golden and beautiful.

Those buildings really bring down the visual appeal of neighborhoods :/. Generally, at least in Brooklyn luxury buildings are nicer to look at/fit within the neighborhood(generally, there are some that look ridiculous).